Xenophobia and social contact in university students

Abstract

Due to increasing human mobility in today’s world, relations among groups are becoming more and more important. As people with different cultures come in close contact they begin to influence inter-group attitudes (Barni et al., 2020; Turner et al., 2020). Xenophobia, which can be described as negative attitudes towards migrants, is one of the most serious problems between groups caused by migration (Peterie & Neil, 2020). This study aims to investigate the relationship between social contact and xenophobic attitudes towards Syrian migrants among university students in Turkey. Data were collected from 142 university students through the Xenophobia Scale and the Revised Social Contact Scale. The data obtained were analyzed by multiple linear regression technique. The findings show that while the quality of social contact significantly predicts the xenophobic attitudes of university students, the quantity of social contact does not. The quality of social contact explains 43% of university students’ xenophobic attitudes. It is understood that the quality of social contact is highly effective in reducing xenophobic attitudes towards migrants.

Full text

INTRODUCTION
Migration is a social phenomenon that causes problems
related to integration, cultural dierences and mental health
as a result of various social, economic, cultural, physical and
psychological factors. With migration, individuals lose the
social structure they are accustomed to, some of their family
members, the language they speak; attitudes, values, social
structure and social support networks of migrating individ-
uals undergo change (Bhugra & Gupta, 2011; de Wit et al.,
2008). This change is generally problematic. On the other
hand, the ability of migrants to eectively cope with this
change and adapt to the host society is closely linked to the
attitudes of individuals in the host society. In other words,
the adaptation process of migrants in the society they settle
in is shaped by the reactions of the individuals in the receiv-
ing society (Chung et al., 2011; Fantino & Colak, 2001). For
instance, overt and covert discrimination and racism nega-
tively inuence migrants’ sense of belonging and well-being
(APA, 2013).
In recent years, there has been growing prejudice against
and fear of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, especial-
ly in Western societies (Barni et al., 2020). In countries such
as the USA, Sweden, Germany and France, far-right and
anti-immigration parties and politicians receive more sup-
port. Similarly, there are governments in Western Europe,
Southern Europe and Scandinavia that include far-right par-
ties. (Georgiadou et al., 2018). The rise of right-wing parties
Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.4p.87
in Europe leads to nationalist discourse and discriminatory
policies directed at foreigners (Conneely, 2019; Ünal, 2014;
Yılmaz, 2008; Zubashvili, 2020). In Turkey, too, the grow-
ing size of the migrant population as a result of external
migration (Directorate of General Migration Management
[DGMM], 2020) gives rise to a more complex social struc-
ture in many cities. Consequently, migrants arriving in
Turkey are observed to face with many problems as well (e.g.
Bozdağ, 2020; Ekici, 2019; Ersoy & Ala, 2019; Gözübüyük
et al., 2019; Serin & Bozdağ, 2020).
Turkey has been faced with a mass inux of migrants in
recent years because of the wars in the neighboring coun-
tries. The number of forced migrants from Syria, one of the
war-torn countries, to Turkey is reported to be 3,587,578 as
of April 2020 (DGMM, 2020). Migrants are exposed to nu-
merous problems as they are forced out of their countries. On
the other hand, the way they are received in the country they
migrate to, and their eorts to integrate into the social and
cultural structure of the host country may aect the problems
they experience to a large extent. In this process, the atti-
tudes of individuals in the host society towards migrants are
of great importance (Staord, 2020; Tartaglia et al., 2020).
While the positive and welcoming attitudes of the members
of the host society facilitate the integration of migrants into
the society, negative and exclusionary attitudes may cause
migrants to experience various problems (Berry & Sabatier,
2010a, 2010b; Williams, 2020). For instance, the study
conducted by Pekerti et al. (2020) to determine the factors
International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies
ISSN: 2202-9478
www.ijels.aiac.org.au
ABSTRACT
Due to increasing human mobility in today’s world, relations among groups are becoming more
and more important. As people with dierent cultures come in close contact they begin to inuence
inter-group attitudes (Barni et al., 2020; Turner et al., 2020). Xenophobia, which can be described
as negative attitudes towards migrants, is one of the most serious problems between groups caused
by migration (Peterie & Neil, 2020). This study aims to investigate the relationship between social
contact and xenophobic attitudes towards Syrian migrants among university students in Turkey.
Data were collected from 142 university students through the Xenophobia Scale and the Revised
Social Contact Scale. The data obtained were analyzed by multiple linear regression technique.
The ndings show that while the quality of social contact signicantly predicts the xenophobic
attitudes of university students, the quantity of social contact does not. The quality of social
contact explains 43% of university students’ xenophobic attitudes. It is understood that the quality
of social contact is highly eective in reducing xenophobic attitudes towards migrants.
Key words: Migration, Xenophobia, Quantity of social contact, Quality of social contact
Xenophobia and Social Contact in University Students
Faruk Bozdağ*
Department of Educational Sciences, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, İstanbul, Turkey
Corresponding author: Faruk Bozdağ, E-mail: faruk.bozdag@istanbul.edu.tr
ARTICLE INFO
Article history
Received: July 29, 2020
Accepted: October 21, 2020
Published: October 31, 2020
Volume: 8 Issue: 4
Conicts of interest: None
Funding: None
This study was presented in the
1st International Congress on
Social Sciences - Humanities
and Education in İstanbul on
22-23 December 2017

88 IJELS 8(4):87-97
facilitating and hindering the acculturation of international
students in Australia revealed that the support network made
up of mixed-nationals and especially host locals reduces the
acculturation stress and facilitates psychological and socio-
cultural adaptation. Perceived negative stereotypes loosen
the ties with the host culture and also strengthen the ties with
ethnic culture. While social resources associated with both
cultures were found to be benecial for acculturation, each
independently contributed to the psychological well-being
of the participants. Communication with the host locals
played a particularly important role in the development of
these resources. This shows the effect of host community
members on the problems experienced by migrants. One
problem that migrants often face is xenophobia. Xenophobic
attitudes towards migrants are gradually increasing across
the world and educational systems are also inuenced by
this rise (Organising Bureau of European School Student
Unions [OBESSU], 2015). Local university students view
international students from dierent nations a threat to their
achievement and group identity. International students’ cul-
tural dierences, lifestyles, in-class and on-campus behav-
iors may become the target of xenophobic attitudes by local
students (Harrison & Peacock, 2010). It can be argued that
because of xenophobic attitudes international students fall
behind on their education, fail to achieve linguistic compe-
tence and make no progress on their literacy skills. When
faced with xenophobic attitudes, migrant students become
distanced from educational environment, causing their in-
tegration with the society to suer. The development of
linguistic and literacy skills in particular helps migrant stu-
dents’ social inclusion in educational environment. Migrant
students have the opportunities in educational institutions to
develop basic life skills required for social inclusion and so-
cial networking (OBESSU, 2015).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Xenophobia is dened as intense antipathy, hatred and fear
of individuals who are perceived as foreigners (Tara, 2011).
