• Aucun résultat trouvé

Boundaries against immigrants and their subjectively felt discrimination

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "Boundaries against immigrants and their subjectively felt discrimination"

Copied!
21
0
0

Texte intégral

Loading

Figure

Table 1: Symbolic boundaries against immigrants (mean scores) and 1 st / 2 nd  generation  immigrants subjectively felt discrimination (percentage)
Table 2: Social boundaries against immigrants
Table 3: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the six cluster centres
Figure 1: Six country cluster configurations (cluster centres) accounting for discrimination, symbolic and social boundaries against  immigrants
+2

Références

Documents relatifs

For French-natives of type 2, low college attainment has a negative impact on the PC employment probability (38 percentage points for the 1st contract, 33 for the contract at 2

identified as protective for depression in a population of poor Afro-American mothers, but that study did not examine the joint effects of ethnic discrimination and lack of

Figure 1 depicts the empirical hazard function based on the Kaplan-Meier estimators. Panel A shows the hazard function for the foreign and U.S-born individuals. The general pattern

I hypothesised that feelings of cultural and intergenerational belonging would be protective factors against loneliness, whereas the feeling of not fitting in might be a risk

No differences in life-satisfaction were found, but those who plan to return used fewer self-regulatory strategies compared to those who want to stay or commute; in the STAY

The results presented below refer to (1) perceptions of ethnolinguistic vitality; (2) Albanian pupils’ self-assessments of language competence in Albanian and Greek and language

Initial location choices are analysed for immigrants categorised according to country of origin and migration motive (namely labour, family, and asylum migration) by

The relative success of female students in secondary education is also perceptible in higher education since their drop- out rates are lower (0.8). The risk of dropping out