Deconstructing Attitudes towards Immigrant Workers among Hungarian Employees and Higher Education Students
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- -
- integration of immigrants into the labor market;
- -
- concerns that immigrants take job opportunities from the respondent;
- -
- working together with immigrant employees;
- -
- general opinions related to immigrants.
- -
- qualifications of the typical immigrant;
- -
- work attitudes of the average immigrant;
- -
- respondents’ own knowledge in terms of issues related to immigrants;
- -
- factors playing a role in the employment of immigrants (characteristics of immigrants and the domestic labor market);
- -
- positive and negative effects of immigrants on domestic society/the economy.
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. The Sample
3.2. Variables and Analytical Techniques
- -
- the Mann–Whitney U test finds the mean rank of B1 significantly lower when the value of A1, A2, or A3 is zero (i.e., the attitude is negative towards immigrants);
- -
- there is a significant negative rank correlation between B1 and A4, A51, or A52;
- -
- EDU1 has a significant negative coefficient in the binary logistic regression models (the dependent variable is A1, A2, A3, A4_binary, A51_binary, or A52_binary).
- -
- the Mann–Whitney U test finds the mean rank of B42, B45, and B46 significantly lower when the value of A1, A2, or A3 is zero (i.e., the attitude is negative towards immigrants);
- -
- the independent samples t-test finds the mean value of B42, B45, and B46 significantly lower when the value of A1, A2, or A3 is zero (i.e., the attitude is negative towards immigrants);
- -
- there is a significant negative rank correlation between B42, B45, and B46 and A4, A51, or A52;
- -
- B45 and/or FRUGALITY has a significant negative coefficient in the binary logistic regression models (the dependent variable is A1, A2, A3, A4_binary, A51_binary, or A52_binary).
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Results of the Bivariate Analyses
- -
- consider the typical school qualification of immigrants higher (B1) (S),
- -
- consider their willingness to work stronger (B2) (S, E),
- -
- consider immigrants more mobile and flexible employees (B41) (S).
- -
- migrants carry out work that domestic workers are not willing to do (B45) (S),
- -
- migrants are required in the labor market due to the lack of a well-qualified domestic workforce (B47) (S, E),
- -
- migrants find it difficult to find employment due to the lack of a network of contacts (B48) (S),
- -
- migrants work decently and reliably (B49) (S, E),
- -
- migrants as flexible employees are advantageous for the Hungarian economy (B51) (S),
- -
- migrants might help occupy the less attractive work positions (B52) (S, E),
- -
- with the appearance of immigrants, domestic employees might get jobs (B53) (S, E),
- -
- the presence of immigrant employees contributes to the development of certain economic sectors (B54) (S).
- -
- strengthens prejudice (B62) (S),
- -
- increases domestic unemployment (B63) (S), intensifies criminal activities (B65) (S, E).
- -
- the labor market situation of immigrants (B31) (S),
- -
- the school qualification of immigrants (B34) (S),
- -
- migrants are willing to work (B2) (E),
- -
- migrants carry out work that domestic workers are not willing to do (B45) (E),
- -
- the employment of immigrants is necessary due to the lack of a well qualified domestic workforce (B47) (E),
- -
- immigrants find it difficult to find employment due to the lack of a network of contacts (B48) (E),
- -
- migrants work decently and reliably (B49) (E),
- -
- as flexible workers, immigrants are advantageous for the Hungarian economy (B51) (S),
- -
- with the help of immigrants, the less attractive work positions will be filled (B52) (S, E),
- -
- the labor market presence of immigrants contributes to the development of certain economic sectors (B54) (S).
- -
- strengthens prejudice (B62) (S),
- -
- increases domestic unemployment (B63) (S),
- -
- intensifies labor market discrimination (B64) (S),
- -
- intensifies criminal activities (B65) (S, E).
- -
- considered the typical school qualification of immigrants higher (B1) (S),
- -
- considered their willingness to work stronger (B2) (S, E);
- -
- the labor market situation of immigrants (B31) (S),
- -
- the legal background of immigration (B32) (S),
- -
- the reasons for immigration (B35) (S)
- -
- migrants are mobile and they constitute a flexible labor offer (B41) (S),
- -
- migrants work more cheaply than the domestic workforce (B42) (S),
- -
- migrants carry out work that domestic employees are not willing to do (B45) (E),
- -
- immigrants find it more difficult to find employment due to the lack of a network of contacts (B48) (E),
- -
- migrants work decently and reliably (B49) (E),
- -
- as flexible workers, immigrants are advantageous for the Hungarian economy (B51) (S),
- -
- with the help of immigrants, the less attractive work positions can be filled (B52) (S, E),
- -
- with the appearance of immigrant entrepreneurs, domestic employees might get jobs (B53) (S),
- -
- the labor market presence of immigrants contributes to the development of certain economic sectors (B54) (S).
- -
- maintains poor working conditions (B61) (S),
- -
- strengthens prejudice (B62) (S),
- -
- increases domestic unemployment (B63) (S),
- -
- intensifies criminal activities (B65) (S, E).
- -
- they considered the typical school qualification of immigrants higher (B1) (S, E),
- -
- they considered their willingness to work higher (B2) (S, E),
- -
- immigration-related legislation (B32) (S),
- -
- work positions occupied by immigrants (B35) (S),
- -
- the reasons for immigration (B35) (S),
- -
- migrants are mobile and constitute a flexible labor offer (B41) (S, E),
- -
- migrants work more cheaply than domestic employees (B42) (E),
- -
- the internal mobility of the workforce is low (B43) (E),
- -
- migrants carry out work which domestic employees are not willing to do (B45) (S, E),
- -
- the employment of immigrants is necessary due to the lack of a well-qualified domestic workforce (B47) (S, E),
- -
- immigrants find it more difficult to find employment due to their lack of a network of contacts (B48) (S, E),
- -
- migrants work decently and reliably (B49) (S, E),
- -
- as flexible workers, they are advantageous for the Hungarian economy (51) (S, E),
- -
- with the help of immigrants, the less attractive work positions can be filled (52) (S, E),
- -
- with their appearance, domestic employees might get jobs as well (53) (S, E),
- -
- their presence on the labor market contributes to the development of certain economic sectors (54) (S, E),
- -
- migrants have inadequacies in terms of their knowledge of the Hungarian language (B44, S),
- -
- they are less demanding in terms of working conditions (B46, S),
- -
- the presence of immigrants maintains poor working conditions (B61) (S),
- -
- their presence strengthens prejudice (B62) (S),
- -
- their presence increases domestic unemployment (B63) (S),
- -
- their presence intensifies discrimination in the labor market (B64) (S),
- -
- their presence intensifies criminal activities (B65) (S, E).