Xenophobia, which is a combination of the Greek words
“xenos”, meaning stranger or foreigner, and “phobos”,
meaning fear, is used by many organizations such as IOM,
ILO, OHCHR and UNHCR to refer to hatred of foreigners
(McKinley et al., 2001). Zenophobia has often been asso-
ciated with migrants (Yakushko, 2009). Those perceived
as foreigners are understood to be migrants, refugees, asy-
lum seekers, displaced individuals and non-citizens (Adjai,
2010). Canetti-Nisim et al. (2006) explain that hostile atti-
tudes towards foreigners are dened as xenophobia, as indi-
viduals within the group consider those outside the group as
a threat to their culture, socioeconomic status, identity and
values. In other words, hostile attitudes caused by feelings of
fear, hatred and humiliation towards individuals not belong-
ing to the group are considered as xenophobia.
Among the causes of xenophobia, factors such as eco-
nomic factors, regional migration movements, possible
perceived threat against the culture, political imbalances, re-
ligious doctrines and terrorism come to the fore (Omoluabi,
2008). On the other hand, the factors inuencing xenophobic
attitudes are basically discussed as internal and external
factors. While genetic structure and personality traits are
assessed as internal factors, education and intergroup rela-
tionships are assessed as external factors (Wagner, 2017). In
the context of intergroup relations, it is stated that dominant
groups in the society can approach other groups in a preju-
diced way and exhibit discriminatory attitudes (Case et al.,
2006). For example, a study examining the relationship and
social interaction of university students with foreign stu-
dents in the UK put forth that local students perceive stu-
dents with dierent nationalities as a threat to their academic
achievement and group identity, and exhibit xenophobic atti-
tudes towards them (Harrison & Peacock, 2010). Similar re-
sults were obtained in another study conducted by Genkova
and Grimmelsmann (2020) in Germany. Accordingly, this
study determined that there is a positive association between
the national identity of the host community members and
their xenophobic attitudes and that xenophobia increases
the social distance between migrants and foreigners, and
members of the host society. Thus, individuals who do not
develop an inclusive attitude towards other groups in society
socioculturally have more xenophobic tendencies (Litvinova
& Tarasov, 2012). As Alrababa’h et al., (2020) stated, preju-
dice and xenophobia against the outgroup underlie the oppo-
sition to migration movements in society.
Possible xenophobic attitudes towards migrants may af-
fect them even more negatively considering they are already
in a disadvantaged position. Disadvantaged groups in society
struggle to have the same rights as dominant social groups
that shape social values as well as possessing nancial re-
sources or important social symbols (Sidanius & Pratto,
1999). In this struggle, prejudiced attitudes of individuals in
the group not only lead to discrimination but they also play
an important role in the breakout of conict and violence be-
tween groups (Çuhadar-Gürkaynak, 2012). The solution to
this problem is thought to be dependent on increasing social
contact and developing tolerance among groups.
Social contact refers to real face-to-face interaction be-
tween members of dierent groups (Christ & Kau, 2019).
It has been promoted for years to prevent conict and vi-
olence by improving inter-group relationships (Dovidio
et al., 2003). Social contact, which is dened as the exact
opposite of social distance, reduces bias and discrimination
between groups (Barni et al., 2020; Coban, 2020; Christ &
Kau, 2019; Çuhadar-Gürkaynak, 2012; de Coninck et al.,
2020). On the other hand, it increases mutual trust, solidar-
ity and forgiveness (Coban, 2020; Christ & Kau, 2019).
While social contact reduces prejudice and discrimination,
Beller’s (2020) study revealed that xenophobia generalizes
prejudice and increases discrimination. The aforementioned
study determined that xenophobia also aects well-being
and health negatively and increases violence and aggression.
Considering that xenophobia is dened as hostile attitudes
towards migrants, a negative relationship is expected to exist
between social contact and xenophobia. In other words, it is
predicted that individuals’ xenophobia levels can be lowered
by intensifying social contact.
Reducing xenophobia through social contact also im-
proves migrant students’ education experiences. On the

Xenophobia and Social Contact in University Students 89
other hand, education can help increase social contact and
reduce local students’ xenophobic attitudes. When migrant
students develop their linguistic skills through schooling,
they nd it easier to establish social contact with local stu-
dents. Linguistic obstacles lead to limitations, shortage of
sucient information on the new culture and various prob-
lems in daily life (Björn, 2013; Kim, 2016). Literacy skills
have a considerable impact on the development of migrant
students’ linguistic competence. Literacy refers to the ability
to read, write and speak competently in the host society’s
language in order to communicate, make decisions and solve
problems in the family, at workplace and in public (Wilson,
2002). As their literacy skills improves, migrant students can
cope with problems eectively, stand up for their rights, be-
come integrated into the society and develop interpersonal
communication skills (Larrotta & Chung, 2020). Improved
interpersonal communication skills naturally intensify so-
cial contact and thus reducing local students’ xenophobic
attitudes.
Xenophobic attitudes of individuals in the host society
tend to be inuenced by the convergence of dierent groups
as a consequence of migration. Whether group members
consider their group as superior or not and the quantity and
quality of social contact with other groups are presumed to
have a bearing on individuals’ xenophobic attitudes. While a
search of the literature revealed a limited number of studies
on the relationship between social contact and xenophobic
attitudes (e.g. Brown et al., 2001; DiGiusto & Jolly, 2009;
Jolly & DiGiusto 2014; Ommunds et al., 2013), only one
research study (Padır, 2019) was found to have been con-
ducted in the context of Turkey. Therefore, this study aims to
investigate the relationship between xenophobia expressed
as negative attitudes of members of the host society towards
migrants and social contact, considering the sizeable migrant
population in Turkey. The study also attempts to produce
meaningful ndings regarding the steps to be taken to en-
gender positive relations between the host society and the
migrant community. In addition, the Social Contact Scale
used to collect data for this study was revised and its validity
and reliability analysis was performed.
METHOD
Research Design
This study is designed to explain the relationship between
university students’ xenophobic attitudes and social contact.
In this regard, it is an explanatory correlational research,
one of the types of quantitative methods. Explanatory cor-
relational research aims to determine the degree and the di-
rection of the relationship between two or more variables
(Fraenkel et al., 2011).
