Description of the applied tools
5.5 CITIZENS’ SURVEY RESULTS
5.5.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE MEASURED CONSTRUCTS
In view of the first goal – Identify the attitudes of Croatian citizens and their readiness for the acceptance and integration of third-country nationals granted international protection in the Republic of Croatia – average values and dispersions were calculated for each of the constructs referring to different aspects of the participants’ attitudes and behavioural intentions toward the integration of asylum beneficiaries. As defined earlier under Research Problem 1.1, the attitude of Croatian citizens toward the integration of asylum beneficiaries into Croatian society was examined by using the following constructs: attitudes toward asylum beneficiaries, perception of asylum beneficiaries as a group threat (realistic and symbolic), perception of negative changes which may occur in the local community upon the arrival of asylum beneficiaries, support for asylum beneficiaries’ legally guaranteed rights, readiness for social proximity with asylum beneficiaries, readiness to help asylum beneficiaries in their integration and choice of the preferred form of integration in and adjustment to Croatian society (acculturation). These data are presented in this section.
CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING REFUGEES INTO CROATIAN SOCIETY:
ATTITUDES OF CITIZENS AND THE READINESS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
The conducted analysis of the metric characteristics of the applied tools (factor structure and reliability analysis) made it possible to form the aggregate score as a simple linear combination (sum) of scores for all items used for measuring a specific. Also, with a view to a clearer interpretation, the aggregate score for each variable was calculated as the average value of the items’ scale values. As a result, the score is always expressed in points from 1 to 5. The value 3 (Neither agree nor disagree) denotes the central and neutral point of the scale. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics of scores for the measured variables.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics (means M, standard deviations SD, minimum and
maximum values, and number of participants10) for each variable
Tools and scales N M SD Min. Max.
Scale of attitudes toward asylum
beneficiaries 1129 3.03 0.86 1.00 4.95
Scale of realistic threat 1239 3.23 0.95 1.00 5.00
Scale of symbolic threat 1223 3.43 0.86 1.00 5.00
Scale of support for rights of asylum
beneficiaries 1117 3.32 0.96 1.00 5.00
Scale of expectations of negative
changes in the community 1189 3.06 1.06 1.00 5.00
Scale of readiness to help personally 1200 2.91 0.96 1.00 5.00 Frequency of contacts with asylum
beneficiaries 1264 1.81 0.93 1.00 5.00
Quality of contacts with asylum
beneficiaries 643 2.07 0.55 1.00 3.00
Perception of media portrayal of asylum
beneficiaries 1234 3.24 1.42 1.00 7.00
Scale of social proximity 959 3.88 2.46 0.00 7.00
With regard to their attitudes toward asylum beneficiaries, the participants express what are, on average, neutral attitudes: the average value of the respondents’ answers is M = 3.03. The response distribution analysis (Figure 5) shows a more or less symmetric distribution of results, with a slight clustering tendency in the positive attitude zone (curvature index = - 0.13). In this context, a clearly negative attitude (2 or below) was shown by 14.1% of the participants, and a clearly positive attitude (4 or above) by 15.3%.
10 The number of participants who answered the questions on particular scales varies because they could
choose not to answer a question by declaring the response “I refuse to answer.” Such responses (and, as a result, participants) were left out of the analyses. Accordingly, differences in the number of participants stem from the fact that different questions had differing refusal levels: from almost a fourth of the participants who refused to answer to a question on the Scale of social proximity, to more than 99% of the participants who answered to the question about the frequency of contact with asylum beneficiaries or over 97% who answered on the Scale of realistic threat. Differences in the number of participants who answered particular questions are especially important for understanding the description of the results. Therefore, we note that these percentages were calculated in relation to the number of participants who had answered a specific question, rather than their total number. To make this completely clear, along with the percentages of answers, we always indicate the frequency of participants to which such percentages refer.
CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING REFUGEES INTO CROATIAN SOCIETY:
ATTITUDES OF CITIZENS AND THE READINESS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
100 80 60 40 20 Frequency
Attitude towards asylum beneficiaries
0
,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 Figure 5. Distribution of answers on the Scale of attitudes towards asylum beneficiaries (score
range from 1 to 5) Frequency
Frequency
Figure 6. Distribution of answers on the Scales of perception of realistic (left) and symbolic (right) threats.