- -
- typical school qualification of immigrants (B1) (A51: S) (A52: S, E),
- -
- typical willingness to work (B2) (A51: S, E) (A52: S, E),
- -
- awareness of the labor market situation of immigrants (B31) (A51: S) (A52: S),
- -
- migrants are mobile and constitute a flexible labor offer (B41) (A51: S) (A52: S, E),
- -
- migrants carry out work that domestic employees are not willing to do (B45) (A51: S, E) (A52: S, E),
- -
- their employment is necessary due to the lack of a well qualified domestic workforce (B47) (A51: E) (A52: E),
- -
- immigrants find it more difficult to find employment due to their lack of a network of contacts (B48) (A51: S) (A52: S, E),
- -
- they work decently and reliably (B49) (A51: S, E) (A52: S, E),
- -
- as flexible workers, immigrants are advantageous for the Hungarian economy (B51) (A51: S) (A52: S, E),
- -
- with the help of immigrants, the less attractive work positions can be occupied (B52) (A51: S, E) (A52: S, E),
- -
- with their appearance, domestic employees might also get jobs (B53) (A51: S, E) (A52: S, E),
- -
- their presence in the labor market contributes to the development of certain economic sectors (54) (A51: S) (A52: S, E).
- -
- the presence of immigrants would maintain poor working conditions (B61) (A51: E) (A52: neither),
- -
- the presence of immigrants would strengthen prejudice (B62) (A51: S) (A52: S),
- -
- the presence of immigrants would increase domestic unemployment (B63) (A51: S) (A52: S),
- -
- the presence of immigrants would intensify discrimination within the labor market (B64) (A51: neither) (A52: S),
- -
- the presence of immigrants would intensify criminal activities (B65) (A51: E) (A52: neither).
4.2. Results of the Multivariate Analysis
5. Conclusions
- -
- H1 ‘Negative attitude towards immigrants (general opinions, labor market integration, concerns of job loss, joint work with immigrants) is related to the fact that the phenomenon of immigration is primarily associated with negative effects; its positive effects on society and the economy are less visible’ (the belief in the advantages of migration contributed significantly to one fewer regression model than the belief in the disadvantages);
- -
- H2a ‘The chance of negative attitudes is increased if immigrants are considered employees with low qualifications’ for the A1, A3 and A52 attitudes;
- -
- H2b ‘The chance of negative attitudes is increased if immigrants are deemed employees who are willing to take on jobs that require low qualifications and are to be carried out under poor working conditions’ in the case of A3, and—based on the binary variable analyses—in the case of A4 and A51-52 as well;
- -
- H3 ‘Lack of information increases the chance of negative attitudes appearing’ in the case of A3; although it had a reverse correlation with A4 in the binary variable analysis, it does not appear in the multivariate analysis;
- -
- H4 ‘The chance that negative attitudes may be reduced and accepting attitudes may be increased if the respondent thinks that immigrants are required in the domestic labor market as a supplementary workforce’, except for the case of A2 in the multivariate analyses.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Label | Wording | Measurement |
---|---|---|
Attitude Items | ||
A1 | Do you agree with the statement that immigrants should be integrated into the world of labor? | Yes or no |
A2 | Are you concerned that immigrants take work opportunities? | Yes or no |
A3 | Would you work together with immigrants? | Yes or no |
A4 | What is your opinion of immigrants? | 0–5 scale (0 = do not accept them, 5 = accept them) |
Belief Items | ||
B1 | In your opinion, what is the typical school qualification of immigrants?
| Single choice |
B2 | What do you think about the attitude of immigrants towards work?
| Select one of the followings: |
B3 | How familiar do you consider yourself with the following immigrant-related aspects? | |
B31 | Labor market situation of immigrants | 0–5 scale (0 = not at all, 5 = absolutely) |
B32 | Legal provisions and laws concerning immigration | 0–5 scale (0 = not at all, 5 = absolutely) |
B33 | Work positions filled by immigrants | 0–5 scale (0 = not at all, 5 = absolutely) |
B34 | School qualification | 0–5 scale (0 = not at all, 5 = absolutely) |
B35 | Reason for immigration | 0–5 scale (0 = not at all, 5 = absolutely) |
B4 | In your opinion, what factors play a role in the employment of immigrants? | |
B41 | Immigrants are more mobile; therefore, they are a more flexible offer on the labor market. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B42 | Immigrants work more cheaply. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B43 | Internal workforce mobility is low. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B44 | Immigrants have inadequacies in terms of their knowledge of the Hungarian language | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B45 | Migrants carry out work that domestic employees are not willing to do | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B46 | Immigrants are less demanding in terms of working conditions. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B47 | The employment of immigrants is necessary due to the lack of a well-qualified domestic workforce. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B48 | The lack of a network of contacts makes it harder to employ immigrants. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B49 | Immigrants work decently and reliably. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B5 | What positive effect might the employment of immigrants have on society in your opinion? | |
B51 | Immigrants are flexible workers which is advantageous for the economy. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B52 | With the help of immigrant employees, less attractive jobs will be filled as well. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B53 | With the appearance of immigrant entrepreneurs, domestic employees might get jobs. | 0–5 scale (0= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree) |
B54 | The presence of immigrant employees contributes to the development of certain economic sectors. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B6 | What positive effect might the employment of immigrants have on the economy in your opinion? | |
B61 | The presence of immigrant employees maintains poor working conditions. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B62 | The presence of immigrant employees contributes to the strengthening of prejudice. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B63 | The presence of immigrant employees increases domestic unemployment. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B64 | The presence of immigrant employees intensifies discrimination within the labor market. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
B65 | The presence of immigrant employees contributes to the intensification of criminal activities. | 0–5 scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) |
Yes or No Questions | Valid N | Yes | No | Don’t Know |
---|---|---|---|---|
A1. Do you agree with the statement that immigrants should be integrated into the world of labor? | 436 | 166 | 270 | NE |
A2. Are you concerned that immigrants take work opportunities? | 438 | 134 | 304 | NE |
A3. Would you work together with immigrants? | 444 | 68 | 182 | 194 |
Ordinal Items | Frequency | Rank | Median | Mode |
---|---|---|---|---|