Study Group
The study group was determined by convenience sampling
method. In this method, in accordance with the objective of
the research, accessible groups are selected from which com-
prehensive data can be obtained (Fraenkel et al., 2011). In
this context, the researcher collected face-to-face data from
Turkish university students who had Syrian migrant students
in their classes through group practices. The study group of
the research consists of 142 university students, 97 (68%)
females and 45 (32%) males. The age range of the partici-
pants is 18-25 and the average age is 20.33. The participants
are students at a faculty of education and 47% of them are
in rst year, 13% in second year, and 40% are in third year
of their study. The reason the study group was composed of
university students was that the university students represent
a unique demographic structure that can provide inferences
about future trends. It is believed that this group, which will
aect dierent areas of the society in their future profession-
al lives, will also be determinant in attitudes towards mi-
grants in the future.
Data Collection Tools
Xenophobia Scale (XS)
The Xenophobia Scale is a ve-point Likert-type scale de-
veloped by Bozdağ and Kocatürk (2017) to measure individ-
uals’ attitudes towards migrants. The scale developed for this
purpose consists of 18 items. Validity and reliability studies
for the scale were conducted with data collected from 537
participants between the ages of 18-25. Explanatory factor
analysis (AFA) revealed that the scale is made up of three
factors. These are hate, fear and humiliation. It was ob-
served that the rst factor (hate) explained 44.47% of the
variance and that the total variance explained was 55.47%.
Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to de-
termine whether the three-factor structure obtained by the
explanatory factor analysis was conrmed. The obtained
values showed that the structure of the three-factor scale has
acceptable and valid results. Cronbach’s alpha value of the
scale was found to be .87. In this study too, Cronbach’s alpha
value of the scale was calculated as .87.
Each item in the scale is scored as 1 point for the
“Strongly Disagree” option, 2 points for the “Disagree”
op-tion, 3 points for the “Neutral” option, 4 points for the
“Agree” option, and 5 points for the “Strongly agree”
option. Two of the items (7th and 11th items) require
reverse scoring. The lowest score that can be obtained
from the scale is 18 while the highest score is 90, and the
higher is the score, the higher is the level of xenophobia
and vice versa.
Social Contact Scale (SCS)
The Social Contact Scale was developed by Islam and
Hewstone (1993) to measure the social contact between
Muslims and Hindus living in India. While adapting to the
Turkish language by Akbaş (2010), the expressions in the scale
were translated as Alevis-Sunnis in accordance with the pur-
pose of the researcher’s study. In this research, the expression
“Syrian migrants” was used instead of “Alevis-Sunnis”.
The Social Contact Scale consists of two subscales to
measure the quantitative and qualitative aspects of social
contact. The Quantity of Social Contact subscale aims to
measure the frequency of social contact between two groups

90 IJELS 8(4):87-97
whereas the Quality of Social Contact subscale contains
questions regarding the quality of social contact between two
groups. Each subscale contains ve questions. The sixth item
in the scale is calculated by reverse coding. In the Quantity of
Social Contact subscale, each item is evaluated with a Likert-
type ve-point rating ranging from “Never” (1) to “Always”
(5). A high score indicates more frequent social contact with
the other group. In the Quality of Social Contact subscale, on
the other hand, each item is evaluated according to the question
with a Likert-type five-point rating (For example, “Definitely
not equal” (1) and “Definitely equal” (5)). A high score ob-
tained from the subscale indicates a more quality social con-
tact. The total variance explained by the Social Contact
Scale is 62.2%, and the Cronbach Alpha values are calculated
as .83 for each subscale. In this study, since the scale was
revised, validity and reliability analyses were performed.
The results regarding the validity and reliability analysis of
the Revised Social Contact Scale (SCS-R) are provided below.
Validity and reliability analysis results for SCS-R. CFA
was conducted for the validity of the SCS-R. The values
suggested by Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003) (2<X2/df ≤ 3,
.05 < RMSEA ≤ .08, .05 < SRMR ≤.10, .85 ≤ AGFI <.90,
.90 ≤GFI <.95, .95 ≤CFI <.97, .90 ≤NFI <.95, .95 ≤NNFI
<.97) were taken as reference for the model t. As a result of
the CFA in which the two-factor structure was tested, it was
determined that the model (model 1) did not have accept-
able t. Therefore, modication indices were checked and
the model was retested after error covariance was inserted
between the items 2 and 3 as well as 2 and 5 as they measure
the same construct and belong to the same factor. The result-
ing analysis was found to have acceptable t. The results for
the models are given in Table 1 and Table 2.
In Table 2, it can be seen that the standardized factor
loads obtained for SCS-R are between .29 and .83 for the
quantity of social contact subscale and between .31 and .87
for the quality of social contact subscale. The R2 values were
examined to understand to what extent the items explain the
variances in the relevant factor. The R2 values range from .08
to .69 for the quantity of social contact subscale and from
.10 to .80 for the quality of social contact subscale. The z
values of the items were determined between 3.13 and 8.59
for the quantity of social contact, and 3.57 and 3.67 for the
quality of social contact (p <.01). The correlation coecient
between latent variables (quantity of social contact and qual-
ity of social contact) was specied as .42. This shows that
quantity of social contact and quality of social contact are
moderately positively correlate with each other.
Convergent validity of SCS-R. The Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) values for
the convergent validity of the SCS-R were examined. To en-
sure convergent validity, AVE value should be larger than
.50, CR value larger than .70 and AVE value lower than CR
value (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). According to the results,
AVE values were determined as .41 for the quantity of so-
cial contact subscale and .57 for the quality of social contact
subscale while CR values were determined as .75 for the
quantity of social contact subscale and .86 for the quality of
social contact subscale. Since the AVE value for the quantity
of social contact subscale was .41 (<.50), the results showed
that convergent validity was partially met.
Divergent validity of SCS-R. For divergent validity, AVE
value must be bigger than Shared Variance (SV) value (Hair
et al. 2014). On the other hand, Fornell and Larcker (1981)
state that the square roots of AVE value should be bigger
than the correlation coecient between the latent variables
for the divergent validity. The results show that AVE values
of two subscales were bigger than the SV value (.18). In ad-
dition, the square roots of the AVE values of the subscales
(.64 for the quantity of social contact subscale, and .75 for
the quality of social contact subscale) were bigger than the
correlation coecient between the latent variables (.42).
Therefore, the divergent validity of the scale was ensured.
