日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

Xenophobia and the Effects of Education
Determinants of Japanese Attitudes toward Acceptance of Foreigners
Misako NUKAGA
Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles

The aim of this study is to examine the determinants of Japanese attitudes toward
acceptance of foreigners. It specifically focuses on the effects of education on xenophobia, andinvestigates which of the competing theories -labor market competition theory or contact theory- better accounts for the educational effects on attitudes toward foreigners. Analyzing the
subsample of those currently employed, the results from logistic regression suggest that age,ratio of foreign residents in the prefecture, and economic threat are positively associated withxenophobia, whereas education, the ratio of Korean residents in the prefecture, and several
contact factors are positively associated with pro-foreign attitudes. Although the results indicatethat both the dynamics of labor market competition and contact with foreigners are crucial
determinants, the effects of education on xenophobia act through the latter rather than the former.
The study finds that contact theory provides a better explanation of xenophobia than labormarket theory, and suggests that close personal contacts with foreigners such as family ties aswell as friendship in neighborhood and workplace are important to promote positive attitudes
toward foreigners.
Key words: JGSS, xenophobia, education, labor market competition theory, contact theory

排外意識と教育の効果−外国人受け入れに対する日本人の態度の規定要因−
額賀 美紗子
本研究では外国人受け入れに対する日本人の態度の規定要因を探り、特に教育が排外意識に及ぼす影響に注目しながら、その関係を媒介する要因として、労働市場競争理論と接触理論のどちらがより大きな説明力を持っているかを考察する。
分析対象を有職者に限ってロジ
スティック回帰分析を行った結果、年齢、都道府県別外国人居住率、失業不安が排外意識に正の影響を及ぼしているのに対し、教育年数、都道府県別居住外国人に占める韓国・朝鮮籍の割合、幾つかの接触経験は負の影響を及ぼすことが分かった。また、教育が受け入れに正の影響を与えるのは、学歴の高い人ほど外国人との接触経験が多いためであり、市場競争よりも接触経験の方がより多く教育の効果を説明することが確認された。
特に家族や親戚に外国人がいる場合や、近所や職場での友達づきあいなどの密接で個人的な外国人との接触経験が、受け入れに積極的な態度を促進することが明らかになった。
キーワード：JGSS、排外意識、教育、労働市場競争理論、接触理論

191

日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

INTRODUCTION
The increase of the foreign worker population has become a major issue in Japan during the past three
decades. In the late 1980s, nationwide debate on the question about whether to “close” or “open” thecountry to foreign workers reached its peak. The revision of immigration laws that began in 1989 opened
the doors to large-scale immigration of workers of Japanese descent, predominantly from Latin America,and simultaneously closed the doors to others who seek low-wage work in Japan (Douglass and Roberts,
2000). As of 2003, the number of foreign residents in Japan is 1,915,030, which consists 1.5% of thetotal population in Japan (Ministry of Justice, 2003). While the ratio seems extremely small compared toother migrant societies, the recent increase of foreign residents is drastic. Compared to 10 years ago, thenumber of foreign residents has increased 1.5 times. Among the foreign residents, 32% are Koreans who
have resided in Japan for generations, while the rest consists of recent migrants from China (24%),
Brazil (14%), and Philippine (10%) etc. Besides these legal residents, the number of illegal foreign
residents is reported to be over 220,000.
Reflecting the drastic increase of legal and illegal foreigners in Japan, the debate shifted into a newstage. Government and business leaders began to realize that inviting foreign labor force is crucial tosustain Japan’s economy at the present level. Since accepting foreigners is becoming a national necessity
as well as reality, we have come to the point where we need to consider Japanese public opinions towardforeigners, and examine the factors that determine these attitudes. Understanding the nature of public
opinions about the acceptance of foreigners is crucial for policy makers to create effective policy thatwill decrease xenophobia among the Japanese, and create an environment in which the Japanese and theforeigners can live cooperatively. Since I find no systematic study on the determinants of xenophobia inJapan, I examine this issue through the use of the 2002 Japanese General Social Survey, which is the firstlarge-scale national survey to ask attitudes toward foreigners as well as other questions that areconsidered theoretically relevant to such attitudes.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKIn the U.S., Canada, and Europe, there are certain numbers of literatures that examined survey data on
individual attitudes toward immigration, focusing on the determinants of anti-immigrant sentiments.
These studies have concluded that education (especially higher education) plays a key role in reducing
oppositional attitudes toward immigrants (Hainmueller & Hiscox 2004; Hjerm, 2001; Chandler&Tsai,
2001; Sheve and Slaughter 2001a; Case et.al., 1989). For instance, Hjerm (2001) compares therelationship between education and anti-immigrant sentiments across ten Western countries, and findsthat despite substantial differences in educational systems, education significantly reduces the degrees ofxenophobia in all ten countries.
While positive relationship between education and pro-immigration attitudes were found in almost all thestudies, the interpretation of education effects on xenophobia is controversial (Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2004;
Chandler&Tsai, 2001; Fetzer 2000; Case et. al. 1989). There are two opposing views that attempt to takeaccount of the relationship between education and anti-immigrant sentiment.
One possible account is offered by labor market competition theory. What is critical in this respect is thethreat to native workers’ economic well being caused by immigration. The theory assumes that immigrants,
who are often willing to work at the low wage and filling positions demanding few skills, will reduce thenative-born working class wages and take away their jobs (Fetzer, 2000). In this view, people who are poorly
educated and thus remain at the bottom of the occupational ladder have to compete with the newcomer
foreigners in the labor market. For the sake of defending economic self-interest, the poorly educated willshow oppositional attitudes toward foreigners. Taking this view, Sheve and Slaughter (2001) show that192

