1932

Abstract

Recent years have seen a sharp increase in empirical studies on the constrict claim: the hypothesized detrimental effect of ethnic diversity on most if not all aspects of social cohesion. Studies have scrutinized effects of different measures of ethnic heterogeneity in different geographical areas on different forms of social cohesion. The result has been a cacophony of empirical findings. We explicate mechanisms likely to underlie the negative relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and social cohesion: the homophily principle, feelings of anomie, group threat, and social disorganization. Guided by a clear conceptual framework, we structure the empirical results of 90 recent studies and observe three patterns. We find that () there is consistent support for the constrict claim for aspects of social cohesion that are spatially bounded to neighborhoods, () support for the constrict claim is more common in the United States than in other countries, and () ethnic diversity is not related to less interethnic social cohesion. We discuss the implications of these patterns.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309
2014-07-30
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/40/1/annurev-soc-071913-043309.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aizlewood A, Pendakur R. 2005. Ethnicity and social capital in Canada. Can. Ethn. Stud. 37:77–102 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alesina A, La Ferrara E. 2000. Participation in heterogeneous communities. Q. J. Econ. 115:847–904 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alesina A, La Ferrara E. 2002. Who trusts others?. J. Public Econ. 85:207–34 [Google Scholar]
  4. Allport GW. 1954 (1979). The Nature of Prejudice New York: Basic Books
  5. Andrews R. 2009. Civic engagement, ethnic heterogeneity, and social capital in urban areas: evidence from England. Urban Aff. Rev. 44:428–40 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bailey N, Kearns A, Livingston M. 2012. Place attachment in deprived neighbourhoods: the impacts of population turnover and social mix. Hous. Stud. 27:208–31 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bécares L, Stafford M, Laurence J, Nazroo J. 2011. Composition, concentration and deprivation: exploring their association with social cohesion among different ethnic groups in the UK. Urban Stud. 48:2771–87 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blalock HM. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations New York: Wiley
  9. Blumer H. 1958. Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1:3–7 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bobo L, Hutchings VL. 1996. Perceptions of racial group competition: extending Blumer's theory of group position to a multiracial social context. Am. Sociol. Rev. 61:951–72 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bourdieu P. 1987. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste London: Routledge
  12. Chan J, To H-P, Chan E. 2006. Reconsidering social cohesion: developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Soc. Indic. Res. 75:273–302 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheong PH, Edwards R, Goulbourne H, Solomos J. 2007. Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: a critical review. Crit. Soc. Policy 27:24–49 [Google Scholar]
  14. Coleman J. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory Cambridge, MA: Belknap
  15. Costa DL, Kahn ME. 2003. Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: an economist's perspective. Perspect. Polit. 1:103–11 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dincer OC. 2011. Ethnic diversity and trust. Contemp. Econ. Policy 29:284–93 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dinesen PT, Sønderskov KM. 2012. Trust in a time of increasing diversity: on the relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and social trust in Denmark from 1979 until today. Scand. Polit. Stud. 35:273–94 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dinesen PT, Sønderskov KM. 2013. Ethnic diversity of the micro-context and generalized trust: evidence from Denmark Work. Pap., first presented at 6th Eur. Consort. Polit. Res. (ECPR) Gen. Conf., Reykjavik, Iceland, Aug. 25–27, 2011
  19. Fieldhouse E, Cutts D. 2010. Does diversity damage social capital? A comparative study of neighbourhood diversity and social capital in the US and Britain. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 43:289–318 [Google Scholar]
  20. Finney N, Jivraj S. 2013. Ethnic group population change and neighbourhood belonging. Urban Stud. 50:3323–41 [Google Scholar]
  21. Finseraas H, Jakobsson N. 2012. Trust and ethnic fractionalization: the importance of religion as a cross-cutting dimension. Kyklos 65:327–39 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fischer CS. 2005. Bowling alone: What's the score?. Soc. Netw. 27:155–67 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fotheringham AS, Wong DW. 1991. The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environ. Plan. A 23:1025–44 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gesthuizen M, Van der Meer T, Scheepers P. 2009. Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe: tests of Putnam's thesis in European countries. Scand. Polit. Stud. 32121–42 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gijsberts M, Van der Meer T, Dagevos J. 2012. ‘Hunkering down’ in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods? The effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 28:527–37 [Google Scholar]
  26. Granovetter M. 1983. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol. Theory 1:201–33 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gustavsson M, Jordahl H. 2008. Inequality and trust in Sweden: some inequalities are more harmful than others. J. Public Econ. 92:348–65 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hagendoorn L. 2009. Ethnic diversity and the erosion of social capital?. APSA Newsl. 20:12–14 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hallberg P, Lund J. 2005. The business of apocalypse: Robert Putnam and diversity. Race Class 46:53–67 [Google Scholar]