B1. In your opinion, what is the typical school qualification of immigrants? | ||||
They have no school qualification whatsoever | 99 | 2 | ||
Primary school | 177 | 1 | √ | √ |
Secondary school | 144 | 3 | ||
Higher education degree | 18 | 4 | ||
Academic degree | 2 | 5 | ||
B2. What do you think about the attitude of immigrants towards work? | ||||
They explicitly intend to avoid work | 210 | 1 | √ | |
They work, although not willingly | 179 | 2 | √ | |
They work willingly | 47 | 3 |
Likert Scale (0–5) Item | Valid N | Mean | SD | Median | Mode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A4. What is your opinion of immigrants? | 444 | 1.4595 | 1.3049 | 1 | 1 |
Yes or No Questions | Valid N | Yes | No | Don’t Know |
---|---|---|---|---|
A1. Do you agree with the statement that immigrants should be integrated into the world of labor? | 161 | 58 | 103 | NE |
A2. Are you concerned that immigrants take work opportunities? | 168 | 52 | 116 | NE |
A3. Would you work together with immigrants? | 170 | 16 | 94 | 60 |
Ordinal Items | Frequency | Rank | Median | Mode |
---|---|---|---|---|
B1. In your opinion, what is the typical school qualification of immigrants? | ||||
They have no school qualification whatsoever | 52 | 2 | ||
Primary school | 73 | 1 | √ | √ |
Secondary school | 34 | 3 | ||
Higher education degree | 4 | 4 | ||
Academic degree | 0 | 5 | ||
B2. What do you think about the attitude of immigrants towards work? | ||||
They explicitly intend to avoid work | 77 | 1 | √ | |
They work, although not willingly | 69 | 2 | √ | |
They work willingly | 18 | 3 |
Likert Scale (0–5) Item | Valid N | Mean | SD | Median | Mode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A4. What is your opinion of immigrants | 166 | 1.494 | 1.365 | 1 | 0 |
Scales and Items | Valid N | Mean | SD | Median | α |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B3. How familiar do you consider yourself with the following immigrant-related aspects? | 442 | 11.799 | 5.277 | – | 0.827 |
B31. Labor market situation of immigrants | 442 | 2.127 | 1.368 | 2 | – |
B32. Legal provisions and laws concerning immigration | 442 | 2.351 | 1.397 | 2 | – |
B33. Work positions filled by immigrants | 442 | 1.805 | 1.298 | 2 | – |
B34. School qualification | 442 | 2.005 | 1.510 | 4 | – |
B35. Reason for immigration | 442 | 3.511 | 1.278 | 4 | |
B4. In your opinion what factors play a role in the employment of immigrants? | 427 | 21.534 | 7.064 | – | 0.722 |
B41. Immigrants are more mobile, therefore they are a more flexible offer on the labor market. | 427 | 1.632 | 1.303 | 1 | |
B42. Immigrants work more cheaply. | 427 | 3.136 | 1.481 | 3 | |
B43. Internal workforce mobility is low. | 427 | 2.384 | 1.249 | 2 | |
B44. Immigrants have inadequacies in terms of their knowledge of the Hungarian language | 427 | 3.867 | 1.463 | 4 | |
B45. Migrants carry out work that domestic employees are not willing to do | 427 | 2.485 | 1.606 | 3 | |
B46. Immigrants are less demanding in terms of working conditions. | 427 | 2.902 | 1.547 | 3 | |
B47. The employment of immigrants is necessary due to the lack of a well-qualified domestic workforce. | 427 | 1.492 | 1.361 | 1 | |
B48. The lack of a network of contacts makes it harder to employ immigrants. | 427 | 2.122 | 1.349 | 2 | |
B49. Immigrants work decently and reliably. | 427 | 1.515 | 1.290 | 2 | |
B5. What positive effect might the employment of immigrants have on society in your opinion? | 435 | 6.297 | 4.300 | 0.848 | |
B51. Immigrants are flexible workers which is advantageous for the economy | 435 | 1.490 | 1.282 | 1 | |
B52. With the help of immigrant employees, less attractive jobs will be filled as well. | 435 | 1.961 | 1.408 | 2 | |
B53. With the appearance of immigrant entrepreneurs, domestic employees might get jobs | 435 | 1.356 | 1.235 | 1 | |
B54. The presence of immigrant employees contributes to the development of certain economic sectors. | 435 | 1.490 | 1.256 | 1 | |
B6. What positive effect might the employment of immigrants have on the economy in your opinion? | 434 | 15.254 | 5.116 | 0.775 | |
B61. The presence of immigrant employees maintains poor working conditions. | 434 | 2.507 | 1.351 | 2 | |
B62. The presence of immigrant employees contributes to the strengthening of prejudice. | 434 | 3.401 | 1.363 | 4 | |
B63. The presence of immigrant employees increases domestic unemployment. | 434 | 2.797 | 1.538 | 3 | |
B64. The presence of immigrant employees intensifies discrimination within the labor market. | 434 | 3.201 | 1.296 | 3 | |
B65. The presence of immigrant employees contributes to the intensification of criminal activities. | 434 | 3.348 | 1.489 | 4 |
Scales and Items | Valid N | Mean | SD | Median | α |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B3. How familiar do you consider yourself with the following immigrant-related aspects? | 165 | 9.869 | 5.783 | – | 0.876 |
B31. Labor market situation of immigrants | 165 | 1.685 | 1.387 | 2 | |
B32. Legal provisions and laws concerning immigration | 165 | 1.915 | 1.309 | 2 | |
B33. Work positions filled by immigrants | 165 | 1.570 | 1.250 | 2 | |
B34. School qualification | 165 | 1.618 | 1.454 | 1 | |
B35. Reason for immigration | 165 | 2.842 | 1.612 | 3 | |
B4. In your opinion what factors play a role in the employment of immigrants? | 157 | 18.019 | 8.486 | – | 0.811 |
B41. Immigrants are more mobile, therefore they are a more flexible offer on the labor market. | 157 | 1.318 | 1.345 | 1 | |
B42. Immigrants work more cheaply. | 157 | 2.516 | 1.643 | 2 | |
B43. Internal workforce mobility is low. | 157 | 1.885 | 1.325 | 2 | |
B44. Immigrants have inadequacies in terms of their knowledge of the Hungarian language | 157 | 3.510 | 1.789 | 4 | |
B45. Immigrants carry out work that Hungarian employees are not willing to do. | 157 | 1.873 | 1.612 | 2 | |
B46. Immigrants are less demanding in terms of working conditions. | 157 | 2.567 | 1.614 | 2 | |
B47. The employment of immigrants is necessary due to the lack of a well-qualified domestic workforce. | 157 | 1.223 | 1.328 | 1 | |
B48. The lack of a network of contacts makes it harder to employ immigrants. | 157 | 1.675 | 1.451 | 1 | |
B49. Immigrants work decently and reliably. | 157 | 1.452 | 1.253 | 1 | |
B5. What positive effect might the employment of immigrants have on society in your opinion? | 169 | 4.976 | 4.628 | – | 0.909 |
B51. Immigrants are flexible workers which is advantageous for the economy | 169 | 1.183 | 1.261 | 1 | |
B52. With the help of immigrant employees, less attractive jobs will be occupied as well. | 169 | 1.438 | 1.413 | 1 | |
B53. With the appearance of immigrant entrepreneurs, domestic employees might get jobs | 169 | 1.195 | 1.292 | 1 | |
B54. The presence of immigrant employees contributes to the development of certain economic sectors. | 169 | 1.160 | 1.250 | 1 | |
B6. What positive effect might the employment of immigrants have on the economy in your opinion? | 167 | 14.012 | 6.106 | – | 0.855 |
B61. The presence of immigrant employees maintains poor working conditions. | 167 | 2.461 | 1.492 | 2 | |
B62. The presence of immigrant employees contributes to the strengthening of prejudice. | 167 | 2.964 | 1.497 | 3 | |
B63. The presence of immigrant employees increases domestic unemployment. | 167 | 2.766 | 1.560 | 3 | |
B64. The presence of immigrant employees intensifies discrimination within the labor market. | 167 | 2.707 | 1.498 | 3 | |
