The Integration Paradox

• Two mechanisms of integration paradox (IP) (Schaeffer and Kas 2024)
  • Opportunities to face discrimination: More contact with majority and exposure to majority institutions
  • Cognitive susceptibility to frame experiences as discrimination: Increased understanding of discrimination and raised expectations

The “opportunity-risk” mechanism: Opportunity

• Migrants: More contact with majority -> higher discrimination perceptions
• Contact with majority likely relatively stable across education for Jews due to small size and low segregation
• Education should not influence contact opportunity

The “opportunity-risk” mechanism: Risk

• Key factor: risk of discrimination per contact
• Blatant antisemitism is largely taboo among highly educated majority (Meuleman et al. 2018; Nyhan, Yamaya, and Zeitzoff 2024) and minority (Czymara et al. 2025; Öztürk and Pickel 2021) members
• General tendancy to interact with others who are similar (Bankier-Karp and Beider 2025; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001)
• More educated Jews more likely to ineract with more educated individuals where open antisemtism is stigmatized
  • H1: Higher education leads to lower perceived religious discrimination*

Identifiability

• Integration paradox primarily concerns those who are identifiable as minorities (racial phenotype, religious clothing, or distinct names)
• Similarly, negative education effect should mostly exist for Jews who are recognized as Jewish (more likely to be targeted based on religion)
  • H2a: H1 is stronger among Jews who publicly wear Jewish symbols or clothing
  • H2b: H1 is stronger among religious Jews
  • H2c: H1 is stronger among Jews with a strong Jewish identity

Second Survey on Discrimination and Hate Crime Against Jews

• Collected European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
• Self-identified Jewish adults (16+) residing in 11 EU member states (covering the vast majority of the EU’s Jewish population)
• Recruitment via multiple channels (Jewish communal organizations, Jewish and general media, social networks)
• Outcome: In the PAST 12 MONTHS have you personally felt discriminated against in [COUNTRY] for any of the following reasons? –> Religion or belief (dummy: yes/no)
• Yes: 79, 21%
• Higher education: tertiary (ISCED 5, 6, 7, 8) = 1, less = 0

Method

• Linear probability models with country fixed effects (same results with logistic regression or hierarchical linear models)
• Regressing perceived discrimination on higher educational attainment
• Controls:
  • Demographic characteristics (confounders): gender, age, marital status
  • Economic characteristics (colliders?): income (satisfaction), employment status

Education and Preceived Discrimination

Religiosity and Religious Identity

Visibility

Jewish Americans in 2020 study

• Probability survey of Jewish adults in the US, online and mail (Pew Research Center 2019–2020)
• Outcome (dummy if at least one is “yes”):
  • Have you been called offensive names because you are Jewish/of your Jewish background?
  • Have you been made to feel unwelcome because you are Jewish/of your Jewish background?
  • Have you been physically threatened or attacked because you are Jewish/of your Jewish background?

Education and Preceived Discrimination

Religiosity

Visibility

Summary & Conclusion

• Migrants: More education -> more majority contact -> more discrimination
• Jews: Contact depends less on education, so less open prejudice among higher-educated majority members is key
• IP is driven by interplay between contact quantity and the risk of discrimination per contact
• Which component dominates depends on the position of the minority group

Number of Respondents by Country

    Belgium     Denmark       Spain      France       Italy     Hungary 
        650         510         483        3349         611         535 
Netherlands     Austria      Poland      Sweden          UK 
       1059         452         354        1021        4091 

Distribution across Countries