Avoidance of intergroup contact

Intergroup contact avoidance is represented by social distance (Park, 1923 cf. Bogardus, 1925a; Wark and Galliher, 2007) and the preference to remain residentially segregated (Clark, 1992; Tabory, 2007; Semyonov et al., 2007). The operational definition of intergroup contact avoidance, based on Bogardus (1925b) and Wark and Galliher’s (2007) work on social distance, is an individual’s intention to reject or avoid out-group members as spouses, close friends, classmates, board mates, neighbours, housemaids, civil servants, town mayors, and police, as well as an individual’s preference to live in residential segregation. Residential segregation is an individual’s preference to stay in housing inhabited by religious in-group members, rejecting religious out-group members as neighbours.

Contact avoidance

For the purposes of measurement, intergroup contact avoidance consists of two main indicators, namely social distance and a preference for residential segregation. The indicator of social distance builds on the measurements by Bogardus (1925b), Coenders et al., (2007), and Wark and Galliher (2007).. Coenders et al. emphasize the opposition to interethnic marriage in some European countries, and add the willingness to accept or avoid a boss from a migrant group in the social distance scale. Wark and Galliher place their emphasis on opposition to having contact with migrants as spouses, close friends, neighbours, colleagues, and fellow citizens. Since the root of these two inventories build on Bogardus’s concept of social distance, this study uses the questions developed by Bogardus as the main inventory.

The first measurement is derived from Bogardus’s social distance scale. The original question is “According to my first reaction, I would

willingly admit members of each race to one or more of the classifications under which I have placed a cross.” Because this study measures social distance between Muslim and Christian students.5 _{the subject of social} distance has been changed to adapt to the student environment, referencing board mates and classmates. We also added the category of housemaid in order to represent lower status individuals in society. In addition, this question measures social distance in the realm of politics, referring to civil servants, city mayors, and police officers, because the desire to avoid religious out-group members can extend to interactions with government officials. Therefore, we changed the question to : “To what extent would you accept or avoid having a Christian (or Muslim) as your future spouse, close friend, board mate, classmate, neighbour, civil servant, city major, police officer, and housemaid?”

Table 3.2 Contact avoidance by Muslim and Christian respondents

Likert scale 1-5 (from totally disagree to totally agree).

5 Although our independent variable is about ethno-religious identification, this research focuses on avoidance of intergroup contact between religious groups rather than between ethnic groups. This is because religious groups are considered to be of primary concern. It does not mean that there is no contact avoidance among ethnic groups in research sites. It is hard to account for conflict experience in Ambon without examining how religion

To what extent would you accept or avoid

having a Christian/Muslim as

your ....

RESPONDENTS

AMbON yOGyAKARTA TOTAL

Muslim

(n=368) Christian (n=351) (n=474)Muslim Christian (n=253) Muslim (n=841) Christian (n=604) 164/173. city/town mayor? M: 2.86 SD: 1.12 SD: .94M: 2.28 SD: 1.20M: 2.93 SD: .68M: 2.11 SD: 1.17M: 2.90 SD: .85M: 2.21 165/174. civil servant? M: 2.43 SD: .87 SD: .69M: 2.06 M: 2.26SD: .81 SD: .66M: 2.06 SD: .84M: 2.33 SD: .68M: 2.06 166/175. police officer? M: 2.55 SD: .97 SD: .79M: 2.18 M: 2.22SD: .77 SD: .54M: 2.04 SD: .88M: 2.36 SD: .70M: 2.12 167/176. neighbour? M: 2.61 SD: 1.00 SD: .68M:2. 01 M: 2.08SD: .67 M: 1.94SD: .54 SD: .87M: 2.31 SD: .62M: 1.98 168/177. classmate? M: 2.43 SD: .99 SD: .57M: 1.87 M: 2.00SD: .64 SD: .52M: 1.91 SD: .85M: 2.19 SD: .55M: 1.89 16 9/178. board/dorm/house mate? SD: 1.13M: 2.84 M: 2.03SD: .67 M: 2.16SD: .79 SD: .57M: 1.94 SD: 1.01M: 2.46 SD: .63M: 1.99 170/179. houseboy/housemaid? SD: 1.15M: 3.51 SD: .89M: 2.24 SD: 1.07M: 2.64 SD: .66M: 2.01 SD: 1.18M: 3.02 SD: .81M: 2.14 171/180. close friend? M: 2.89 SD: 1.17 SD: .69M: 2.00 M: 2.27SD: .91 SD: .59M: 1.94 SD: 1.08M: 2.54 SD: .65M: 1.97 172/181. future spouse? M: 4.37 SD: 1.01 SD: 1.39M: 3.35 SD: 1.19M: 4.00 M: 3.54SD: 1.27 SD: 1.13M: 4.16 SD: 1.35M: 3.43

In our sample, Muslim respondents are more likely than Christian respondents to avoid contact with out-groups. The mean values of answers provided by Muslim respondents are higher in terms of contact avoidance, the lowest being 2.19 for the question pertaining to classmates, and the highest being 4.16 for the question pertaining to future spouses. The answers of Christian respondents to those same questions were 1.89 and 3.43. However, Muslim respondents in Ambon showed higher levels of contact avoidance than those in Yogyakarta. The mean value of Muslim respondents in Ambon to the questions about classmates and civil servants was 2.43, and 4.37 for the question about future spouses. Meanwhile, the mean value of answers given by Muslim respondents in Yogyakarta for the question about classmates was 2.00, and 4.00 for the question regarding future spouses. The answers from Christian respondents also have the same pattern: Christian respondents in Ambon displayed greater support for contact avoidance than those in Yogyakarta.