B65. The presence of immigrant employees contributes to the intensification of criminal activities. | 167 | 3.114 | 1.626 | 3 |
References
- United Nations. International Migration Report 2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). International Migration Outlook 2017; International Migration Outlook; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017; ISBN 9789264275553. [Google Scholar]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Source factos and the elaboration likelihood model of persuaison. In Advances in Consumer Research; Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, USA, 1984; Volume 11, pp. 668–672. [Google Scholar]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Petty, R.E.; Cacippo, J.T. Attutude and attutude change. Annu. Rev. Pcichol. 1981, 32, 357–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Advances in Experimental Social Psichology; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986; Volume 19. [Google Scholar]
- Lutz, R.J. Changing Brand Attitudes through Modification of Cognitive Structure. J. Consum. Res. 1975, 1, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bettman, J.R.; Capon, N.; Lutz, R.J. Multiattribute Measurement Models and Multiattribute Attitude Theory: A Test of Construct Validity. J. Consum. Res. 1975, 1, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenberg, M.J.; Hovland, C.I. Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency among Attitude Components; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Burnkrant, R.E. Attitude Measurement and Behavior Change. A Reconsideration of Attitude Organization and Its Relationship to Behavior. Adv. Consum. Res. 1979, 6, 295–302. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M. A Consideration of Beliefs and Their Role in Attitude Measurement. In Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement; Fishbein, M., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Heckmann, F. Integration Research from a European Perspective. Z. Bevolkerungswiss 2001, 26, 341–356. [Google Scholar]
- Piontkowski, U.; Rohmann, A.; Florack, A. Concordance of Acculturation Attitudes and Perceived Threat. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 2002, 5, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Oudenhoven, J.P.; Colleen Ward, C.; Masgoret, A-M. Patterns of relations between immigrants and host societies. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2006, 30, 637–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Oudenhoven, J.P.; Groenewoud, J.T.; Hewstone, M. Co-operation, ethnic salience and generalization of inter-ethnic attitudes. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 26, 649–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voci, A.; Hewstone, M. Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of salience. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 2003, 6, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dustmann, C.; Preston, I.P. Racial and Economic Factors in Attitudes to Immigration. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2000, 7, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobi. Majorities’ Attitudes towards Immigrants and Minorities: Key Findings from the Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Wien, Austria, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bridges, S.; Mateut, S. Attitudes towards immigration in Europe. Sheff. Econ. Res. Pap. Ser. 2009, 8, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
- Diehl, C. Transatlantic Trends: Immigration Survey; German Marshall Fund of the United States: Washington, DC, USA; Compagnia di San Paolo: Turin, Italy; Barrow Cadbury Trust: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- O’Rourke, K.H.; Sinnott, R. The determinants of individual attitudes towards immigration. Eur. J. Political Econ. 2006, 22, 838–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hainmueller, J.; Hopkins, D.J. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2014, 17, 225–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gödri, I. A bevándórlókkal szemneni attitűd és az egyéni értékbeállítódás összefüggései. Demografia 2007, 50, 1–38. [Google Scholar]
- Peri, G. Immigration, Labor Markets and Productivity. Cato J. 2012, 32, 35–53. [Google Scholar]
- Berry, J.W.; Kalin, R. Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: Overview of the 1991 survey. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 1995, 27, 301–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalin, R.; Berry, J.W. Ethnic and civic selt-identity in Canada: Analysis of 1974 and 1991 national surveys. Can. Ethn. Stud. 1995, 27, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Berry, J.W. A psychology of immigration. J. Soc. Issues 2001, 57, 615–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waters, M.C.; Jiménez, T.R. Assessing immigrant assimilation: New empirical and theoretical challenges. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2005, 31, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Card, D.; Dustmann, C.; Preston, I. Understanding Attitudes to Immigration: The Migration and Minority Module of the first European Social Survey; CReAM Discussion Paper, CDP 03/05; Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, Department of Economics, University College London: London, UK, 2005; pp. 1–45. [Google Scholar]
- Herreros, F.; Criado, H. Social Trust, Social Capital and Perceptions of Immigration. Political Stud. 2009, 57, 337–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenbluth, F.; Kage, R.; Tanaka, S. Four Types of Attitudes towards Foreign Workers: Evidence from a Survey in Japan; Center on Japanese Economy and Business Working Papers; Center on Japanese Economy and Business, Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oláh, J.; Halasi, G.; Szakály, Z.; Popp, J.; Balogh, P. The impact of international migration on the labour market—A case study from Hungary. Amfiteatru Econ. 2017, 19, 790–805. [Google Scholar]
- Dustmann, C.; Schönberg, U.; Stuhler, J. The Impact of Immigration: Why Do Studies Reach Such Different Results? J. Econ. Perspect. 2016, 30, 31–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paas, T.; Halapuu, V. Attitudes towards Immigrants and the Integration of Ethnically Diverse Societies; Discussion Paper; NORFACE Research Programme on Migration, University College London: London, UK, 2012; Volume 23, pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Barta, J.; Bernát, A.; Boda, J.; Kertész, A.; Sik, E.; Simonovits, B.; Szeitl, B.; Tóth, F.M. Attitudes towards Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Immigrants; Simonovits, B., Ed.; Tárki Social Research Institute: Budapest, Hungary, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bernát, A.; Sik, E.; Simonovits, B.; Szeitl, B. Attitudes towards Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Immigrants—First Results (October 2015); Simonovits, B., Ed.; Tárki Social Research Institute: Budapest, Hungary, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Pierog, A.; Szabados, G.N. Migránsok, Civilek, Szervezeti Lehetőségek Civil Szervezetek a Migránsokért, a Migránsok Által.; Papp, K., Kerepeszki, R., Eds.; Debreceni Egyetem Történelmi Intézete: Debrecen, Hungary, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- OECD Foreign-Born Population (Indicator). Available online: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/international-migration-outlook-2017_migr_outlook-2017-en (accessed on 29 June 2017).