The participants also display a slight support for the rights of asylum beneficiaries (M = 3.32). With the curvature index of -0.58, the distribution of scores show a slight negative asymmetry, i.e. scores tending more toward the zone of positive values (Figure 7), with only 11.6% of the participants clearly not supporting the rights of asylum beneficiaries (scores 2 or below) and 27.9% of them showing a clear support for the rights of asylum beneficiaries (scores 4 or above). As for the perception of threat, the participants feel a slightly realistic and a somewhat higher symbolic threat. The presentation of score distribution (Fig. 6) for both types of threat show a symmetric distribution (curvature index for realistic threat = 0.04, for symbolic threat = 0.08). A low perception of realistic threat (2 or below) was expressed by 14.3% of the participants, and a high realistic threat (4 or above) was perceived by somewhat more that a fourth of the participants, i.e. 26.9%. As to symbolic threat, low threat was expressed by 5.6% of the participants, and high threat by somewhat over a fourth of the participants, i.e. 28.2%.
125 100 75 50 25 Frequency Realistic threat 0 ,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 100 125 100 75 50 25 Frequency Symbolic threat 0 ,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING REFUGEES INTO CROATIAN SOCIETY:
ATTITUDES OF CITIZENS AND THE READINESS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Figure 7. Distribution of answers on the Scale of support for asylum beneficiaries’ rights (score
range from 1 to 5)
The participants express a neutral attitude regarding expected negative changes in the community (M = 3.06). The distribution of scores is symmetric (Fig. 8), with the curvature index = -0.08. About a fifth of the participants do not anticipate negative changes in their communities upon the arrival of asylum beneficiaries (values lower than 2 were scored by 21% or the participants), whereas the share of those who clearly expect such changes (scores 4 or above) is only somewhat higher, i.e. 22.7 %.
80 100 120 60 40 20 Frequency
Expected negative changes
0 ,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 80 60 40 20 Frequency
Support for asylum beneficiaries's rights
0
,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
Figure 8. Distribution of answers on the Scale of expected negative changes in the community (score
range from 1 to 5)
When it comes to their readiness to help asylum beneficiaries personally, the participants state they are not sure of their readiness in this respect, as shown by their average score which is around the mean value on the 1 to 5 scale (M = 2.91). A low and negative curvature index = - 0.12 suggests a higher score clustering in the zone of positive values, but distribution is generally symmetric (Fig. 9). Somewhat less than a quarter of the participants (22.9%) would not be ready to engage personally in helping asylum beneficiaries (scores below 2), whereas 17.2% state they would be ready to engage personally in the efforts to integrate asylum beneficiaries into their communities.
Figure 9. Distribution of answers on the Scale of readiness to help asylum beneficiaries (score range
from 1 to 5)
Regarding the frequency of contacts with asylum beneficiaries, the average value for the total sample (i.e. M = 1.81) suggest that the participants come into contact only rarely, where those who have any contact (somewhat more than half of the sample or 52.1%) assess it as neutral (M = 2.07) on a 1-to-3 scale. Among the participants who stated they had contacts with asylum beneficiaries, 28.9 % meets them rarely, 17.9 % meets them only sometimes, 5% meets them frequently, while 0.4% meets them very frequently. Accordingly, these results show that encounters of Croatian citizens with asylum beneficiaries occur only rarely. 100 125 75 50 25 Frequency
Readiness to help asylum beneficiaries
0
CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING REFUGEES INTO CROATIAN SOCIETY:
ATTITUDES OF CITIZENS AND THE READINESS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Table 5 shows the sources of information on asylum beneficiaries used by Croatian citizens.
Table 5. Frequency and percentage shares of participants obtaining information about
asylum beneficiaries from different sources
Source of information about asylum beneficiaries Frequency Share (%)
Mass media (printed and online editions of
newspapers, television, radio) 1150 90.4
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 583 45.8
Non-governmental/civil-society organisations 98 7.7
Local or central government authorities 56 4.4
Personal contact 97 7.6
Friends 12 0.9
I don’ look for information on asylum
beneficiaries 69 5.4
Other 1 0.1
The figures contained in Table 5 show that the mass media (printed and online editions of newspapers, television and radio) are the most common source of information for Croatian citizens (more than 90% of citizens use them to keep themselves informed about asylum beneficiaries). They are followed by social media, which are used as a source of information about asylum beneficiaries by nearly half of the participants (45.8%). Other sources of information are used much less frequently. The next most important source of information – non-governmental organisations – is used by only 7.7% of the participants, with a similar share of those getting information through personal contact (7.6%). Somewhat more than 5% of the participants do not look for information about asylum beneficiaries at all.