  30. Healy E. 2007. Ethnic diversity and social cohesion in Melbourne. People Place 15:49–64 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hero RE. 2003. Social capital and racial inequality in America. Perspect. Polit. 1:113–22 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hipp JR, Boessen A. 2013. Egohoods as waves washing across the city: a new measure of “neighborhoods.”. Criminology 51:287–327 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hooghe M. 2007. Social capital and diversity: generalized trust, social cohesion and regimes of diversity. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 40:709–32 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hooghe M, Reeskens T, Stolle D, Trappers A. 2009. Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Europe: a cross-national multilevel study. Comp. Polit. Stud. 42:198–223 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hou F, Wu Z. 2009. Racial diversity, minority concentration, and trust in Canadian urban neighborhoods. Soc. Sci. Res. 38:693–716 [Google Scholar]
  36. Huijts T, Kraaykamp G, Scheepers P. 2014a. Ethnic diversity and informal intra- and inter-ethnic contacts with neighbors in the Netherlands: a comparison of natives and ethnic minorities. Acta Sociol. 57:41–57 [Google Scholar]
  37. Huijts T, Sluiter R, Scheepers P, Kraaykamp G. 2014b. Ethnic diversity and personal contacts at work and at school in the Netherlands: a comparison of natives and ethnic minorities. J. Int. Migr. Integr. 15:277–98 [Google Scholar]
  38. Johnston R, Poulsen M, Forrest J. 2007. The geography of ethnic residential segregation: a comparative study of five countries. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 97:713–38 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kesler C, Bloemraad I. 2010. Does immigration erode social capital? The conditional effects of immigration-generated diversity on trust, membership, and participation across 19 countries, 1981–2000. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 43:319–47A dynamic study showing that cross-national changes in diversity are not (everywhere) accompanied by reductions in collective-mindedness. [Google Scholar]
  40. Knack S, Keefer P. 1997. Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Q. J. Econ. 112:1251–88 [Google Scholar]
  41. Koopmans R, Veit S. 2013. Cooperation in ethnically diverse neighborhoods: a lost-letter experiment. Polit. Psychol. In press
  42. Lancee B, Dronkers J. 2011. Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in Dutch neighbourhoods: Explaining quality of contact with neighbours, trust in the neighbourhood and inter-ethnic trust. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 37:597–618 [Google Scholar]
  43. Laurence J. 2011. The effect of ethnic diversity and community disadvantage on social cohesion: a multi-level analysis of social capital and interethnic relations in UK communities. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 27:70–89 [Google Scholar]
  44. Laurence J, Heath A. 2008. Predictors of Community Cohesion: Multi-Level Modelling of the 2005 Citizenship Survey London: Dep. Commun. Local Gov.
  45. Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK. 1954. Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom Control Mod. Soc. 18:18–66 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee T. 2008. Race, immigration, and the identity-to-politics link. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11:457–78 [Google Scholar]
  47. Letki N. 2008. Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods. Polit. Stud. 56:99–126Demonstrates via structural-equation models that geographical scope is a distinct cohesion dimension. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lewicki RJ, Bunker BB. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research RM Kramer, TR Tyler 114–39 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  49. Lupo G. 2010. Is immigration detrimental for social trust in the European Union? A three-level model of cultural heterogeneity and citizenship regime as social capital predictors. Int. J. Soc. Inq. 3:67–96 [Google Scholar]
  50. Macedo S. 1999. Diversity and Distrust Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  51. Marschall MJ, Stolle D. 2004. Race and the city: neighborhood context and the development of generalized trust. Polit. Behav. 26:125–53 [Google Scholar]
  52. Martinović B. 2013. The inter-ethnic contacts of immigrants and natives in the Netherlands: a two-sided perspective. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 39:69–85 [Google Scholar]
  53. Massey DS, Denton NA. 1988. The dimensions of residential segregation. Soc. Forces 67:281–315 [Google Scholar]
  54. Massey DS, Denton NA. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  55. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44 [Google Scholar]
  56. Morales L, Echazarra A. 2013. Will we all hunker down? The impact of immigration and diversity on local communities in Spain. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 23:343–66 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pennant R. 2005. Diversity, trust and community participation in England Findings 253, Home Off., Res. Dev. Stat. Dir., London
  58. Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 90:751–83 [Google Scholar]
  59. Pettigrew TF, Wagner U, Christ O. 2010. Population ratios and prejudice: modelling both contact and threat effects. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 36:635–50 [Google Scholar]
  60. Phan MB. 2008. We're all in this together: context, contacts, and social trust in Canada. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 8:23–51 [Google Scholar]
  61. Pichler F, Wallace C. 2007. Patterns of formal and informal social capital in Europe. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 23:423–35 [Google Scholar]
  62. Portes A, Vickstrom E. 2011. Diversity, social capital, and cohesion. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 37:461–79 [Google Scholar]
  63. Putnam RD. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York: Simon & Schuster
  64. Putnam RD. 2007. E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scand. Polit. Stud. 30:137–74Putnam's constrict claim—that heterogeneity erodes in-group and out-group solidarity—reinvigorated the debate. [Google Scholar]
  65. Putnam RD, Leonardi R, Nanetti RY. 1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  66. Quillian L. 1995. Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. Am. Sociol. Rev. 60:586–611 [Google Scholar]
  67. Quillian L. 1996. Group threat and regional change in attitudes toward African-Americans. Am. J. Sociol. 102:816–60 [Google Scholar]
  68. Quillian L, Campbell ME. 2003. Beyond black and white: the present and future of multiracial friendship segregation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68:540–66 [Google Scholar]
  69. Reeskens T. 2010. Ethnic-cultural diversity, migrant integration policies and social cohesion in Europe: investigating the conditional effect of ethnic-cultural diversity on generalized trust. Presented at Migration: A World in Motion, Feb. 18–20, Maastricht, Neth.