日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

anti-immigrant sentiments arise among the economically disadvantaged, and thus argue that the observed
negative association between education levels and anti-immigration sentiments reflect labor market dynamics.
Alternative explanation is provided by what is known as contact theory, which developed out of thestudy of racial prejudice (Ihlanfeldt & Scafidi 2001; Allport, 1971). Proponents of this view posit thatinterracial contact acts to break down racial prejudice. Allport (1971) notes the importance of the natureof the contact, and distinguishes between “true acquaintance” (eg. being entertained as a dinner guest in
someone’s home) and “casual contact” (e.g. passing someone on the street). He maintains that while true
acquaintance works to reduce prejudice, superficial casual contact actually increases it, because simply
seeing a “visible out-group member” brings “to mind a recollection of rumor, hearsay, tradition, orstereotype by which this out-group is known (Allport 1979:263).” Contact theory sees that educationencourages people to generate more diverse and cosmopolitan network and contact. Studies on attitudes
toward immigrants that base their argument on contact theory points out that the highly educated people
are more likely to support immigrants, because they are likely to have more cosmopolitan network thatwill generate tolerance and pro-outsider views of the world (Gang et al. 2002; Chandler and Tsai 2001;
Espenshade and Hempstead 1996; Espenshade and Calhoun 1993).
I draw upon these works to examine the factors influencing Japanese attitudes toward foreigners. First
task of the paper is to clarify the effects of education on xenophobia. Does education work to decrease
opposition toward foreigners in Japan as well? Furthermore, previous studies have pointed out that the effectof education is not always linear. For instance, Chandler and Tsai (2001) reports that high school graduateswere the least group to support immigrants in the U.S. Following this argument, I am going to test whether the
linear relationship between education and xenophobia holds in Japan.
Next, there is a question about the interpretation of education effect. Is xenophobia determined mostly by
the threat of economic competition, felt most acutely among less educated individuals? Or, is it a lack ofcontact with foreigners, which the less educated are least likely to experience? One way to test the labormarket theory is to divide the survey sample into a set of respondents currently in the labor force (including
those currently looking for job) and those out of the labor force, and compare if the relationship between
education and anti-immigration sentiment holds for both subsamples (Scheve and Slaughter, 2001). However,as Hainmueller and Hiscox (2004) point out, the problem about this approach is that there are substantial
differences in age and gender between the two groups, which are highly likely to affect the effect of education
on anti-immigration sentiment. Rather than dividing the sample into two groups, I chose to examine only
those who are currently employed, and see which of the theory is more applicable to this group of sample.
My hypothesis is that like other Western countries, as the level of education increases, people become
more supportive of foreigners in Japan as well. I assume this relationship is more accounted for by contact
theory rather than labor market theory. The latter probably has a weaker impact on attitudes toward foreigners,
because the number of foreigners in Japan is still relatively few, and people may not directly associateforeigners with economic threat. Contact theory should be more plausible in explaining the positive effect ofeducation, since in a country where foreigners are still small in its number, education should play a major rolein providing people with access to generate true acquaintance with foreigners.