- Babbie, E.R. The Practice of Social Research; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; ISBN 1133049796. [Google Scholar]
- Ulicna, D.; Messerer, K.L.; Auzinger, M. Study on Higher Vocational Education and Training in the EU; Final Report; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; pp. 18–78. [Google Scholar]
- Juhász, J.; Makara, P.; Makara, E. A Munkaerő-Piaci Integráció Kihívásai Magyarországon—A Harmadik Országbeli Munkavállalók Beilleszkedésének Esélyei és Korlátai; Kutatási Zárótanulmány, Pantha Rhei Társadalomkutató Bt.: Budapest, Hungary, 2011; pp. 37–39. [Google Scholar]
- Dajnoki, K.; Kőmíves, P.M. Exploration of labour-market attitudes towards migrants among university students. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2016, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hárs, Á. Harmadik országbeli migránsok munkaerő-piaci helyzete. In Bevándorlás és Integráció. Magyarországi Adatok, Európai Indikátorok; Kovács, A., Ed.; MTA Társadalomtudományi Kutatóközpont, Kisebbségkutató Intézet: Budapest, Hungary, 2013; pp. 42–69. [Google Scholar]
- Public Policy and Management Institute (PPMI). Preparing Teachers for Diversity—EU Law and Publications; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Variable Name | Definition |
---|---|
EMPLOYEE | 0, if the respondent is a student, 1 if an employee. |
SEX | 0, if the respondent is male, 1 if female. |
AGE1 | 1, if the respondent was born between 1948 and 1964, 0 otherwise. |
AGE2 | 1, if the respondent was born between 1965 and 1979, 0 otherwise. |
AGE3 | 1, if the respondent was born between 1980 and 1994, 0 otherwise. |
AGE4 | 1, if the respondent was born between 1995 and 2010, 0 otherwise. |
A1 | 0, if the answer is ‘no’ and 1 if ‘yes’. |
A2 | 0, if the answer is ‘no’ and 1 if ‘yes’. |
A3 | 0, if the answer is ‘no’ and 1 if ‘yes’. |
A4 | The value selected by the respondent: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. |
A4_binary | 0 if the value of A4 is 0, 1, or 2, while 1 if the value of A4 is 3, 4 or 5. |
A51 | An aggregate index variable elaborated from the A1, the A2, the A3, and the A4_binary variables by summing up their values. |
A51_binary | 0 if the value of A51 is 0 or 1, while 1 if the value of A51 is 2, 3, or 4. |
A52 | An aggregate index variable elaborated from the A1, the A2, and the A4_binary variables by summing up their values. |
A52_binary | 0 if the value of A52 is 0 or 1, while 1 if the value of A52 is 2 or 3. |
B1 | If the respondent believes that the typical school qualification of immigrants is: ‘They have no school qualification whatsoever’, then the value of B1 is 0, ‘Primary school’, then the value of B1 is 1, ‘Secondary school’, then the value of B1 is 2, ‘Higher education degree’, then the value of B1 is 3, ‘Academic degree’, then the value of B1 is 4. |
EDU1 | 1, if the respondent answered the B1 item to reflect that a representative migrant has no measurable education level, 0 otherwise. |
EDU2 | 1, if the respondent answered the B1 item to reflect that a representative migrant graduated at the secondary or higher education level, 0 otherwise. |
EDU3 | 1, if the respondent answered the B1 item to reflect that a representative migrant graduated at the secondary or higher education level, 0 otherwise. |
B2 | If the respondent thinks that the immigrants’ attitude towards work is: ‘They explicitly intend to avoid work’, then the value of B2 is 0, ‘They work, although not willingly’, then the value of B2 is 1, ‘They work willingly’, then the value of B2 is 2. |
WORK1 | 1, if the respondent answered the B2 item as to reflect that immigrants explicitly tend to avoid work, 0 otherwise. |
WORK2 | 1, if the respondent answered the B2 item to reflect that immigrants tend to work, but not willingly, 0 otherwise. |
WORK3 | 1, if the respondent answered the B2 item to reflect that immigrants tend to work willingly, 0 otherwise. |
B31, …, B35 | The value selected by the respondent: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. |
B3_MEAN | (B31 + B32 + B33 + B34 + B35)/5 |
B41, …, B49 | The value selected by the respondent: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. |
B4_MEAN | (B41 + B42 + B43 + B44 + B45 + B46 + B47 + B48 + B49)/9 |
B51, …, B54 | The value selected by the respondent: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. |
B5_MEAN | (B51 + B52 + B53 + B54)/4 |
B61, …, B65 | The value selected by the respondent: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. |
B6_MEAN | (B51 + B52 + B53 + B54 + B55)/5 |
AWARENESS | The factor of B31, B32, B33, B34, and B35. |
FRUGALITY | The factor of B42, B44, and B46. |
ADVANTAGES | The factor of B41, B47, B49, B51, B52, B53, and B54. |