  70. Reeskens T, Hooghe M. 2009. Is local ethnic diversity harmful for social capital? A multilevel analysis of social capital in Belgian communities Presented at Eur. Consort. Polit. Res. (ECPR) edition:5, Sept. 10–14, Potsdam, Ger.
  71. Rothwell JT. 2012. The effects of racial segregation on trust and volunteering in US cities. Urban Stud. 49:2109–36 [Google Scholar]
  72. Sampson RJ, Groves WB. 1989. Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. Am. J. Sociol. 94:774–802 [Google Scholar]
  73. Savelkoul M, Gesthuizen M, Scheepers P. 2011. Explaining relationships between ethnic diversity and informal social capital across European countries and regions: tests of constrict, conflict and contact theory. Soc. Sci. Res. 40:1091–107 [Google Scholar]
  74. Scheepers P, Gijsberts M, Coenders M. 2002. Ethnic exclusionism in European countries: public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived ethnic threat. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 18:17–34 [Google Scholar]
  75. Schlueter E, Scheepers P. 2010. The relationship between outgroup size and anti-outgroup attitudes: a theoretical synthesis and empirical test of group threat and intergroup contact theory. Soc. Sci. Res. 39:285–95 [Google Scholar]
  76. Schlueter E, Wagner U. 2008. Regional differences matter examining the dual influence of the regional size of the immigrant population on derogation of immigrants in Europe. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 49:153–73 [Google Scholar]
  77. Schmid K, Al Ramiah A, Hewstone M. 2013. Diversity and its consequences for outgroup, ingroup, and neighborhood trust: indirect effects via intergroup contact and threat. Presented at Ethnic Diversity and Social Capital: Mechanism, Conditions and Causality, Soc. Sci. Res. Cent. May 24–25, Berlin [Google Scholar]
  78. Seeman M. 1959. On the meaning of alienation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 24:783–91 [Google Scholar]
  79. Semyonov M, Raijman R, Tov AY, Schmidt P. 2004. Population size, perceived threat, and exclusion: a multiple-indicators analysis of attitudes toward foreigners in Germany. Soc. Sci. Res. 33:681–701 [Google Scholar]
  80. Shaw CR, McKay HD. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  81. Smith HP, Bohm RM. 2008. Beyond anomie: alienation and crime. Crit. Criminol. 16:1–15 [Google Scholar]
  82. Stephan WG, Stephan CW. 2000. An integrated threat theory of prejudice. Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination S Oskamp 23–45 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  83. Stolle D, Petermann S, Schmid K, Schönwälder K, Hewstone M. et al. 2013. Immigration-related diversity and trust in German cities: the role of intergroup contact. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 23:279–98Interethnic neighborhood contact cushions negative effects of neighborhood heterogeneity on generalized and out-group trust. [Google Scholar]
  84. Tajfel H, Turner JC. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations WC Austin, S Worchel 33–47 Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
  85. Tolsma J, Van der Meer T, Gesthuizen M. 2009. The impact of neighbourhood and municipality characteristics on social cohesion in the Netherlands. Acta Polit. 44:286–313 [Google Scholar]
  86. Tolsma J, van Deurzen I, Stark TH, Veenstra R. 2013. Who is bullying whom in ethnically diverse primary schools? Exploring links between bullying, ethnicity, and ethnic diversity in Dutch primary schools. Soc. Netw. 35:51–61 [Google Scholar]
  87. Twigg L, Taylor J, Mohan J. 2010. Diversity or disadvantage? Putnam, Goodhart, ethnic heterogeneity, and collective efficacy. Environ. Plan. A 42:1421–38 [Google Scholar]
  88. Uslaner EM. 2011a. Contact, diversity, and segregation SULCIS Work. Pap. 2011:5, Stockholm Univ. Linnaeus Cent. Integr. Stud., Stockholm, Swed.
  89. Uslaner EM. 2011b. Trust, diversity, and segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom. Comp. Sociol. 10:221–47 [Google Scholar]
  90. Uslaner EM. 2012. Segregation and Mistrust: Diversity, Isolation, and Social Cohesion New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  91. Vervoort M, Flap H, Dagevos J. 2011. The ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities' social contacts: three unresolved issues. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 27:586–605 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wagner U, Christ O, Pettigrew TF, Stellmacher J, Wolf C. 2006. Prejudice and minority proportion: contact instead of threat effects. Soc. Psychol. Q. 69:380–90 [Google Scholar]
  93. Wallman Lundåsen S, Wollebæk D. 2013. Diversity and community trust in Swedish local communities. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 23:299–321 [Google Scholar]
  94. Zimdars A, Tampubolon G. 2012. Ethnic diversity and European's generalised trust: how inclusive immigration policy can aid a positive association. Sociol. Res. Online 17:15 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error