DATA and VARIABLES
The study draws data from the 2002 Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS), which closely replicates
the GSS in the United States for a comparative purpose. In 2002, 5,000 Japanese adults between the agesof 20 and 89 were selected on the basis of two-stage stratified random sampling. The response rate was62%. The resulting samples of 2,953 individuals were asked a series of questions in interviews andquestionnaires. In this study, I only analyze those who are currently in the labor force (1,809 respondents,

193

日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

61% of the total). Excluding missing data, I was left with 1,548 cases for analysis.
T a b le1 : D escrip tiv e S ta tistics fo r
V a ria b les in th e A n a ly sis (N = 1 ,5 4 8 )V a ria b les
X eno p ho b ia
A ge
S ex
M ale
F em ale
Y ears o f E d ucatio n
L evel o f E d ucatio n
L ess than high scho o l
H igh scho o l grad uate
Junio r C o llege G rad uate
B .A . o r m o re
F o reign R esid ents in P refecture
K o rean R esid ents in P refecture
F ear o f L o sing Jo b
W o rked to gether
S tud ied T o gether
F o reign F riend s
F o reigner in F am ily o r R elative
H ello to F o reigner
Internatio nal E xchange activity
O ther co -p articip ating A ctivity

M EAN

SD

%

－
4 3 .4－
1 3 .953－－－
1 3 .0

－
－
2 .4

58
42
－

－
－
－
－
1 .5
3 1 .0
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－

－
－
－
－
0 .8
1 8 .0
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－

13
48
12
27
－
－
21
22
13
12
6
13
6
7

*D ata are w eigh ted .

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for variables used in the analysis1. Mean and standard
deviation are shown for continuous variables, and the percentage in the category is shown for categoricalvariables. Xenophobia is my dependent variable, and the rest are independent variables.As forxenophobia, the JGSS 2002 included a question: “Do you approve or oppose foreigners increasing inyour town?” I excluded cases where the respondents did not offer an answer. Since this is the only
question in the survey that asked about the attitudes toward foreigners, I use this single question as ameasure of xenophobia. A dichotomous answer is coded “1” if the respondents answered opposition to
the increase of foreigners, and “0” if the respondents answered approval. From Table 1, pros (47%) andcons (53%) regarding the acceptance of foreigners are almost equal in numbers among the Japanese in
the labor force. Here, since the question did not specify nationality or any other characters of foreigners(eg. SES), it is important to keep in mind that the dependent variable is a measure of people’s
oppositional attitudes toward “generic” foreigners.
For education, I recoded information on respondent’s academic credentials into years of education
as well as into four levels of education. The latter is coded as four dummies with B.A. or more as thereference category.
Fear of losing job is used to measure economic threat. Espenshade & Hempstead (1996) and Chandler &Tsai (2001) used perceived national economy as a measure of economic threat. However, since the JGSS 2002
did not contain a question about perceptions of economy, I used respondent’s fear of losing job instead.
Respondents were asked, “Do you think there is a possibility that you will lose job within an year?” I
collapsed “Quite much” and “A little” answers, and coded “1,” while collapsing “Not much” and “Not at all”
answers, and coded “0.” Don’t know answers and no responses are excluded as missing data. Table 1 showsthat about 21% of the respondents answered that they were afraid of losing their job2.
Contact with foreigners is measured by seven questions in the JGSS 2002. Respondents were asked,“Do you have opportunities to meet foreigners in your everyday life? Check all that applies to yourexperience,” and were given seven categories: “Work(ed) together,” “Study/studied together at school,”“Have/had (a) foreign friend(s),” “Being married to or have relatives married to a foreigner,” “Say/said