DISADVANTAGES | The factor of B61, B62, B63, B64, and B65. |
Items | Factors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Awareness | Frugality | Advantages | Disadvantages | |
B31 | 0.826 | |||
B32 | 0.763 | |||
B33 | 0.844 | |||
B34 | 0.800 | |||
B35 | 0.640 | |||
B42 | 0.701 | |||
B44 | 0.721 | |||
B46 | 0.684 | |||
B41 | 0.679 | |||
B47 | 0.651 | |||
B49 | 0.715 | |||
B51 | 0.839 | |||
B52 | 0.710 | |||
B53 | 0.792 | |||
B54 | 0.826 | |||
B61 | 0.721 | |||
B62 | 0.679 | |||
B63 | 0.736 | |||
B64 | 0.799 | |||
B65 | 0.696 |
Belief Variables | Sample | Differences by Attitude Groups (Positive–Negative) | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Difference by A1 | Difference by A2 | Difference by A3 | |||||||||||
Mean Rank | U | Mean | t | Mean Rank | U | Mean | t | Mean Rank | U | Mean | t | ||
B1 | Student | 48.800 | 14,841.0 *** | – | 17.709 | 16,395.5 | – | 56.735 | 2692.5 *** | – | |||
Employee | 15.219 | 1807.0 ** | – | 8.190 | 1971.0 | – | 15.989 | 426.5 | – | ||||
B2 | Student | 50.332 | 14,694.5 *** | – | 4.295 | 17,563.5 | – | 57.870 | 2640.5 *** | – | |||
Employee | 19.726 | 1661.0 *** | – | 20.882 | 1582.0 *** | – | 18.189 | 398.5 ** | – | ||||
B3_MEAN | Student | 4.554 | 19,072.0 | 0.016 | 0.152 | 30.583 | 15,274.5 ** | 0.227 | 2.053 ** | 25.066 | 4143.5 ** | 0.387 | 2.262 ** |
Employee | −0.664 | 2278.5 | 0.025 | 0.123 | −1.909 | 2163.5 | −0.056 | −0.272 | −6.718 | 544.5 | −0.269 | −0.822 | |
B31 | Student | 15.869 | 17,990.0 | 0.183 | 1.308 | 27.218 | 15,567.5 ** | 0.310 | 2.118 ** | 22.688 | 4252.5 ** | 0.518 | 2.369 ** |
Employee | 3.411 | 2189.5 | 0.152 | 0.611 | −10.066 | 1913.5 | −0.359 | −1.423 | −2.946 | 592.5 | −0.167 | −0.413 | |
B32 | Student | 1.124 | 19,400.0 | −0.010 | −0.074 | 11.967 | 16,895.5 | 0.129 | 0.879 | 21.334 | 4314.5 ** | 0.472 | 2.147 ** |
Employee | 3.689 | 2180.5 | 0.109 | 0.482 | −1.615 | 2172.5 | −0.044 | −0.190 | −4.243 | 576.0 | −0.183 | −0.507 | |
B33 | Student | −0.230 | 19,485.5 | 0.003 | 0.020 | 10.985 | 16,981.0 | 0.110 | 0.804 | 6.646 | 4987.5 | 0.119 | 0.583 |
Employee | −5.912 | 2108.5 | −0.145 | −0.651 | 1.044 | 2190.0 | 0.063 | 0.276 | −6.089 | 552.5 | −0.350 | −0.945 | |
B34 | Student | −4.837 | 19,045.0 | −0.101 | −0.684 | 33.546 | 15,016.5 *** | 0.370 | 2.350 ** | 15.038 | 4603.0 | 0.329 | 1.431 |
Employee | −5.942 | 2107.5 | −0.201 | −0.769 | 4.144 | 2095.0 | 0.152 | 0.568 | −12.021 | 477.0 | −0.633 | −1.550 | |
B35 | Student | −4.439 | 19,083.0 | 0.007 | 0.050 | 16.067 | 16,538.5 | 0.217 | 1.532 | 20.058 | 4373.0 ** | 0.496 | 2.775 *** |
Employee | 5.063 | 2136.0 | 0.209 | 0.763 | −1.860 | 2165 | −0.089 | −0.317 | −0.157 | 628.0 | −0.010 | −0.021 | |
B4_MEAN | Student | 38.724 | 15,804.5 *** | 0.287 | 3.588 *** | −0.672 | 17,879.0 | 0.001 | 0.015 | 38.216 | 3541.0 *** | 0.499 | 4.141 *** |
Employee | 14.061 | 1844.5 * | 0.302 | 1.851 * | 15.613 | 1743.5 ** | 0.268 | 1.595 | 11.196 | 487.5 | 0.203 | 0.771 | |
B41 | Student | 40.559 | 15,629.0 *** | 0.460 | 3.474 *** | 4.927 | 17,508.5 | 0.078 | 0.557 | 37.496 | 3574.0 *** | 0.827 | 4.195 *** |
Employee | 11.221 | 1936.5 | 0.439 | 1.813 * | 7.912 | 1979.5 | 0.207 | 0.880 | 6.875 | 542.5 | 0.250 | 0.718 | |
B42 | Student | 8.973 | 18,649.5 | 0.162 | 1.104 | 5.983 | 17,416.5 | 0.094 | 0.601 | 19.163 | 4414.0 ** | 0.504 | 2.442 ** |
Employee | 1.775 | 2242.5 | 0.086 | 0.295 | 5.318 | 2059.0 | 0.234 | 0.729 | 5.657 | 558.0 | 0.321 | 0.679 | |
B43 | Student | 18.290 | 17,758.5 | 0.178 | 1.400 | −9.802 | 17,084.0 | −0.140 | −1.050 | 7.824 | 4933.5 | 0.163 | 0.850 |
Employee | 9.986 | 1976.5 | 0.192 | 0.896 | 2.724 | 2138.5 | −0.001 | −0.005 | −2.396 | 599.5 | −0.276 | −0.761 | |
B44 | Student | 0.936 | 19,418.0 | 0.129 | 0.894 | −4.324 | 17,561.0 | −0.008 | −0.050 | −5.456 | 5042.0 | 0.065 | 0.312 |
Employee | 8.258 | 2032.5 | 0.483 | 1.666* | −8.418 | 1964.0 | −0.284 | −0.901 | 0.354 | 625.5 | 0.067 | 0.128 | |
B45 | Student | 31.582 | 16,487.5 *** | 0.444 | 2.709 *** | −5.088 | 17,494.5 | −0.080 | −0.462 | 27.249 | 4043.5 *** | 0.698 | 2.875 *** |
Employee | 6.868 | 2077.5 | 0.276 | 0.957 | 17.636 | 1681.5 ** | 0.684 | 2.351 ** | 8.761 | 518.5 | 0.426 | 0.913 | |
B46 | Student | −16.193 | 17,959.0 | −0.199 | −1.245 | −18.289 | 16,345.0 | −0.238 | −1.429 | −16.555 | 4533.5 * | −0.369 | −1.538 |
Employee | 1.050 | 2266.0 | −0.012 | −0.043 | −2.088 | 2158.0 | −0.126 | −0.399 | −2.082 | 603.5 | −0.202 | −0.436 | |
B47 | Student | 25.522 | 17,067.0 ** | 0.323 | 2.326 ** | −9.021 | 17,152.0 | −0.083 | −0.580 | 14.972 | 4606.0 | 0.315 | 1.518 |
Employee | 13.258 | 1870.5 * | 0.520 | 2.110 ** | 16.575 | 1714.0 ** | 0.467 | 1.920* | 11.511 | 483.5 | 0.450 | 1.185 | |