Reliability of SCS-R. Cronbach’s Alpha coecient was
calculated for the reliability of SCS-R. The Cronbach’s
Table 1. Goodness-of-fit indices for the two-factor model of SCS-R
Model X2/df RMSEA SRMR AGFI GFI CFI NFI NNFI
Model 1 2.42 .10 .07 .84 .90 .92 .87 .89
Model 2 1.64 .07 .06 .89 .93 .97 .92 .95
Table 2. Standardized and unstandardized parameter estimates of SCS-R
Factor Item Unstandardized factor loading Standardized factor loading z R2
Quantity of
social contact
S1 1.00 .83 .69
S2 .48 .44 4.72 .19
S3 .84 .73 8.17 .53
S4 .76 .73 8.59 .54
S5 .19 .29 3.13 .08
Quality of social
contact
S6 1.00 .31 .10
S7 2.82 .89 3.67 .80
S8 2.77 .81 3.62 .65
S9 2.59 .87 3.66 .76
S10 2.12 .74 3.57 .55

Xenophobia and Social Contact in University Students 91
Alpha coecients was found to be .75 for the quantity of
social contact subscale. It was calculated .84 for the quality
of social contact subscale.
Procedure and Data Analysis
During the data collection process, the participants were
informed about the rationale of the research and the sig-
nicance of providing sincere responses was explained to
them. The data collection process took approximately two
weeks to complete. After the data collection process was
completed, the data were classied and transferred to SPSS
for analysis. During data classication, missing values (10)
were removed from the data set. Then, statistical analysis
was performed using SPSS 25 and AMOS 24.
Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to de-
termine the relationship between xenophobia and social con-
tact, and conrmatory factor analysis for the validity analysis
of SCS-R. The key assumptions are primarily examined for
the analysis. Accordingly, sample size, univariate and mul-
tivariate outliers, normality, linearity, homoscedasticity,
multicollinearity and independence of errors assumptions
were checked (Field, 2013; Hair et al., 2014; Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2013). Eight outliers were specied and removed
from the data set. The analysis resumed with the remaining
142 data items. The sample size was considered to be suf-
cient based on the criterion of (n ≥ 50 + 8m [number of
independent variables in m]) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
It was observed that the scatter plots of the residuals met the
assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity.
For multicollinearity assumption, it was veried that the cor-
relation coecient between variables is less than .80 (Field,
2013), VIF (Variance Ination Factor) is less than 10 and TV
(Tolerance Value) is greater than .10 (Hair et al., 2014). The
assumption of independence of errors was met by calculat-
ing the Durbin-Watson value as 1.82 (Field, 2013). Mean
and standard deviation values of variables, correlation coef-
cients between variables, TV, VIF, skewness and kurtosis
values are provided in Table 3.
RESULTS
When the mean and standard deviation values of the mea-
surement tools used in the study are examined it is seen that
(Table 3) the mean score for xenophobia is 44.90 (12.65), for
the quantity of social contact 8.54 (3.36) and for the quality of
social contact 16.23 (5.00). There is a signicant weak neg-
ative correlation between university students’ xenophobic
attitudes and the quantity of social contact (r = -.19, p <.05)
while a signicant moderate negative correlation between
university students’ xenophobic attitudes and the quality of
social contact (r = -.66, p <.01). In addition, the items of
the Likert scales used in the study have been given in a table
containing the percentages of the responses (Appendix A).
Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to de-
termine the contribution of the quantity of social contact and
the quality of social contact in explaining xenophobic atti-
tudes of university students. The results are given in Table 4
below.
As seen in Table 4, the quantity of social contact does
not signicantly predict xenophobic attitudes of university
students (β = 0.01, t(139) = 0.19, p > .05). However, the quality
of social contact (β = -0.66, t(139) = -9.87, p < .01) is found
to explain university students’ xenophobic attitudes by 43%
(R2 = .43, F(2, 139) = 53.10, p = .000). The quality of social
contact of university students signicantly negatively pre-
dict their xenophobic attitudes. In other words, as university
students’ quality of social contact with Syrian migrant inten-
sies, their xenophobic attitudes diminish.
DISCUSSION
In this research, the Social Contact Scale, which was de-
veloped by Islam and Hewstone (1993) and adapted to the
Turkish language by Akbaş (2010), was revised and its va-
lidity and reliability analyses were conducted to nd out the
social contact of university students with Syrian migrants.
The results conrmed that the two-factor structure of the
SCS-R has acceptable t. Furthermore, convergent and di-
vergent validity of SCS-R was ensured. Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient was calculated for reliability analysis of SCS-R.
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, which was calculated as .75
for the quantity of social contact and .84 for the quality of
social contact, revealed that the scale is suciently reliable.
Therefore, it can be argued that SCS-R meets the require-
ments to be used to determine the social contacts of individ-
uals with Syrian migrants.
The analysis results of the relationship between univer-
sity students’ xenophobic attitudes and the quantity and the
quality of social contact revealed a weak negative correlation
between xenophobic attitudes and the quantity of social con-
tact, and a moderate negative correlation between xenopho-
bic attitudes and the quality of social contact. It was found
that among the variables only the quality of social contact
signicantly predicts the xenophobic attitudes of university
students. As a result, xenophobic attitudes in university stu-
dents were found to diminish as the intensity of the quality
of social contact grew.
Lack of social contact among social groups causes preju-
dice, dierentiation and increased social distance (Ata et al.,
Table 3. Mean, standard deviation, TV, VIF, skewness and kurtosis values and correlation coefficients between variables
M SD TV VIF Skewness Kurtosis 1 2 3
1. Xenophobia 44.90 12.65 - - .37 -.11 -
2. Quantity 8.54 3.36 .91 1.10 .89 -.18 -.19* -
3. Quality 16.23 5.00 .91 1.10 -.24 -.43 -.66** .31** -
*p<.05, **p<.01, N=142

92 IJELS 8(4):87-97
2009; Barlow et al., 2012). This, in turn, drives discrimi-
nation (Beller, 2020). However, with the establishment of
social contact, faulty generalizations underlying the preju-
dices are noticed and similarities as well as dierences are
discovered (Kotzur et al., 2019). Thus, it is realized that the
other group is not as bad and homogeneous as it is thought
(Çuhadar-Gürkaynak, 2012). This study too conrmed that
establishing social contact (the quantity of social contact)
with migrants can reduce xenophobic attitudes, albeit at
a low level. Consistent with this nding, there are certain
studies that show there is a negative relationship between
the size of the migrant population and xenophobic attitudes
of host society (e.g. DiGiusto & Jolly, 2009; Ha, 2010;
Jolly & DiGiusto, 2014; Wagner et al., 2006). According to
Ommundsen et al.’s (2013) study, as the quantity of social
contact increases, fear-based xenophobic attitudes decrease.
