Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
MICHAEL
JONES-CORREA
POLITICAL
SCIENCE,
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
HELEN
MARROW
SOCIOLOGY,
TUFTS
UNIVERSITY
DINA
OKAMOTO
SOCIOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY
OF
CALIFORNIA,
DAVIS
LINDA
R.
TROPP
PSYCHOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY
OF
MASSACHUSETTS
AMHERST
Overview
Research
questions
Philadelphia
pilot
survey
Selection
of
Site,
Groups,
Status
Markers,
and
Institutional
Spaces
Research
Questions
Philadelphia:
Demographic
change
Historically
binary
black-white,
now
rapidly
diversifying
Suburban
immigrant
settlement
(both
inner
&
outer
ring);
two
largest
immigrant
groups
Mexican
and
Indian
Immigrants
more
dispersed
than
blacks
Groups
Immigrants
Mexicans:
Quintessential
low
status
immigrant
laborers
South
Asian
Indians:
Quintessential
highly-
skilled
immigrant
professionals
Are
the
two
largest
immigrant
groups
in
the
metro
area
Indians
(10.3%)
/
Mexicans
(8.4%)
in
2006
Native-born
Whites:
Native-born
majority
group
Blacks:
Native-born
minority
group
Status
Markers
SES
/
Race
and
Ethnicity
Predict
will
remain
as
major
inuences
on
Other
Status
Markers:
Various
hypotheses
Citizenship
and
legal
status
(esp.
for
Mexicans)
Skin
color
(black
or
darker
phenotype)
Language
ability
and
accent
Religion
(esp.
for
Indians)
Institutional
Spaces
Well-studied in the literature
Workplaces
Neighborhoods
More novel
Public spaces
And (eventually) schools, civic
organizations, places of worship
Findings:
Contact
People
are
more
isolated
in
Cross-Group
Interactions
Frequency
Friendship
Percent Indicating No Friends
Black
Indian
Mexican
White
BL
IND
MX
WH
2
25
47
21
72
5
78
57
73
70
3
77
26
8
26
2
Cross-Group
Interactions
Frequency
Work
Interactions
Percent Indicating Never
Black
Indian
Mexican
White
BL
IND
MX
WH
0
6
33
5
41
4
77
28
42
27
9
40
2
0
8
3
Cross-Group
Interactions
Frequency
Neighborh0od
Interactions
Percent Indicating Never
Black
Indian
Mexican
White
BL
IND
MX
WH
3
41
48
27
73
20
90
59
66
66
12
58
11
4
19
4
Mexican"""
Indian"
Blacks"
Whites"
Workplace"
Blacks"
Whites"
Neighborhood"
Blacks"
Whites"
30"
20"
10"
0"
Indian"
Mexican"
Workplace"
Indian"
Mexican"
Neighborhood"
Blacks"
Whites"
20"
10"
0"
Indian"
Mexican"
Workplace"
Indian"
Mexican"
Neighborhood"
Mexican"""
Indian"
20"
10"
0"
Blacks"
Whites"
Workplace"
Blacks"
Whites"
Neighborhood"
Cross-Group
Interactions
Trust Native-Born Blacks
Black
Indian
Mexican
White
3
1
41
4
4
7
23
9
65
42
26
45
28
50
9
42
Cross-Group
Interactions
Black
Indian
Mexican
White
6
0
13
4
4
5
19
5
61
27
43
42
28
68
25
48
Cross-Group
Interactions
14
0
67
8
R
5
3
9
7
70
31
17
47
11
66
7
39
Cross-Group
Interactions
Black
Indian
Mexican
White
10
3
3
7
10
8
14
6
64
52
41
54
16
38
41
34
40"
30"
20"
10"
0"
Black"
Indian"
Mexican""
White"
Never
Rarely
40
Some:mes
30
OUen
20
10
0
Black
Indian
Mexican
White
60"
50"
Never"
Rarely"
SomeAmes"
ODen"
40"
30"
20"
10"
0"
Black"
Indian"
Mexican""
White"
Never"
Rarely"
SomeBmes"
OEen"
40"
30"
20"
10"
0"
Black"
Indian"
Mexican""
White"
80"
70"
60"
50"
Blacks"
Mexican"
Indians"
Whites"
40"
30"
20"
10"
0"
Black"
Indian"
Mexican""
White"
Findings:
Discrimination
Legal
status
doesnt
appear
to
maWer
Language/accent
and
racial
98
95
Public
Work
97
97
96
91
98
93
97
95
Public
Work
94
95
99
99
96
95
98
98
97
93
95
Public
Work
96
82
86
98
84
79
89
81
84
95
Public
Work
54
69
86
91
63
67
76
93
Neighborhood
25
Workplace
20
Public Space
15
10
5
0
Black
Indian
Mexican
White
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Unfriendly
-1
Neutral
No Discrimination
Friendly
Summary
Race
continues
to
be
a
key
status
marker
for
immigrants
and
natives
For
all
groups,
contact
across
dierent
social
spaces
shapes
trust
Thank
you!
*
*
*