194日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

hello to foreigners in the community,” “Participated with foreigners in clubs or community activities that
aimed at international exchange,” and “Participated with foreigners in clubs or community activities that
aimed at other than international exchange.” For each question, “1” is coded if the respondents answered“Yes,” and “0” if “No”. Table 1 shows that people were most likely to meet foreigners as coworkers at
workplace (21%), followed by as classmates at school (13%), close neighbors (13%), and as friends(12%). The rest of the experiences were relatively not very common. About 6-7% of the respondents met
foreigners in clubs or community activity, and about 6% had a foreigner in their family3.
Several other factors are considered as control variables. Respondents’ residential demographics arelikely to affect the attitudes toward foreigners as well as the contact with foreigners and fear of losing job(Fetzer 2000; Gang 1994). Unfortunately, the JGSS data did not contain any information about the
number of foreigners at a neighborhood level. Thus, I drew data from the survey led by the Ministry ofJustice (2002), and included in my analysis the ratio of foreign residents living in respondent’s prefecture.
Furthermore, one might expect that the characteristics of foreigners in the respondents’ region would
have impact upon xenophobia. Hence, I included the ratio of Koreans among foreign residents living in
respondent’s prefecture. The ratio of other ethnic groups (eg. Chinese, Brazilian, South East Asians) did
not have significant effects, and therefore they were not used.
Finally, since previous studies have identified that age and sex have significant impact upon
attitudes toward immigrants, I included respondent’s age (in years) and sex (male=1) in my analysis.
In the following section, I first take up each proposed independent variable and cross-tabulate itwith xenophobia. I then use logistic regression to assess the linear effect of education on xenophobia, netof other effects. Then I compare the extent to which economic and contact factors mediate the effect ofeducation on xenophobia. Finally, I present a full regression model to identify crucial factors that
determine people’s attitudes toward foreigners. Weighted observations were used in the cross-tabulation
as well as in the logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS
1. Results from Cross-tabulation
Table 2 shows the result of cross-tabulation of xenophobia by selected variables.
Age is clearly associated with people’s attitude toward the acceptance of foreigners. Older people
tend to be more opposed to foreigners than the younger ones. Almost 70% of those who are age 50 andolder shows oppositional attitude toward foreigners, compared to only 38% of those who are in their
twenties. On the other hand, sex does not seem to affect people’s attitude toward the acceptance of
foreigners. Men are slightly more likely to oppose foreigners than women, but the difference is notstatistically significant.
As for education, we see that those who graduated from junior college tend to be the least likely
group to oppose foreigners, followed by those with B.A. and advanced degrees, high school graduates,
and finally those with less than high school education. The difference between those with less than highschool education and those with college education is striking. While nearly two-thirds of the formergroup shows negative attitudes foreigners, only less than half of the latter group does so. Since juniorcollege graduates are less likely to oppose foreigners than college graduates, we are not sure if people
tend to show less opposition to foreigners as the level of education increases, net of other effects. I will
come back to this question in the next section.

195

日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

Table2: Per Cent Xenophobia by Selected Variables (N=1,548)
Per cent Percentage
Xenophobia
Base
Age
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65 & over

38
47
52
67
68

(228)
(276)
(364)
(547)
(133)

Sex
Male
Female

55
51

(690)
(858)

Level of Education
Less than High School
High School Graduate
Junior College Graduate
B.A. or more

72
55
42
46

(244)
(740)
(184)
(380)

Foreign Residents in R's Prefecture
Below 2%More than 2%

47
57

(574)
(974)

Koreans among Foreigners in R's Prefecture
Below 20%
20-40%
more than 40%

59
52
49

(326)
(703)
(519)

Fear of losing job
Yes
No

62
51

(322)
(1,226)

47
55

(319)
(1,229)

39
56

(173)
(1,375)

33
56

(174)
(1,374)

40
54

(85)
(1,463)

43
55

(206)
(1,342)

36
55

(95)
(1,453)

36
55

(101)
(1,447)53(1,548)

Contact with foreigners
A. Worked together
Yes
No
B. Studied together
Yes
No
C. Foreign Friends
YesNo
D. Foreigner in Family or Relatives
Yes
No
F. Hello to Foreigners in Neighborhood
Yes
No
G. International Exchange Activity
Yes
No
H. Other Co-participating Activity
Yes
No

TOTAL

chipsquare d.f. value
75.33

4

.000

2.67

1

.102

47.60

3

.000

12.59

1

.000

11.56

2

.003

13.72

1

.003

7.06

1

.008

16.47

1

.000

38.97

1

.000

6.29

1

.012

11.29

1

.001

12.69

1

.000

13.97

1

.000

1.Percentage based on weighted frequencies.
2.Percentage base shows unweighted frequencies.

The ratio of foreign residents living in respondent’s prefecture is positively associated withxenophobia. More foreigners in the prefecture promote more negative attitudes toward accepting
foreigners among the Japanese residents4.
People living in a prefecture with higher proportion of Korean residents tend to be more supportiveof foreigners. This holds true even after controlling for the number of foreign residents, which I willshow in the following sections. This is an interesting result, especially when we consider that otherethnic groups did not have significant impact upon xenophobia, net of the number of foreigners in the
respondents’ prefecture. What is special about the prefectures with many Koreans, who are the oldest
ethnic group in Japan? One possible interpretation is that these prefectures, which are concentrated inwestern Japan, have become the hubs of civil rights movement that strive for dismantling institutional196