The more important issue is the quality of social contact
(Ahmed, 2017; Dirksmeier, 2014). When a quality social
contact is established, there is a signicant decline in xe-
nophobic attitudes. A study that investigated the xenopho-
bic attitudes towards Syrian refugees in Turkey found that
the quality of social contact lowers xenophobic attitudes.
However, according to the same study, unlike the current
research, the quantity of social contact was found to raise
xenophobic attitudes (Padir, 2019). According to Abrams
(2010), the quality social contact enables the development
of positive attitudes among groups. The results of a study
by Brown et al. (2001) concluded that the quality of social
contact is more eective than the frequency of contact in
relations among groups. In another study conducted with
university students, it was argued that anxiety about being
socially desirable increases xenophobic attitudes (Haque,
2015). In other words, individuals may display negative at-
titudes towards individuals from other groups in order to be
accepted by their own groups and to become popular. Jolly
and DiGiusto (2014) also concluded that individuals display
more xenophobic attitudes towards those outside their group.
Foreign university students are excluded and maltreated by
other students. Cliques are formed to exclude foreign stu-
dents (Singh, 2013). On the other hand, exclusionary atti-
tudes have been found to lose intensity among those who
have friends from the minority group (McLaren, 2003). In
a conducted by Şen (2014), it was observed that the quality
of social contact also lowers discriminative treatment of in-
group members. Therefore, it can be concluded that the re-
sults of earlier research are consistent with the results of this
study in general. The quality of social contact is considered
as an important factor in reducing negative attitudes among
groups.
The reduction in xenophobic attitudes with the height-
ened quality of social contact also positively inuences
educational experiences of migrant students at university.
Linguistic competence and literacy skills of migrant stu-
dents can increase social contact and thus contributing to
the lessening of xenophobic attitudes. According to Larrotta
and Chung (2020), developing linguistic skills of migrant
students and to this end, oering letter writing opportuni-
ties aid interpersonal communication competence. As their
linguistic skills improve, migrants interact more frequently
with members of the host society, establish more contacts
among them and consequently encounter fewer sociocultural
problems (Feliciano, 2001; Yoshida, 2015). Migrant students
gain access to more opportunities and resources when they
learn the language of the host society. This enables them to
fully integrate into social life (Bacquet, 2020). The impact of
linguistic competence and literacy skills in reducing xeno-
phobic attitudes of local students towards migrant students
should not be ignored.
Another factor inuential in intensifying quality social con-
tact in order to lessen xenophobic attitudes towards migrant
students is multicultural education. Multicultural education
helps students develop positive attitudes towards individuals
from dierent cultural groups, reduces discriminatory atti-
tudes and raises tolerance among groups (Köşker & Erdoğan,
2020). In an educational system based on a single culture that
denies existent diversity in social structure, individuals may
develop negative and marginalizing attitudes towards dier-
ent cultural groups (Parekh, 2000). In multicultural education
system, however, reducing xenophobic attitudes becomes
possible by understanding people from dierent nations, re-
specting opposing views and empathizing with people with
dierent lifestyles (Boehnke et al., 1998). Therefore, it is es-
sential that educational institutions adopt a policy based on
multiculturalism and accept dierences as diversity.
CONCLUSION
It is vital that precautions are taken to lower the marginal-
ization of and prejudice against migrants, refugees or asy-
lum seekers arriving in Turkey for various reasons. There
have been warnings against possible rise in concrete nega-
tive incidents where foreigners such as migrants, refugees or
asylum seekers are labelled as the enemy and an entity that
precautions need to be taken against (Ünal, 2014). At this
point, the ndings of the current study suggest increasing
the quality of social contact between Syrian migrant univer-
sity students in Turkey and Turkish university students. This
should certainly not be limited to university students, and
quality social contact should be maintained between indi-
viduals who are perceived as foreigners in dierent parts of
society and members of the host society. Many studies in
the literature provide evidence that social contact is eec-
tive in precluding discrimination and prejudice (e.g. Barni
et al., 2020; Coban, 2020; Christ & Kau, 2019; de Coninck
et al., 2020). This study also shows that quality social con-
tact is highly eective in preventing the negative impact of
Table 4. Multiple regression analysis results for
predicting university students’ xenophobic attitudes
Predictor variable B SE B β
Constant 71.66 3.04 -
Quantity of social contact 0.048 12.25 0.013
Quality of social contact -1.675 12.17 -0.66*
R.66
R2.43
* p < .001

Xenophobia and Social Contact in University Students 93
xenophobia, which is a more radical exclusionary attitude
than discrimination and prejudice.
The four basic conditions stated by Allport (1954) for so-
cial contact between groups to be eective were conrmed
in many studies (e.g. Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006). Accordingly, the fact that the two groups have equal
status, have common goals, cooperate in line with these
goals, and support institutional and structural positive rela-
tionships ensure eective social contact. On the other hand,
it is stated that meeting these four conditions strengthens
the eects of social contact, however, even if these condi-
tions are not present, social contact yields eective results
(Everett and Onu, 2013; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). In addi-
tion to direct contact, indirect contact (e.g. extended, imag-
inary) is also reported to produce eective results (Christ &
Kau, 2019; de Coninck et al., 2020). Therefore, it is im-
portant to increase the direct and indirect social contact of
university students with migrant students. In this context,
various group works can be organized in universities in or-
der to increase the interaction between migrant students
and students from the host community. Through these group
works, cooperation can be improved in line with common
goals. Teaching faculty members at universities can make
an effort to create a positive interaction environment be-
tween migrant students in their classes and students from
the host community. Host community students’ awareness
about the lifestyles and cultures of migrant students can
be raised through print and visual media channels.
There are certain limitations of the current research. It can
be considered as a limitation that the participants included
only university students and that the research is a cross-sec-
tional study. Further studies can be conducted by collecting
data from dierent segments of society in order to explore
xenophobic attitudes in a broader context. It is important to
research attitudes through longitudinal studies in order to
corroborate ndings and reveal more valid results. Using
convenience sampling method in the study can be considered
as a limitation in terms of the generalizability of the study
results. The variables predicting xenophobic attitudes in the
current study are limited to the quantity of social contact and
the quality of social contact. Studies in which more variables
are used to predict xenophobic attitudes of individuals in the
host society are recommended. These variables can be at
the individual level or in conjunction with those at the en-
vironmental level. Finally, mixed method studies that inte-
grate quantitative and qualitative data analyses are suggested.