Since the media are such a vital source of information, it was important to see how the participants perceived the media portrayal of asylum beneficiaries. The original response scale from -3 via 0 as natural value to 3 was transformed onto a 1 to 7 scale, where the values from 1 to 3 represented its negative end, and those from 5 to 7 its positive end, with 4 constituting a neutral point. The citizens we found to perceive the media portrayal of asylum beneficiaries as slightly negative (M = 3.24).
The average level of social proximity which the participants are ready to establish with asylum beneficiaries is M = 3.88, which is somewhere between accepting asylum beneficiaries as fellow workers (Level 3) and neighbours (Level 4). As many as 15% of the participants did not want any kind of relationship with asylum beneficiaries, and almost one fourth (24.6%) refused to answer this question. Table 6 show the distribution of answers.
CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING REFUGEES INTO CROATIAN SOCIETY:
ATTITUDES OF CITIZENS AND THE READINESS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Table 6. Frequency and percentage shares of participants ready for specific levels of
proximity to asylum beneficiaries
Level of proximity Frequency Share (%)
I would accept an intimate relationship with an
asylum beneficiary. 222 19.9
I would accept an asylum beneficiary as a family
member. 308 27.5
I would accept an asylum beneficiary as a friend. 706 60.5 I would accept an asylum beneficiary as a
neighbour. 821 69.7
I would accept an asylum beneficiary as a fellow
worker. 876 73.6
I would accept an asylum beneficiary as a Croatian
citizen. 784 67
I would accept an asylum beneficiary as a person in
transit through Croatia. 1073 86.5
I wouldn’t accept any kind of relationship. 144 15
The participants were also asked about acceptable acculturation strategies, that is, about how asylum beneficiaries should address the acceptance of the Croatian culture and the maintenance of their own culture. These results are shown in Table 7 and reveal that most of the participants (70.7%) chose integration as the preferred acculturation strategy for asylum beneficiaries (both maintaining their own culture and accepting their host country’s culture). About one fifth of the participants (20.8%) uphold assimilation as the preferred acculturation strategy; i.e. they expect asylum beneficiaries to relinquish their specific culture and accept solely that of their host country. Separation – i.e. the opinion that asylum beneficiaries should maintain only their own culture without accepting Croatia’s – is upheld by 3.7% of the participants.
Table 7. Frequency and percentage shares of participants choosing a specific
acculturation strategy as the preferred approach
Preferred acculturation strategy Frequency Share (%)
Assimilation 265 21.9
Integration 899 74.2
Separation 47 3.9
Lastly, the participants were asked to estimate the number of persons granted asylum at the time of survey (May-June 2018) and express their view as to whether the future number of asylum beneficiaries in Croatia should decrease, increase or remain the same. These results are shown in Table 8.
CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING REFUGEES INTO CROATIAN SOCIETY:
ATTITUDES OF CITIZENS AND THE READINESS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Table 8. Frequency and percentage of participants who differently estimate the number
of persons granted asylum and have different attitudes on this number
Frequency Per cent (%)
Estimate of the current number of persons granted asylum
Less than 50 120 10.1 51–100 224 18.9 101–400 249 21 401–700 213 18 701–1000 152 12.8 over 1,000 226 19.1
Estimate of the current number of persons granted asylum (responses in three categories)
Underestimated 344 29.1
Estimated
correctly 249 21
Overestimated 591 49.9
Attitude on the number of asylum beneficiaries in the future
Reduce
significantly 237 21.1
Reduce 275 24.5
Keep the same 514 45.8
Increase 95 8.5
Increase greatly 2 0.2
Attitude on the number of
asylum beneficiaries in the future (responses in three categories)
Reduce 512 45.6
Remain the same 514 45.8
Increase 97 8.6
Table 8 shows that roughly one fifth of the sample (21%) estimates the number of asylum beneficiaries more or less accurately (thus, they chose the suggested range of 101–400). Namely, according to the data of the MoI, the number of persons granted asylum in the Republic of Croatia during the research period was approximately 400. Slightly over one quarter of the participants (29%) estimated that the number of asylum beneficiaries is lower than it actually is, while almost one half (49.9%) overestimated the number of asylum beneficiaries. The projections of the optimum number of asylum beneficiaries in the future align with these responses: most participants, 45.8% of them, believe that the number of asylum beneficiaries should remain the same, a negligibly smaller share of participants (45.6%) would reduce their number, while less than one tenth, 8.6%, believe that the number of asylum beneficiaries in Croatia should increase in the future.