日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

discrimination and racism against Koreans since the 1970s (Park, 1999). The Korean grassroots
movement started to involve Japanese residents in the late 1970s, and they together challenged
institutional barriers that prohibited Koreans from practicing equal rights. The Korean-concentrated
prefectures have been the cutting-edge of Japan’s multiculturalism, and that we can assume that suchenvironment socialize the residents to be more tolerant of cultural diversity.
Fear of losing job certainly contributes to xenophobia. On the other hand, we see that sevenvariables that describe different types of contacts with foreigners are all negatively associated withxenophobia.
2. Assessing the Linear Effects of Education on Attitudes toward foreigners
The next step is to examine the effect of education on xenophobia, net of individual’s social background.
Logistic regression model is used for this purpose. The log odds of xenophobia are regressed on years ofeducation, age, and sex, and the result is shown in Model 1 in Table 3. We see that the increase in theyears of education leads to significantly lower log odds of opposing foreigners, holding constant age andsex. For instance, the predicted probability of xenophobia for an average (=43) year old individual who
has only 9 years of schooling is 63%, compared to 56% for a 43 year-old with a high school degree, and
47% for a 43 year-old with a bachelors degree5.
Particular interest here is whether education really has a linear effect on the attitudes. For example, theresult of cross tabulation suggests the possibility that only less than high school education has significant
effect on xenophobia. To test this, I created Model 2, which posits variation in the level of education around
any linear trend in the log odds of xenophobia. If substantively sensible deviations from linearity are observed,
Model 2 might be accepted as a new model. The assumption of linearity can be tested via adjusted Wald test6,
by examining whether the coefficients associated with the dummy variables collectively equal zero. The result
is not statistically significant (F=0.75 with 3, 1545 d.f., p=.522), which suggests that we cannot reject the null
hypothesis. Therefore, I accept a linear-trend model as the most parsimonious model. As the year of education
increases, people are more likely to accept foreigners.
3. What Factors Mediate the Effects of Education on Attitudes toward Foreigners?
Now I consider whether the association between education and xenophobia is better accounted for bylabor market theory or by contact theory. I created two new models for this purpose. Model 3 adds
economic threat measured by “fear of losing job” to Model 1, and test the claim made by labor market
theory, which posits that those who feel economically threatened are more likely to show negative
attitudes toward foreigners. In contrast, Model 4 adds seven contact variables to Model 1, and tests theadequacy of contact theory, which maintains that, the more personal contact with foreigners, the morepositive attitudes toward them. Two demographic variables −the ratio of foreign residents and the ratioof Koreans among foreign residents in the respondent’s prefecture−are added as control variables toboth models at this point.
Comparing Model 3 with Model 1, the result of Wald test indicates that Model 3 fits significantly
better than Model 1 (F=9.52 with 3, 1545 d.f., p=.000). Inspecting the coefficients, I find that economic
threat significantly increases the log odds of being opposed to accepting foreigners, net of sex, age, anddemographic variables. That is, holding other predictors constant, those who feel insecure about theireconomic status are more likely to oppose foreigners. This result seems to be consistent with the claim
posited by the labor market theory.
Moving on to Model 4, which adds contact variables as well as demographic variables to Model 1, I
find that this model also fits better than Model 1 (F=6.29 with 9, 1539 d.f., p=.000). Of the seven contact