Quantitative data analysis may be employed to nd out what
variables predict xenophobic attitudes of individuals in the
host society and qualitative data analysis to determine what
kind of xenophobic attitudes migrants face. Various model
studies can be conducted based on the multi-factor variables
that aect xenophobic attitudes. Thus, a holistic perspective
on the psychosocial eects of xenophobia can be achieved.
REFERENCES
Abrams, D. (2010). Processes of prejudices: Theory, ev-
idence and intervention. Equality and Human Rights
Commission Research Report 56.
Adjai, C. (2010). The halo slips? Xenophobia and its con-
sequences in the new South Africa. [Master’s thesis,
University of Leicester]. University of Leicester Digital
Archive. https://hdl.handle.net/2381/8579
Ahmed, S. (2017). News media, movies, and anti-Muslim
prejudice: Investigating the role of social contact. Asian
Journal of Communication, 27(5), 536-553. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01292986.2017.1339720
Akbaş, G. (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations:
The case of Alevis and Sunnis in Amasya (Publication
No. 277668) [Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical
University]. YOK Thesis Center.
Alrababa’h, A., Dillon, A., Williamson, S., Hainmueller, J.,
Hangartner, D., & Weinstein, J. (2020). Attitudes to-
ward migrants in a highly impacted economy: Evidence
from the Syrian refugee crisis in Jordan. Comparative
Political Studies.1-49. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/ab-
stract=3325362
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wes-
ley Publishing.
Ata, A., Bastian, B., & Lusher, D. (2009). Intergroup con-
tact in context: The mediating role of social norms and
group-based perceptions on the contact–prejudice link.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33,
498-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.05.001
American Psychological Association (APA) (2013). Work-
ing with immigrant-origin clients: An update for mental
health professionals. APA.
Bacquet, G. (2020). Can the dimensions of identity, invest-
ment and empowerment increase social ınclusion for
second-language learners?–Moving towards the cre-
ation of a conceptual framework. International Journal
of Education and Literacy Studies, 8(2), 10-15. http://
dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.2p.10
Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J.,
Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., Rubin. M., & Sibley,
C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative con-
tact predicts increased prejudice more than positive con-
tact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629-1643. h t t p s : / / d o i .
org/10.1177/0146167212457953
Barni, D., Cavazza, N., Russo, S., Vieno, A., & Roccato, M.
(2020). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immi-
grants: A multinational, multilevel test of the moderat-
ing role of individual conservative values and cultural
embeddedness. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 75, 106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin-
trel.2020.02.004
Beller, J. (2020). Xenophobia trends in Germany: Increasing
negative attitude towards foreigners in younger birth co-
horts. The Social Science Journal, 1-7. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/03623319.2020.1735855
Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010a). Acculturation, discrim-
ination, and adaptation among second generation immi-
grant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 191-207. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.11.007
Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010b). The acculturation and
adaptation of second-generation immigrant youth in

94 IJELS 8(4):87-97
Toronto and Montreal. In S. S. Chuang & R. P. More-
no (Eds.), Immigrant children: change, adaptation, and
cultural transformation (pp. 125-148). United Kingdom:
Lexington Books.
Björn, G. J. (2013). Refugee children and families: Psycholog-
ical health, brief family intervention and ethicalaspects
[Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University]. Linköping
University Digital Archive. ht tp://l iu.div a-port al.
org/smash/get/diva2:646924/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Boehnke, K., Hagan, J., & Heer, G. (1998). On the de-
velopment of xenophobia in Germany: The adolescent
years. Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 585-602. https://
doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.841998084
Bozdağ, F. (2020). Mülteci çocukların psikolojik sağlam-
lıkları ve kültürlenme stratejileri (Tez No. 619369)
[Doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez
Merkezi.
Bozdağ, F., & Kocatürk, M. (2017). Development of Xe-
nophobia Scale: Validity and reliability analysis. Jour-
nal of International Social Research, 10(52), 615-620.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1921
Bhugra, D., & Gupta, S. (2011). Introduction: Setting the
scene. In Bhugra, D., & Gupta, S. (Eds.), Migration and
mental health (pp. 1-15). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R., Maras, P., Masser, B., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M.
(2001). Life on the ocean wave: Testing some inter-
group hypotheses in a naturalistic setting. Group Pro-
cesses and Intergroup Relations, 4(2), 81-97. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1368430201004002001
Canetti-Nisim, D., Halperin, E., Hobfoll, S. E., & Johnson, R.
E. (2006). Xenophobia towards Palestinian citizens
of Israel among Russian ımmigrants in Israel: Height-
ened by failure to make gains in a new democratic soci-
ety. Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies.
Case, K. A., Fishbein, H. D., & Ritchey, P. N. (2006). Per-
sonality’s inuence on higher order factors of prejudice
and discrimination. Current Research in Social Psychol-
ogy, 11(13), 187-201.
Christ, O., & Kau, M. (2019). Intergroup contact theory.
In K. Sassenberg, M. L. W. Vliek (Eds.), Social p s y -
chology in action (pp. 145-161). Springer.
Chung, R. C., Bemak, F., & Grabosky, T. K. (2011). Mul-
ticultural-social justice leadership strategies: Counsel-
ing and advocacy with immigrants. Journal for Social
Action in Counseling and Psychology, 3(1), 86-102.
https://doi.org/10.33043/JSACP.3.1.86-102
Coban, M. (2020). Redistribution preferences, attitudes to-
wards immigrants, and ethnic diversity. Institute for Em-
ployment Research of the Federal Employment Agency.
Conneely, A. (2019). Eects of frequency of contact and group
salience on attitudes towards immigrants (Bachelor›s
thesis, National College of Ireland). The National Col-
lege of Ireland’s Institutional Repository. http://trap.
ncirl.ie/id/eprint/3772
Çuhadar-Gürkaynak, E. (2012). Toplumsal temas: Önyargı
ve ayrımcılığı önlemek için bir sosyal değişim aracı
olarak kullanılabilir mi?. In K. Çayır & M. A. Ceyhan
(Eds.), Ayrımcılık: Çok Boyutlu Yaklaşımlar (pp.1-12).
İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
de Coninck, D., Rodríguez-de-Dios, I., & d’Haenens, L.
(2020). The contact hypothesis during the European ref-
ugee crisis: Relating quality and quantity of (in) direct
intergroup contact to attitudes towards refugees. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1-21. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1368430220929394
de Wit, M. A., Tuinebreijer, W. C., Dekker, J., Beek-
man, A. J., Gorissen, W. H., Schrier, A. C., Penninx, B.
W. J. H., Komproe, I. H., & Verhoe, A. P. (2008). De-
pressive and anxiety disorders in dierent ethnic groups:
a population based study among native Dutch, and Turk-
ish, Moroccan and Surinamese migrants in Amsterdam.