B48 | Student | 35.733 | 16,090.5 *** | 0.450 | 3.196 *** | 14.378 | 16,685.5 | 0.178 | 1.228 | 42.363 | 3351.0 *** | 0.942 | 4.543 *** |
Employee | 7.671 | 2051.5 | 0.273 | 1.058 | 20.947 | 1580.0 *** | 0.694 | 2.664 *** | 4.950 | 567.0 | 0.179 | 0.437 | |
B49 | Student | 54.212 | 14,323.5 *** | 0.633 | 4.976 *** | 16.503 | 16,500.5 | 0.210 | 1.629 | 62.006 | 2451.0 *** | 1.347 | 7.298 *** |
Employee | 16.330 | 1771.0 ** | 0.457 | 2.104 ** | 16.363 | 1720.5 ** | 0.540 | 2.647 *** | 13.789 | 454.5 * | 0.617 | 1.684 * | |
B5_MEAN | Student | 65.495 | 13,244.5 *** | 0.615 | 5.541 *** | 28.975 | 15,414.5 ** | 0.285 | 2.503 ** | 75.767 | 1820.5 *** | 1.333 | 9.084 *** |
Employee | 16.562 | 1763.5 ** | 0.423 | 2.094 ** | 15.613 | 1743.5 ** | 0.451 | 2.145 ** | 14.496 | 445.5 * | 0.585 | 1.854 * | |
B51 | Student | 64.790 | 13,312.0 *** | 0.786 | 5.881 *** | 24.588 | 15,796.5 ** | 0.317 | 2.486 ** | 71.827 | 2001.0 *** | 1.641 | 8.445 *** |
Employee | 12.657 | 1890.0 * | 0.373 | 1.695 * | 8.141 | 1972.5 | 0.249 | 1.075 | 8.761 | 518.5 | 0.498 | 1.444 | |
B52 | Student | 44.878 | 15,216.0 *** | 0.542 | 3.828 *** | 26.288 | 15,648.5 ** | 0.318 | 2.122 ** | 47.045 | 3136.5 *** | 1.014 | 4.941 *** |
Employee | 21.115 | 1616.0 *** | 0.784 | 3.230 *** | 23.443 | 1503.5 *** | 0.856 | 3.885 *** | 18.582 | 393.5 ** | 1.038 | 2.806 *** | |
B53 | Student | 34.724 | 16,187.0 *** | 0.427 | 3.281 *** | 15.992 | 16,545.0 | 0.192 | 1.459 | 54.793 | 2781.5 *** | 1.177 | 6.542 *** |
Employee | 14.308 | 1836.5 ** | 0.415 | 1.826 * | 10.914 | 1887.5 | 0.304 | 1.285 | 5.579 | 559.0 | 0.250 | 0.713 | |
B54 | Student | 59.362 | 13,831.0 *** | 0.705 | 5.374 *** | 24.508 | 15,803.5 ** | 0.314 | 2.529 ** | 68.139 | 2170.0 *** | 1.500 | 7.718 *** |
Employee | 5.649 | 2117.0 | 0.119 | 0.533 | 11.762 | 1861.5 | 0.395 | 1.713 * | 12.296 | 473.5 | 0.552 | 1.537 | |
B6_MEAN | Student | −41.176 | 15,570.0 *** | −0.339 | −3.254 *** | −57.669 | 12,916.0 *** | −0.482 | −4.479 *** | −39.624 | 3476.5 *** | −0.673 | −4.433 *** |
Employee | −9.955 | 1977.5 | −0.346 | −1.685 * | −6.966 | 2008.5 | −0.128 | −0.590 | −15.832 | 428.5 ** | −0.696 | −1.903 * | |
B61 | Student | −6.390 | 18,896.5 | −0.089 | −0.656 | −7.844 | 17,254.5 | −0.115 | −0.788 | −20.778 | 4340.0 ** | −0.482 | −2.534 ** |
Employee | −10.897 | 1947.0 | −0.433 | −1.805 * | −1.175 | 2186.0 | −0.042 | −0.158 | −13.907 | 453.0 * | −0.810 | −1.774 * | |
B62 | Student | −37.469 | 15,924.5 *** | −0.410 | −2.948 *** | −33.925 | 14,983.5 *** | −0.379 | −2.633 *** | −22.644 | 4254.5 ** | −0.482 | −2.234 ** |
Employee | −3.149 | 2198.0 | −0.101 | −0.394 | 5.792 | 2044.5 | 0.227 | 0.863 | −10.293 | 499.0 | −0.543 | −1.253 | |
B63 | Student | −46.698 | 15,042.0 *** | −0.620 | −3.987 *** | −80.511 | 10,927.0 *** | −1.057 | −7.100 *** | −41.414 | 3394.5 *** | −1.000 | −4.570 *** |
Employee | −10.897 | 1947.0 | −0.431 | −1.634 | −6.526 | 2022.0 | −0.303 | −1.023 | −1.729 | 608.0 | −0.160 | −0.346 | |
B64 | Student | −2.159 | 19,301.0 | −0.010 | −0.078 | −35.309 | 14,863.0 *** | −0.374 | −2.699 *** | −6.820 | 4979.5 | −0.149 | −0.743 |
Employee | 0.741 | 2276.0 | 0.016 | 0.059 | −9.250 | 1938.5 | −0.317 | −1.166 | −9.743 | 506.0 | −0.595 | −1.320 | |
B65 | Student | −42.593 | 15,434.5 *** | −0.566 | −3.745 *** | −36.084 | 14,795.5 *** | −0.485 | −3.256 *** | −49.696 | 3015.0 *** | −1.250 | −5.370 *** |
Employee | −18.846 | 1689.5 *** | −0.780 | −2.828 *** | −7.407 | 1995.0 | −0.202 | −0.691 | −19.446 | 382.5 ** | −1.371 | −3.030 *** | |
N | students: +: 153, −: 255; employees: +: 50, −: 92 | students: +: 287, −: 125; employees: +: 101, −: 44 | students: +: 63, −: 168; employees: +: 15, −: 84 |
Belief-Variables | Attitude Variables | Belief-Variables | Attitude Variables | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A4 | A51 | A52 | A4 | A51 | A52 | ||||
B1 | S | 0.330 *** | 0.344 *** | 0.231 *** | B47 | S | 0.239 *** | 0,121 * | 0,072 |
E | 0.235 *** | 0.112 | 0.245 *** | E | 0.534 *** | 0.289 *** | 0.327 *** | ||
B2 | S | 0.431 *** | 0.373 *** | 0.245 *** | B48 | S | 0.221 *** | 0.254 *** | 0.176 *** |
E | 0.427 *** | 0.396 *** | 0.432 *** | E | 0.336 *** | 0.134 | 0.275*** | ||
B3_MEAN | S | −0.097 ** | 0.100 | 0.071 | B49 | S | 0.412 *** | 0.419 *** | 0.275 *** |
E | 0.058 | −0.051 | 0.018 | E | 0.467 *** | 0.263 ** | 0.337 *** | ||
B31 | S | −0.063 | 0.142 ** | 0.105 ** | B5_MEAN | S | 0.407 *** | 0.457 *** | 0.311 *** |
E | 0.075 | 0.014 | 0.018 | E | 0.551 *** | 0.271 *** | 0.344 *** | ||
B32 | S | −0.098 ** | 0.042 | 0.022 | B51 | S | 0.404 *** | 0.447 *** | 0.290 *** |
E | 0.134 | −0.016 | 0.076 | E | 0.514 *** | 0.137 | 0.265 *** | ||
B33 | S | −0.105 ** | −0.011 | 0.009 | B52 | S | 0.287 *** | 0.302 *** | 0.228 *** |
