Scottish Government

CHAPTER NINE DOES PLACE MATTER?

Introduction

9.1 So far we have identified the kinds of individuals who seem more inclined to express discriminatory attitudes and some of the underlying psychological orientations that are associated with the expression of discriminatory viewpoints. But we should not necessarily assume that the source of discriminatory attitudes simply lies in the characteristics and backgrounds of individuals. The type of community in which they live could make a difference too.

9.2 There is one obvious way in which this might be true. If someone lives in an area where many people hold discriminatory attitudes, it seems more likely that they will hear such views expressed in conversations with neighbours. As a result, not only might any discriminatory attitudes that they may already hold be reinforced by such conversations, but they may also be persuaded to align their opinions with those of their neighbours. Certainly, the existence of such a process has repeatedly been suggested - and sometimes demonstrated - in previous research on political attitudes and behaviour (Curtice, 1995).

9.3 For example, we have repeatedly seen in this report that younger people and those who have received a university education are less likely to hold discriminatory attitudes. So someone who lives in an area where there is a relatively large number of younger people or a large number of graduates would seem more likely to meet people who express 'liberal' views on many of the subjects covered by our survey. We thus might anticipate that someone living in such an area is less likely to express a discriminatory point of view, irrespective of their own age or level of education.

9.4 However, where someone lives may not only affect how likely it is that they are exposed to a liberal or a discriminatory point of view, but also their chances of knowing someone who belongs to one of the groups about whom discriminatory attitudes might be expressed. For example, we might anticipate that those who live in an area with a relatively high ethnic minority population might be more likely to know someone who belongs to an ethnic minority. And as we have already seen throughout this report, those who know someone who belongs to a particular group are less likely to express a discriminatory attitude towards that group. Much the same argument can be made, for example, with respect to attitudes towards older people, Muslims and those who adhere to other non-Christian religions.

9.5 Indeed, one might anticipate more generally that those who live in a socially mixed neighbourhood are less likely to express discriminatory attitudes than are those who live in a more socially homogenous environment. We have after all found that those who say they prefer to live in an area that has different kinds of people are less likely to express discriminatory attitudes. If someone actually lives in a socially and culturally diverse environment we might anticipate that they have become used to and perhaps even appreciate living amongst different kinds of people. For this reason we might expect those who live in an area where people come from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds, or perhaps even in an area with a mix of social classes, to be less likely to hold discriminatory views.

9.6 We might expect too that those living in urban environments are more likely to come into contact with a broad range of people. In such an environment a large number of people live and/or work close by, while there is also likely to be access to a wide range of cultural activities. In contrast those living in remote rural communities may well only have a limited circle of people living close by while relatively few people visit their area. As a result we might anticipate that urban environments are more likely to promote a 'cosmopolitan' culture that thrives on the presence of people who come from different backgrounds and who engage in a variety of social and cultural behaviours.

9.7 Finally, we might note that social deprivation could play a role too. We have seen in Chapter Four that when it comes to issues of labour market competition at least, those from less affluent, more working class backgrounds are more inclined to express a discriminatory attitude. It therefore seems possible that, irrespective of their own social position, those living in socially deprived areas are more likely to express discriminatory attitudes - at least when the subject matter concerns finance or economics. Those living in a socially deprived area might be particularly concerned about the impact that immigrants to Scotland are thought to have on the availability of jobs or housing, because they feel that the arrival of immigrants makes it less likely that people in their area will see an improvement in their housing or job prospects.

Data sources

9.8 To analyse these possibilities we need data on the character of the area in which someone lives. We were able to acquire these data from a number of sources, the most important of which was the 2001 Census. As we knew the postcode of each respondent to the 2006 SSA, we were able to identify the 2001 Census 'output area' in which they lived. Output areas are the smallest geographical area for which census data are normally published. In Scotland, the typical output area contains no more than 50 households. These areas thus provide a very finely grained measure of the social geography of Scotland. Indeed they are sufficiently finely grained that all of our respondents either live in a different output area from any other respondent, or only share the same area with one other respondent. ¹¹

9.9 We derived a number of key indicators from the census data. These included the age profile of each respondent's output area together with the proportion belonging to an ethnic minority, saying they are Muslim, with a degree, in a professional or managerial occupation, and saying they are in good health (an indicator of social deprivation). As we did not wish to assume a simple linear relationship between any of these variables and the chances of expressing a discriminatory attitude we then used these census statistics to categorise each area in which a respondent lived as one with a relatively large number or a relatively small number of people with that characteristic. Further details about the construction of these variables are to be found in Annex A.