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43,
905-912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-008-0382-5
DiGiusto, G. M., & Jolly, S. K. (2009). Xenophobia and im-
migrant contact: British public attitudes toward immi-
gration. Archive of European Integration. http://aei.pitt.
edu/33071/1/jolly._seth.pdf
Directorate of Migration General Management. (2020).
Geçici koruma. T.C. İç İşleri Bakanlığı Göç İdaresi
Genel Müdürlüğü.
Dirksmeier, P. (2014). Are urbanites more permis-
sive? Germany’s urban geography of prejudice. Ur-
ban Aairs Review, 50(6), 835-863. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1078087414520950
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003).
Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 5-21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001009
Ekici, H. (2019). Türk toplumunda Suriyelilere yönelik al-
gılanan tehditler ve cözüm onerileri. Sosyal Politika
Calışmaları Dergisi, 19(44), 695-730.
Ersoy, A. F., & Ala, M. (2019). Suriyeli sığınmacı ve multecil-
ere iliskin görüşler: Osmaniye’de nitel bir arastırma Ucun-
cu Sektor Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 54(3), 1343-1356.
Everett, J. A., & Onu, D. (2013). Intergroup contact theory:
Past, present, and future. The Inquisitive Mind, 2(17), 1-6.
Fantino, A. M., & Colak, A. (2001). Refugee children in
Canada: Searching for identity. Child Welfare, 80(5),
587-596.
Feliciano, C. (2001). The benets of biculturalism: Expo-
sure to immigrant culture and dropping out of school
among Asian and Latino youths. Social Science Quar-
terly, 82(4), 865–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/0038-
4941.00064
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage
Publications.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equa-
tion models with unobservable variables and measure-
ment error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. & Hyun, H. (2011). How to de-
sign and evaluate research in education. Mc Graw Hil
Genkova, P., & Grimmelsmann, M. (2020). Investigating in-
terculturality in Germany by means of social identity,
social distance, personality and xenophobia. Migration
and Development, 9(3) 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21632324.2020.1756714

Xenophobia and Social Contact in University Students 95
Georgiadou, V., Rori, L., Roumanias, C. (2018). Mapping
the European far right in the 21st century: A meso-level
analysis. Electoral Studies, 54(1), 103-115. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.05.004
Gözübüyük, M., Kemik, P., & Sever, M. (2019). Suriyeli
sığınmacıların yoğun yasadığı bolgelerdeki yerel halkın
Suriyeli sığınmacılara ilişkin görüşleri: Altındağ örneği.
Mukaddime, 10(2), 582-596.
Ha, S. E. (2010). The consequences of multiracial con-
texts on public attitudes toward immigration. Polit-
ical Research Quarterly, 63(1), 29-42. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1065912908325255
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E.
(2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.
Haque, A. E. (2015). Construction and validation of a new
measure of xenophobia. Northwestern University.
Harrison, N., & Peacock, N. (2010). Cultural distance,
mindfulness and passive xenophobia: Using Integrat-
ed Threat Theory to explore home higher education
students’ perspectives on ‘internationalisation at home’.
British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 877-902.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903191047
Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of con-
tact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived o u t -
group variability, and outgroup attitude: An integrative
model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19,
700-710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196005
Jolly, S. K., & DiGiusto, G. M. (2014). Xenophobia and
immigrant contact: French public attitudes toward im-
migration. The Social Science Journal, 51(3), 464-473.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2013.09.018
Kim, Y. (2016). Testing the mediating eects of resilience
and mental health on the relationship between accul-
turative stress and binge drinking among internation-
al students [Doctoral dissertation, The Unıversıty Of
Texas At Arlington]. UTA Libraries https://rc.library.
uta.edu/uta- ir/bitstream/handle/10106/25895/
KIM-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAl-
lowed=y
Kotzur, P. F., Schäfer, S. J., & Wagner, U. (2019). Meeting
a nice asylum seeker: Intergroup contact changes ste-
reotype content perceptions and associated emotional
prejudices, and encourages solidarity-based collective
action intentions. British Journal of Social Psychology,
58(3), 668-690. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12304
Köşker, N., & Erdoğan, E. (2020). Trends in multicultural
education research: A ve-year content analysis of Turk-
ish and ERIC databases. International Journal of Edu-
cation and Literacy Studies, 8(1), 48-60. http://dx.doi.
org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.1p.48
Larrotta, C., & Chung, H. (2020). Foreign-born TESOL in-
structors assisting adult immigrant learners to develop
civic literacy skills: A Pen Pal Project. International
Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 8(2), 1-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.2p.1
Litvinova, A. V., & Tarasov, K. (2012). The psychological
determinants causing tendency to xenophobia at stu-
dents of humanitarian colleges. Problems of Psychology
in the 21st Century, 3, 60-66.
McKinley, B., Robinson, M., & Somavia, J. (2001). Interna-
tional migration, racism, discrimination and xenopho-
bia. ILO, IOM and OHCHR.
McLaren, L. M. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Eu-
rope: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the
exclusion of migrants. Social forces, 81(3), 909-936.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2003.0038
Organising Bureau of European School Student Unions.
(2015). Deport xenophobia from European classrooms
report. Coincil of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/1680707d25
Ommundsen, R., Yakushko, O., Van der Veer, K., & Ulle-
berg, P. (2013). Exploring the relationships between
fear- related xenophobia, perceptions of out-group en-
titativity, and social contact in Norway. Psychological
Reports, 112(1), 109-124.
Omoluabi, P. F. (2008). Psychological foundation of xeno-
phobia. IFE PsychologIA: An International Journal,
16(2), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.4314/ifep.v16i3.23777
Padır, M. A. (2019). Examining xenophobia in Syrian refu-
gees context: The roles of perceived threats and social
contact. (Publication No. 535127) [Doctoral dissertation,
Middle East Technical University]. YOK Thesis Center.
Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural di-
versity and political theory. Macmillan.
Peterie, M., & Neil, D. (2020). Xenophobia to-
wards asylum seekers: A survey of social theo-
ries. Journal of Sociology, 56(1), 23-35. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1440783319882526
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annu-
al Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65-85. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test
of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003).
Evaluating the t of structural equation models: Tests
of signicance and descriptive goodness-of-t measures.
Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
Serin, H., & Bozdağ, F. (2020). Refugee children from the
point of school administrators and teachers’ experienc-
es. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4),
1453-1470. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.4.1455
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An inter-
group theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Singh, R. J. (2013). Examining xenophobic practices amongst
university students– a case study from Limpopo prov-
ince. Alternation Special Edition, 7(1), 88-108.