197日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

variables, experience of having foreign friends and having a foreigner in family, saying hello to
foreigners, and co-participating in activities with foreigners all significantly contribute to decreasing
xenophobia, net of sex, age, and demographic variables. This result indicates that the more personal andintimate contact with foreigners promote more positive attitudes toward the foreigners, which isconsistent with the contact theory argument.
While the results suggest support for both theories, the effect of education on xenophobia appears tobe better explained by contact theory rather than labor market theory. Comparing Y*-standardized
coefficients7 associated with the years of education in Model1 and Model3, we see that it hardly changes
even after adding economic variable and the two demographic variables (from -.050 to -.049). On theother hand, adding contact variables significantly reduces the effect of education on xenophobia.
Y*-standardized coefficients for the years of education drops from -.050 to -.033 when seven contact
variables and two demographic variables are added to Model 1.
Thus, I conclude that the effect of education on attitudes toward foreigners is better accounted forby people’s contact and experience with foreigners rather than labor market competition. From this result,
it is assumed that more educated people tend to support foreigners coming to Japan not so much because
they feel that they do not need to compete with the foreigners in the labor force, but because they havemore personal contact and experience with foreigners compared to the poorly educated.
4. What Are the Crucial Determinants of Attitudes Toward Foreigners?
Finally, I consider the crucial determinants of people’s attitudes toward accepting foreigners by
examining a full model, which includes all the theoretical variables described above. Model 5 in Table 3
shows the result. Wald test indicates that Model 5 fits significantly better than Model 4 (F=9.03 with 1,
1547 d.f., p=.003). From the table, we see that age, education, two demographic variables, economic
threat, and four of the contact variables significantly affect people’s attitudes toward foreigners.
The positive effects of increasing years of education in diminishing xenophobia remains, even after
including economic and contact factors in the model. The result suggests the possibility of other factorsthat mediate the effects of education on the attitudes toward foreigners.
Respondent’s demographic characteristics also have significant impact. People living in a prefecturewith more foreigners are more likely to oppose foreigners, net of all other effects. The result is consistent
with contact theory, which states that increasing experiences of superficial contact such as passing byforeigners on the street rather enhances xenophobia (Allport, 1954). On the other hand, we also see thatpeople living in a prefecture with more Koreans are more likely to be pro-foreigners, holding constant allother effects. Aforementioned, multiculturalism and civil rights movement have developed in these
Korean-concentrated prefectures, and the residents may be more likely to be exposed to cosmopolitan
values in their everyday life environment.
Among economic and contact variables, I compare Y*-standardized coefficients to examine therelative magnitude of each variable’s effect on xenophobia. From the table, we see that having foreign
friends has the largest impact with Y*-standardized coefficient of -.336. This is followed by being
married to or having a relative married to a foreigner. Next comes an economic factor, with thecoefficients of .233. Then, this is followed by another two contact variables: saying hello to foreigners,
and by working together with a foreigner. These results again show more support for contact theory thanlabor market theory. The effect of friendship with foreigners on attitudes is remarkable. Having foreign
friends reduces the odds of opposing foreigners by 46%, net of all other variables. On the other hand,
economic threat increases the odds of xenophobia by 1.5, net of other predictors. This is to say that notexperiencing economic threat reduces the odds of xenophobia by 35%, holding constant other predictors.

198日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

Table 3. Effect Parameters for Various Models Predicting Xenophobia (N=1,548)
Model 1
Variableb-.046Intercept
.029
Age
Sex
Female
Male
.214
-.090
Years of Education
Level of Education
Less than High School
High School Graduate
Junior College Graduate
B.A. or more
Foreign Residents in Region
Korean Residents in Region
Fear of Losing Job
Worked Together
Studied Together
Foreign Friends
Foreigner in Family or Relatives
Hello to Foreigners
International Exchange Activity
Other Co-participating Activity
F -ratio
Degrees of Freedom

std.
error

p

Model 2
Y*-std.
coef.

b

std.
error

Model 3
p

b

std.
error

p

Model 4
Y*-std.
coef.

b

std.
error

p

Model 5
Y*-std.
coef.

b

std.
error

p

Y*-std.
coef.

exp(b).431 .916 -.025 -1.399 .119 .554
.004 .000 .016 .0278 .005 .000-.237 .278 .294 -.850.029 .005 .000 .015-.283 .260 .533 -.154 -1.221 .458 .319 -.248.030 .005 .000 .017 .030 .004 .000 .017 1.031.115 .063 .118.026 .000 -.050.210 .121 .067 .088-.090 .026 .001 -.049.169 .119 .157 .092-.061 .027 .024 -.033.162 .120 .174 .088 1.176-.054 .027 .046 -.029 .947

.293 .079 .000 .161-.011 .003 .001 -.006.418 .142 .003 .230

.321
-.012
-.261
-.086
-.644
-.512
-.377
-.307
-.525

.000 .175.000 -.007.077 -.142.660 -.047.001 -.351.047 -.279.027 -.205.260 -.167.038 -.286

.326
-.013
.429
-.307
-.090
-.620
-.538
-.395
-.280
-.499

.000

10.09
13, 1535

24.92
3, 1545.176 .119 .139.010 .160 .953
.776 1.175 .509
.354 .687 .606-.015 .404 .970
-

.000

13.29
6, 1542.000 16.63
6, 1542*Data are weighted.