9.10 In addition to these indicators derived from the 2001 census, we also had access to two further measures. The first is the 2006 version of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Based on 37 different measures, ranging from income and health to employment and housing, this index gives an overall deprivation score for each of the 6,505 'data zones' in Scotland. With a median population size of 769, data zones are rather larger than 'output areas', but are still reasonably finely grained. Typically, only a handful of our respondents are in the same data zone, and at most no more than eight are. Each respondent has been placed in one of five categories according to whether the data zone in which they live is amongst the 20% most deprived data zones, or the next 20% most deprived, etc.

9.11 Our second additional measure is the Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification ¹² an indicator of how remote and rural an area is. This is based on both the population size of a 'settlement' and, in the case of smaller settlements, how long it would take to drive to a settlement of at least 10,000 people. It is a six-fold classification that ranges from large urban areas to remote rural ones.

Interpretation

9.12 We do, however, have to bear in mind that there are two very different reasons why those living in different kinds of area might have different views. Given that, for example, by definition those areas with relatively large numbers of graduates contain more people with degrees, we would expect the incidence of discriminatory attitudes in such areas to be relatively low anyway. That does not demonstrate that people's views are influenced by those of their neighbours. To do that, we have to show that people living in places with relatively large numbers of graduates are less likely than those living elsewhere to express discriminatory attitudes even after we have taken into account whether they themselves are graduates or not. This is best undertaken using multivariate analysis, and such analysis informs all of the commentary that follows. Here, however, we simply illustrate the main findings with some indicative percentages. Fuller details of some of the more pertinent multivariate analyses are given in Annex A.

9.13 Even after undertaking such analysis, we still have to exercise some care in interpreting the results. Many people have at least some choice about where they live. And those, for example, who hold a prejudicial view towards ethnic or religious minorities may be disinclined to live in an area with a relatively large ethnic minority population or Muslim population. Those in contrast who value diversity may opt to live in a socially mixed area. So we have to bear in mind that, even if we find that those who live in a particular kind of area are less likely to express a discriminatory attitude even after we have taken into account their individual characteristics, this may reflect a tendency for people who are less prejudiced to live in that kind of area, rather than a tendency for those who live there to be influenced by the views of those around them.

Findings

9.14 From the variety of analyses that we have undertaken, one clear pattern does emerge. Those who live in areas with large numbers of graduates are particularly unlikely to say that sometimes there is good reason to be prejudiced against certain groups. Thus, as we can see in Table 9.1, around three in ten graduates who do not live in an area where there is a relatively large number of other graduates say that sometimes there is good reason to be prejudiced. In contrast, amongst those graduates who live alongside lots of other graduates, only 15% endorse that view.

Table 9.1 University Hotspots?

Note: % of graduates classification is derived from 2001 Census data on % of people aged 16-74 with a degree. Low = less than 8%; Low to Medium = 8 to 16%; Medium to High = 16% to 28%; High = 28% and above.

9.15 Even so, we should note that we do not observe anything like the same pattern amongst those at the other end of the educational spectrum. Rather, (the relatively limited number of) people without any qualifications who have a high number of graduates as their neighbours are barely distinguishable in their views from those lacking qualifications who live elsewhere. This casts some doubt on the suggestion that those living in places with high numbers of graduates are influenced in their views by their neighbours. Instead it seems more likely that areas with large numbers of graduates - which are often near universities - prove to be attractive places to live for those graduates who are inclined anyway towards a liberal view on discrimination.

9.16 We might note too from Table 9.1 a not dissimilar, if not quite as striking, pattern in respect of whether someone would prefer to live with similar or different kinds of people. Graduates who live amongst relatively large numbers of other graduates are somewhat more inclined to say they prefer to live with different kinds of people. On the other hand, the presence of graduates appears not to make any difference to the attitudes of those without any qualifications. Again this inclines us to the view that the pattern, such as it is ¹³, reflects the prior relatively liberal attitudes of those who opt to live in areas popular with other graduates.