E | 0.058 | −0.077 | −0.022 | E | 0.489 *** | 0.313 *** | 0.404 *** | ||
B34 | S | −0.032 | 0.051 | 0.074 | B53 | S | 0.314 *** | 0.330 *** | 0.195 *** |
E | −0.004 | −0.036 | −0.032 | E | 0.486 *** | 0.216 ** | 0.283 *** | ||
B35 | S | −0.129 *** | 0.085 | 0.001 | B54 | S | 0.376 *** | 0.411 *** | 0.286 *** |
E | 0.025 | −0.094 | 0.046 | E | 0.475 *** | 0.160 | 0.237 *** | ||
B4_MEAN | S | 0.242 *** | 0.260 *** | 0.138 *** | B6_MEAN | S | −0.335 *** | −0.298 *** | −0.292 *** |
E | 0.467 *** | 0.201 * | 0.324 *** | E | −0.298 *** | −0.223 ** | −0.163 * | ||
B41 | S | 0.255 *** | 0.300 *** | 0.162 *** | B61 | S | −0.224 *** | −0.106 | −0.072 |
E | 0.431 *** | 0.105 | 0.218 *** | E | −0.238 *** | −0.232 ** | −0.146 * | ||
B42 | S | 0.064 | 0.105 | 0.044 | B62 | S | −0.198 *** | −0.145 ** | −0.175 *** |
E | 0.216*** | 0.013 | 0.108 | E | −0.195 ** | −0.123 | −0.026 | ||
B43 | S | 0.054 | 0.088 | 0.046 | B63 | S | −0.250 *** | −0.354 *** | −0.357 *** |
E | 0.386*** | −0.044 | 0.196** | E | −0.212 ** | −0.145 | −0.139 | ||
B44 | S | −0.116** | −0.078 | −0.050 | B64 | S | −0.160 *** | −0.102 | −0.133 *** |
E | −0.017 | −0.044 | 0.005 | E | −0.178 ** | −0.137 | −0.041 | ||
B45 | S | 0.252 *** | 0.199 *** | 0.113 ** | B65 | S | −0.224 *** | −0.106 | −0.072 |
E | 0.394 *** | 0.268 *** | 0.237 *** | E | −0.238 *** | −0.232 ** | −0.146 * | ||
B46 | S | −0.124** | −0.098 | −0.110 | |||||
E | 0.127 | 0.014 | 0.073 | ||||||
N student | 415 | 227 | 405 | 415 | 227 | 405 | |||
N employee | 146 | 94 | 141 | 146 | 94 | 141 |
Independent | Dependent | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4_Binary | A51_Binary | A52_Binary | |||||||
B | Wald | B | Wald | B | Wald | B | Wald | B | Wald | B | Wald | |
Constant | −0.637 | 2.511 | 1.667 | 15.200 *** | −1.942 | 8.224 *** | −3.479 | 37.854 *** | −0.827 | 2.308 | −1.095 | 6.450 ** |
EMPLOYEE | −0.052 | 0.021 | 0.408 | 1.116 | −0.779 | 1.363 | 0.353 | 0.634 | −0.537 | 1.144 | 0.230 | 0.373 |
SEX | 0.130 | 0.407 | −0.519 | 5.875 ** | 0.702 | 3.754 * | 0.321 | 1.612 | 0.356 | 1.468 | 0.252 | 1.344 |
AGE1 | 0.180 | 0.100 | −1.327 | 6.020 ** | 1.311 | 1.470 | 0.784 | 1.329 | 0.479 | 0.323 | 0.265 | 0.189 |
AGE2 | 0.105 | 0.058 | −0.313 | 0.462 | 0.105 | 0.017 | 0.429 | 0.684 | 0.107 | 0.030 | 0.262 | 0.336 |
AGE4 | −0.084 | 0.148 | 0.045 | 0.041 | 0.051 | 0.017 | −0.104 | 0.137 | 0.299 | 0.885 | 0.158 | 0.471 |
EDU1 | −0.555 | 4.436 ** | −0.248 | 1.004 | −0.598 | 1.282 | −0.120 | 0.113 | −0.372 | 0.989 | −0.514 | 3.349 * |
EDU3 | 0.228 | 1.034 | 0.007 | 0.001 | 1.381 | 12.719 *** | 0.434 | 2.466 | 0.543 | 2.659 | 0.249 | 1.097 |
Work2 | 0.044 | 0.038 | −0.342 | 2.212 | 1.122 | 7.302 *** | 0.910 | 8.692 *** | 0.498 | 2.399 | 0.017 | 0.005 |
Work3 | 1.204 | 10.795 *** | 1.056 | 4.565 ** | 1.456 | 5.730 ** | 1.553 | 15.174 *** | 1.875 | 9.462 *** | 1.365 | 12.611 *** |
B43 | −0.029 | 0.107 | −0.201 | 4.973 ** | −0.495 | 8.182 *** | 0.011 | 0.009 | −0.113 | 0.746 | 0.055 | 0.323 |
B45 | −0.012 | 0.027 | −0.031 | 0.175 | −0.028 | 0.043 | 0.165 | 2.767* | −0.083 | 0.565 | −0.151 | 3.353 * |
B48 | −0.010 | 0.014 | 0.099 | 1.301 | 0.135 | 0.873 | 0.108 | 0.910 | −0.008 | 0.004 | 0.061 | 0.430 |
AWARENESS | 0.042 | 0.159 | 0.163 | 2.606 | 0.483 | 6.515 ** | 0.127 | 0.839 | 0.037 | 0.069 | −0.029 | 0.064 |
FRUGALITY | 0.149 | 1.707 | 0.146 | 1.670 | 0.411 | 4.149 ** | −0.093 | 0.390 | 0.278 | 3.059 * | 0.172 | 1.940 |
ADVANTAGES | 0.406 | 8.276 *** | 0.229 | 2.471 | 0.995 | 15.775 *** | 0.470 | 7.013 *** | 0.742 | 13.789 *** | 0.668 | 18.872 *** |
DISADVANTAGES | −0.265 | 6.467 ** | −0.314 | 9.239 *** | −0.753 | 13.763 *** | −0.659 | 21.688 *** | −0.456 | 8.686 *** | −0.461 | 16.125 *** |
N | 543 | 550 | 326 | 554 | 317 | 539 | ||||||
Cox and Snell R2 | 0.123 | 0.095 | 0.328 | 0.198 | 0.250 | 0.191 | ||||||
Nagelkerke R2 | 0.168 | 0.134 | 0.494 | 0.310 | 0.345 | 0.263 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dajnoki, K.; Máté, D.; Fenyves, V.; Kun, A.I. Deconstructing Attitudes towards Immigrant Workers among Hungarian Employees and Higher Education Students. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091639
Dajnoki K, Máté D, Fenyves V, Kun AI. Deconstructing Attitudes towards Immigrant Workers among Hungarian Employees and Higher Education Students. Sustainability. 2017; 9(9):1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091639
Chicago/Turabian StyleDajnoki, Krisztina, Domician Máté, Veronika Fenyves, and András István Kun. 2017. "Deconstructing Attitudes towards Immigrant Workers among Hungarian Employees and Higher Education Students" Sustainability 9, no. 9: 1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091639