199

.000

.082
.003
.148
.194
.199
.258
.171
.272
.253

10.17
12, 1536

.082
.003
.143
.150
.195
.200
.258
.170
.272
.256

.000 .177 1.386.000 -.007 .987
.003 .233 1.535.040 -.166 .736
.641 -.049 .913
.002 -.336 .538
.037 -.291 .584
.021 -.214 .674
.304 -.152 .756
.052 -.270 .607.000

日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

While these results do not negate labor market theory, they suggest that economic factor plays less majorrole in determining attitudes toward foreigners than experience with foreigners.
Now I look into the nature of experiences that contribute to positive attitudes toward accepting
foreigners. The strong effects of having foreign friends and having a foreigner in family or relatives on
reducing xenophobia indicate that friendship and family ties with foreigners are crucial factors
promoting positive attitudes toward accepting foreigners. These social ties imply stronger relationships
than “true acquaintance” which contact theory argues as important in reducing prejudice. The result alsosuggests the importance of neighborhood contact. Saying hello to the foreigners in neighborhood reduces
the odds of xenophobia by 33%, net of all other predictors in the model. Finally, working together
reduces the odds of xenophobia by 26%, holding constant all other predictors in the model. We see thatonce economic threat is introduced to the model, the effects of working together change from
non-significant to significant. Interdependency and shared goals often characterize workplace, thereby itis assumed that the Japanese and the foreigners generate true acquaintance in such cooperative working
environment.

CONCLUSION
Three things were found in this study. First, increase in the years of schooling significantly reduces
xenophobia among the Japanese in the labor force. This result is consistent with the findings in other
Western countries. Secondly, the results indicate that the effects of education on attitudes towardforeigners act through contact with foreigners, rather than through economic self-interest. The better
educated tend to be more pro-foreigners not so much because they have less fears of labor market
competition, but rather because they have more cosmopolitan networks and contacts. This finding
suggests that higher education provides people with more opportunities to meet and interact withforeigners. Finally, analysis of full model reveals crucial determinants of Japanese attitudes towardforeigners. Age, ratio of foreign residents in the prefecture, and economic threat are all positively
associated with xenophobia, whereas the ratio of Korean residents in the prefecture and several contact
factors are all positively associated with pro-foreign attitudes. Although the result indicates that the
dynamics of labor market competition and contact with foreigners are both crucial determinants, I findthat contact theory provides a better explanation of xenophobia than labor market theory. Strong social
bonds such as friendship and family ties with foreigners are the most important factors in reducing
xenophobia. Contact with foreigners in neighborhood and workplace is also important, provided that theenvironment is ethnically integrated to the extent that it generates true acquaintance between theJapanese and the foreigners. The fact that the number of foreigners at prefecture level is positively
associated with xenophobia also suggests that it is personal contact and acquaintanceship that promotetolerance and friendly attitudes toward foreigners. As contact theory posits, superficial casual contact
seems more likely to increase prejudice against foreigners.
Policy implication from these findings is that it is necessary to create more opportunities for theJapanese to meet and exchange words with foreigners in a non-threatening everyday environment.
School (especially at elementary and junior high school), neighborhood, and workplace are where
government programs can intervene and provide institutional support to increase friendly interaction
between the Japanese and the foreigners.
My study is limited to the extent that it only provides the determinants of people’s attitudes toward“generic” foreigners. Previous studies have shown that people have different attitudes toward different
types of immigrants (eg. ethnic differences as well as SES differences. See Fetzer, 2000; Hainmueller et.
al. forthcoming). Survey data that allows examining respondent’s views about foreigners from different

200日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

countries will be necessary for the further investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) are designed and carried out at the Institute of Regional
Studies at Osaka University of Commerce in collaboration with the Institute of Social Science at the
University of Tokyo under the direction of Ichiro TANIOKA, Michio NITTA, Hiroki SATO and Noriko
IWAI with Project Manager, Minae OSAWA. The project is financially assisted by Gakujutsu Frontier
Grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology for 1999-2003
academic years, and the datasets are compiled and distributed by SSJ Data Archive, Information Center
for Social Science Research on Japan, Institute of Social Science, the University of Tokyo.
I gratefully thank Donald Treiman for his detailed comments and helpful suggestions on my draft.