Staord, K. E. (2020). Predicting positive attitudes toward
immigrants with altruism [Master’s thesis, University of
Kentucky]. UK Nowledge. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/
polysci_etds/30
Şen, E. Y. (2014). Etnik gruplarda sosyal kimlik ve algıla-
nan ayrımcılık: Türk ve Kürt etnik grupları üzerine bir
çalışma. (Tez No. 366456) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara
Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate
statistics. Pearson Education.

96 IJELS 8(4):87-97
Tara, K. (2011). Is xenophobia racism?. Anthropology
Southern Africa, 34(3-4), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1
080/23323256.2011.11500015
Tartaglia, S., Rollero, C., & Bergagna, E. (2020). Attitudes
toward refugees in the Italian context. Psicologia Di
Comunita, 13, 80-92. https://doi.org/10.3280/PSC2020-
001006
Turner, R. N., Hodson, G., & Dhont, K. (2020). The role
of individual dierences in understanding and enhanc-
ing intergroup contact. Social and Personality Psy-
chology Compass, 14(6), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/
spc3.12533
Ünal, S. (2014). Türkiye›nin beklenmedik konukları:”
Öteki” bağlamında yabancı göçmen ve mülteci deney-
imi. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World
of Turks, 6(3), 65-89.
Wagner, R. T. (2017). The signicant inuencing factors of
xenophobia [Student scolarship, Olivet Nazarene Uni-
versity]. Digital Commons @ Olivet. https://digitalcom-
mons.olivet.edu/educ_stsc/2
Wagner, U., Christ, O., Pettigrew, T. F., Stellmacher, J.,
& Wolf, C. (2006). Prejudice and minority propor-
tion: Contact instead of threat eects. Social Psy-
chology Quarterly, 69(4), 380-390. https://doi.
org/10.1177/019027250606900406
Williams, J. H. (2020). Conceptualizing attitudes toward
immigrants among undergraduate students attending a
university in Southern Alberta [Master’s thesis, Univer-
sity of Lethbridge]. University of Lethbridge Research
Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/10133/5732
Wilson, K. K. (2002). Promoting civic literacy. ERIC.
https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED466924.pdf
Yılmaz, F. (2008). Avrupa Birliği’nde ırkçılık ve yabancı
düşmanlığı ile mücadele (Tez No. 228125) [Yüksek
lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
Yakushko, O. (2009). Xenophobia: Understanding the roots
and consequences of negative attitudes toward immi-
grants. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(1), 36-66.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008316034
Yoshida, K. (2015). A longitudinal examination of the ef-
fects of acculturation and mental health problems on
immigrant father involvement: A cross-cultural study
[Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University].
BYU Scholars Archive. http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/
etd/5870
Zubashvili, N. (2020). Deconstructing and reconstructing
attitudes towards immigrants: The case of Sweden [Mas-
ter’s thesis, Lund University]. Lund University Librar-
ies. http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9020672

Xenophobia and Social Contact in University Students 97
SOCIAL CONTACT SCALE Never (%) Seldom
(%)
Sometimes
(%)
Frequently
(%)
Always
(%)
1. How much contact do you have with Syrian at college? 31 36.6 18.3 10.6 3.5
2. How much contact do you have with Syrian as neighbors? 59.2 23.9 9.9 4.9 2.1
3. How much contact do you have with Syrian as close friends? 55.6 21.1 14.8 6.3 2.1
4. How often have you engaged in informal conversation with Syrian? 54.9 24.6 13.4 7.0 -
5. How often have you visited the homes of Syrian? 90.8 3.5 4.2 0.7 0.7
6. To what extent did you experience the contact with Syrian as equal?
1. ............ 2. .............. 3. ............. 4. .................. 5. .............
Definitely yes Definitely not
14.1% 14.8% 28.9% 21.8% 20.4%
7. To what extent did you experience the contact with Syrian as involuntary or voluntary?
1. ............ 2. .............. 3. ............. 4. .................. 5. .............
Definitely involuntary Definitely voluntary
10.6% 13.4% 31.7% 18.3% 26.1%
8. To what extent did you experience the contact with Syrian as superficial or intimate?
1. ............ 2. .............. 3. ............. 4. .................. 5. .............
Very superficial Very intimate
19.7% 16.9% 25.4% 16.9% 21.1%
9. To what extent did you experience the contact with Syrian as pleasant?
1. ............ 2. .............. 3. ............. 4. .................. 5. .............
Not at all Very
10.6% 18.3% 32.4% 21.8% 16.9%
10. To what extent did you experience the contact with Syrian as competitive or cooperative?
1. ............ 2. .............. 3. ............. 4. .................. 5. .............
Very competitive Very cooperative
9.9% 4.2% 35.9% 27.5% 22.5%
XENOPHOBIA SCALE Strongly
disagree (%)
Disagree
(%)
Neutral
(%)
Agree
(%)
Strongly
agree (%)
1Migrants are a burden for the country’s economy 4.9 20.4 38.7 23.9 12.0
2 Migrants cause cultural turmoil in society 2.8 15.5 40.1 28.2 13.4
3 I have very low tolerance for migrants 26.8 39.4 23.2 5.6 4.9
4 Migrants are potential risk factors for society 8.5 31.0 38.0 14.1 8.5
5 I avoid close contact with migrants 28.9 40.8 19.0 8.5 2.8
6 Every time I see an migrant, I lose my temper 60.6 28.9 5.6 3.5 1.4
7 I trust that migrants will support our country in times of crisis 1.4 12.0 31.0 28.2 27.5
8I don’t want to live in the same building/street with migrants 26.1 38.7 16.9 12.0 6.3
9 I think job opportunities decrease because of migrants 7.0 13.4 23.9 34.5 21.1
10 I am worried about becoming a minority due to the increase in
migrants
17.6 29.6 19.7 20.4 12.7
11 I help migrants 11.3 43.3 33.8 8.5 3.5
12 I hate migrants 64.1 26.1 6.3 2.8 0.7
13 I am of the opinion that migrants are ignorant 38.7 31.7 22.5 5.6 1.4
14 Migrants often repel me 35.9 37.3 17.6 7.7 1.4
15 Migrants are generally individuals with low education 28.2 27.5 28.2 12.7 3.5
16 I think migrants will betray our country at the first opportunity 23.2 35.9 27.5 8.5 4.9
17 Migrants are often rude and inconsiderate 24.6 34.5 30.3 7.0 3.5
18 I think migrants have immoral behavior 26.1 35.9 27.5 7.7 2.8
Appendix A: Percentages of Students’ Xenophobic Attitudes Responses