9.17 Moreover, when we look at many of the other more specific measures of discriminatory attitudes included in our survey, we find only a weak, if any association with the number of graduates in a neighbourhood. Nor are the patterns of association that do exist necessarily the same as those as in Table 9.1. For example, those with no qualifications living in areas with a high number of graduates are ten percentage points less likely than those living in areas with relatively few graduates to say they would be unhappy about a close relative of theirs marrying a Muslim. They are also seven points less likely to say the same about an asylum seeker. Here perhaps is evidence that the views of non-graduates are being influenced by their graduate neighbours. However, there is no equivalent pattern amongst graduates themselves. In any event on many other measures that we have examined, including all those where the incidence of a discriminatory viewpoint is particularly high and/or strongly related to the measures of psychological orientation further explored in Chapter Ten, there is no statistically significant association at all with the number of graduates in an area.

9.18 Meanwhile, there is little, if any, evidence in support of most of the other propositions outlined at the beginning of this chapter. True, those who live in one of the 20% most socially deprived parts of Scotland are somewhat keener to live with similar kinds of people - but even so, overall, they are only seven points more likely to say this than are those living in one of the least socially deprived parts of the country. Equally, those who live in an area with large numbers of people in poor health are as much as fifteen points more likely than those who live in an area where most are in good health to say that older people should retire - perhaps because they are more likely to be concerned about their chances of securing employment if older people do not retire. But in no other case have we found any statistically significant evidence that those living in more socially deprived parts part of Scotland are distinctive in their views - one way or the other.

9.19 Equally, we failed to uncover any evidence at all that those living in areas with relatively large numbers of people from an ethnic minority are different in their views. The same is true of those living in areas with relatively large numbers of Muslims. This even applies to questions that tap attitudes towards those belonging to an ethnic or religious minority. Those who live in an area of ethnic minority concentration are more likely to report that they know someone from a different ethnic background from themselves (83% say they do, as opposed to 74% elsewhere), while a similar pattern holds in respect of knowing someone who is Muslim. But evidently the degree of increased social interaction between those belonging to different ethnic and religious groups that is occasioned by living in an area with relatively large numbers of ethnic minorities or Muslims is not sufficient to have a discernible impact on the incidence of discriminatory attitudes. ¹⁴

9.20 There is, however, one difference of note between those living in remote rural parts of Scotland and those living elsewhere. Refusal to take a bed and breakfast booking from a gay or lesbian couple has been the subject of particular controversy in parts of rural Scotland, where a number of well publicised instances of refusal have occurred. It appears that this was no accident of geography. As many as 70% of people living in a remote rural part of Scotland felt that someone should be allowed to refuse a booking from such a couple - compared with just a half of those living elsewhere. However, this pattern is the exception rather than the rule. On no other question, including other questions about attitudes towards sexual orientation, did we uncover any evidence that those living in remote rural Scotland were significantly more likely to express a discriminatory point of view. Moreover, even those living in more accessible but rural parts of the country have much the same views about being allowed to refuse a bed and breakfast booking as do those living in the country's largest urban centres.

Conclusion

9.21 It seems that, in general, local neighbourhoods neither foster nor inhibit the formation of discriminatory attitudes. Once we have taken into account someone's individual characteristics, where they live appears to make little difference to their chances of expressing a discriminatory point of view. Moreover such evidence as we have uncovered of those living in certain kinds of area espousing distinctive views is more plausibly accounted for as evidence that those of a similar frame of mind opt to live in similar places, rather than as evidence that people's views are influenced by those of their neighbours. At least as far as the subjects covered by this survey are concerned, places are little more than the sum of the individuals living in them, and not in themselves a source of distinctive attitudes.

Key points:

• In general, neighbourhoods do not appear to foster or inhibit the formation of discriminatory attitudes.
• Once someone's individual characteristics are taken into account - for example their level of education or household income - where they live appears to make little difference to their chances of expressing discriminatory attitudes.
• There is some evidence to suggest that those with similar views may opt to live in similar kinds of places.