From table 3.2 we can extract the order of contact avoidance on a scale from high to low in the answers from Muslim respondents: future spouse, housemaid, city mayor, board mate, close friend, police officer, civil servant, neighbour, classmate. For Christian respondents the order on a scale from high to low is: future spouse, city mayor, housemaid, police officer, civil servant, board mate, neighbour, close friend, and classmate.

Standard deviation measures to what extent the value deviates from the mean in reference to particular data. The standard deviation of contact avoidance for Muslim respondents for each item ranges from .84 to 1.18, while the the standard deviation for Christian respondents lies between .55 and 1.35. As seen in Table 3.2, the variation in the answers from Muslim respondents in answering this question is relatively higher than the variation in the answers from Christian respondents.

Table 3.3 Barriers of contact

63.90% of respondents (both Muslim and Christian) believe there are major barriers in relations between Muslims and Christians, as demonstrated in Table 3.3.

Support for residential segregation

The second measurement employed in this study explains the relationship between religious identification and the preference to live in segregated areas. This second indicator builds on the measurement developed by Tabory (2007). We have made changes and additions to one of the model questions, simplifying it to be more easily understood by Indonesian respondents. The first question [I prefer to live in neighbourhoods inhabited by person of similar religiosity level] has been adjusted to say, “I prefer to live in a neighbourhood inhabited by people of the same religion.” A negative statement has also been added to the first question, “I prefer to live in a neighbourhood inhabited by people of the different religion.” The third and fourth statements are “For the good of the city, people should reside in separate communities according to their religion,”and “There should be separate neighbourhoods where Muslims and Christians can live separately.”

150. Do you believe there are major barriers between …?

RESPONDENTS

AMbON yOGyAKARTA TOTAL

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

No 191 25.50 308 41.10 499 33.30

Yes 526 70.10 432 57.60 958 63.90

Missing 33 4.40 10 1.30 43 2.90

Total 750 100.00 750 100.00 1500 100.00

151. If yes, what do you think is the primary barrier

between them?

RESPONDENTS

AMbON yOGyAKARTA TOTAL

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Religion 194 36.90 143 33.10 337 35.20 Attitude 159 30.20 149 34.50 308 32.20 Language 8 1.50 6 1.40 14 1.50 Values 86 16.30 103 23.80 189 19.70 Others 44 8.40 22 5.10 66 6.90 Missing 35 6.70 9 2.10 44 4.60 Total 526 100.00 432 100.00 958 100.00

Table 3.4 Preference for residential segregation

Likert scale 1-5 (from totally disagree to totally agree)

Muslim respondents prefer to live in neighbourhoods inhabited by people of the same religion (M= 3.93), with Muslim respondents in Ambon scoring higher (M=4.28) than Muslim respondents in Yogyakarta (M=3.65). Christian respondents have a higher preference than Muslims for living in neighbourhoods inhabited by persons of different religions, scoring (M=3.33) to Muslim respondents’ (M=2.85). Muslim respondents (M=2.69) also show more support than Christians (M=2.22) for the idea that, for the good of the city, people should reside in separate communities according to their religion. Muslim respondents (M=2.68) also show a higher level of agreement than Christians (2.11) with the statement that there should be separate neighbourhoods for Muslims and Christians.

The standard deviation of answers from Muslim respondents lies between 1.02 and 1.16, while for Christian respondents it ranges from .92

RESPONDENTS

AMBON YOGYAKARTA TOTAL

Muslim

(N=364) Christian (N=356) (N=475) Muslim Christian (N=254) (N=838) Muslim Christian (N=611) 182. I prefer to live in a

neighbourhood inhabited by persons of the same religion.

M: 4.28 SD: .92 SD: 1.11 M: 3.55 M: 3.65 SD: 1.08 M: 2.93 SD: .97 SD: 1.06 M: 3.93 SD: 1.09 M: 3.29 183. I prefer to live in a neighbourhood inhabited by persons of different religion. M: 2.65 SD: 1.10 SD: .96 M: 3.26 M: 3.01 SD: .93 M: 3.42 SD: .86 SD: 1.02 M: 2.85 SD: .92 M: 3.33

184. For the good of the city, people should reside in separate communities according to their religion. M: 3.05 SD: 1.16 SD: 1.05 M: 2.41 M: 2.42 SD: .95 M: 1.97 SD: .77 SD: 1.09 M: 2.69 SD: .97 M: 2.22 185. There should be separate neighbourhoods where Muslims and Christians can live separately.

M: 3.02

to 1.09. The heterogeneity of the responses from Christians is lower than the heterogeneity of responses from Muslims.