NOTE
1. All the data are weighted by the WEIGHT variable included in the JGSS 2002 data.
2. Another way to measure economic threat is using respondent’s income (Chandler & Tsai, 2001), but since it was
not a statistically significant predictor of xenophobia in any of my models, it was dropped from the subsequent
analysis.
3. It is important to point out that cause-effect relationship between contact and attitudes toward foreigners is notvery clear. Pettigrew (1986), for instance, warns that some findings of prejudice can be interpreted not as resultsof contact but as indications that more tolerant people seek contact with outsiders (also see Ihlanfeldt and Scafidi
2002). While paying attention to this point, since the respondents were asked “past experience” with foreigners,
which happened before they made decisions about their attitudes toward foreigners, the study assumes thatcause-effect direction flows from contact to attitudes.
4. Since foreigners are more likely to be concentrated in big urban cities, one might suspect that it is not the numberof foreigners, but the population size and the level of urbanization that is positively associated with xenophobia.
However, the size and the character (urban/rural) of the respondents’ residential area did not have significant
impact upon xenophobia in any of my models, and the effect of the ratio of foreign residents in the respondents’prefecture remained significant.
5. The probability = 100*[odds/(1+odds)]. For a 43 year-old individual with 9 years of education, the estimated log
odds of opposing foreigners is -.046+.029*43+.21*.58-.09*9=.513. Then, the estimated odds is Exp(.513)=1.67,
which leads us to calculate the probability 100*[1.67/(1+1.67)]=62.5%.
6. When using weighted data as in this study, adjusted Walt test should be used to choose a preferred model insteadof utilizing a pseudo log-likelihood for which the relation to chi-square does not hold (Treiman 2005).
7. Y*-standardized coefficients indicate the expected change in the standard deviation of the latent dependent
variable for a one-unit change in the independent variable. This is an extremely useful way to compare the effectof categorical variables within and across the models, since full standardization is not appropriate for categoricalvariables in that they are affected by the relative size of the category as well as by the size of metric effect (seeTreiman, 2005).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
Case, Charles E., Andrew M. Greeley, Stephan Fuchs. 1989. “Social Determinants of Racial Prejudice.”
Sociological Perspectives. 32(4): 469-83.
Chandler, Charles R. and Yung-mei Tsai. 2001. “Social Factors Influencing Immigration Attitudes: An
Analysis of Data from the General Social Survey.” The Social Science Journal 38:177-188.

201

日本版 General Social Surveys 研究論文集[5] JGSS で見た日本人の意識と行動 JGSS Research Series No.2

Douglass, Mike and Glenda S. Roberts. 2000. “Japan in a Global Age of Migration.” Pp.3-37 in Mike
Douglass and Glenda S. Roberts (eds.) Japan and Global Migration: Foreign Workers and the Adventof a Multicultural Society. New York: Routledge.
Espenshade, Thomas J. and Katherine Hempstead. 1996. “Contemporary American Attitudes Toward
U.S. Immigration.” International Migration Review 30(2): 535-570.
Espenshade, Thomas J. and Charles A. Calhoun.1993. “An Analysis of Public Opinion Toward
Undocumented Immigration.” Population Research and Policy Review 12:189-224.
Fetzer, Joel S. 2000. Public Attitudes toward Immigration in the United States, France, and Germany.
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gang, Ira N. 1994. “Unemployment and Attitudes towards Foreigners in Germany.” Pp.121-154 in
Gunter Steinmann and Ralf E. Ulrich (eds.), The Economic Consequences of Immigration to Germany.
Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Hainmueller, Jens and Michael J. Hiscox. 2004. “Educated Preferences: Explaining Attitudes Toward
Immigration in Europe.” (paper currently under review)
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~hiscox/HainmuellerHiscox.pdf
Hjerm, Mikael. 2001. “Education, Xenophobia and Nationalism: A Comparative Analysis.” Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies. 27(1):37-60.
Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. and Benjamin P. Scafidi. 2002. “The Neighborhood Contact Hypothesis: Evidence
from the Multicity Study of Urban Inequality.” Urban Studies 39(4):619-641.
Ministry of Justice. 2003. Statistics of Foreign Residents in Japan in 2003.
http://www.moj.go.jp/PRESS/040611-1/040611-1.html
Park, Il. 1999. <Zainichi> to iu ikikata: Sai to byoudo no jilenma. (Living as “Zainichi”: Dilemma
between difference and equity.) Tokyo: Kodansya.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1986. “The Intergroup Contact Hypothesis Reconsidered.” Pp.169-195 in Miles
Hewstone and Rupert Brown (eds), Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Matthew J. Slaughter. 2001. “Labor Market Competition and Individual
Preferences over Immigration Policy.” Review of Economics and Statistics 83:133-45.
Treiman, Donald J. 2005. Quantitative Data Analysis Part 2. (A Course Reader for Sociology 212A/B at
UCLA, Winter Quarter 2005.)

202