Ryan D.Enos and Noam Gidron FIGURE 1.Social Distance by Group ☐UO toward Secular Secular toward UO 吕 UO toward Arabs g Secular toward Arabs .0 ds 8 relative neighbor friend coworker citizen' visitor one elati coworker neighbo citiz visitor ne 4号 (a)ultra-Orthodox (UO) (b)Secular player(N=268)and 63%cooperated with the ultra- Because social distance is rarely used in political sci- & Orthodox player(N=277).11 ence literature,this will help us to interpret the mean- After completing the experimental games,respon- ing of the variable and its relationship with coopera- dents were asked a series of demographic survey tion. questions.They were then asked for their opinions In Figure 1,we show the distribution in our sam- about intergroup relations in Israel,including how ple of social distance attitudes among ultra-Orthodox they would position different outgroup members- Jews toward secular Jews and PCI,and secular Jews including PCI-along the social distance scale,using toward ultra-Orthodox Jews and PCI.12 The distribu- the following wording:"Below are some groups of peo- tion of Jews'preferred social distance from PCI is strik- ple in Israel.Look at each of them and say which is ing:only a minority of Israeli Jews,either secular or the closest relationship you would find acceptable for ultra-Orthodox,expresses a willingness to have even each group.For example,if you would accept some- minimal interpersonal relationships with PCI.The high one from a group living on your street,but not as a share of ultra-Orthodox Jews who would prefer PCI to close friend,then you would choose neighbors."Re- not be citizens of Israel is especially noteworthy:over spondents were asked to choose from relative,friend. 60%of ultra-Orthodox respondents would prefer not neighbor,coworker,citizen,visitor,and none.We also to admit PCI to Israel at all-not even as visitors.Less asked participants about the trustworthiness of differ- than 10%would event accept PCI as coworkers,and ent groups in Israel,including PCl,using the following levels of acceptance for closer relationships are vanish- wording:"Below are some groups of people in Israel. ingly small. For each,please mark how much you trust people from Notably,for both ultra-Orthodox and secular Jews, that group.”Possible responses were“none,”“little,” the distribution of exclusion toward a Jewish outgroup “some,”and“alot." is starkly different.Even though many secular Jews have marked hostility toward ultra-Orthodox (Enos RESULTS and Gidron 2016).secular Jews are far more accept- ing of this group than of the PCI outgroup,with a ma- Before exploring the relationship between exclusion- jority willing to accept ultra-Orthodox as neighbor or ary preferences,as measured by social distance and co closer but a majority not willing to accept PCI in any operation,as measured by the public goods game,we personal relationship,not even as a coworker.The dif- first examine the distribution of preferences for exclu- ferences between levels of exclusion toward the Jewish sion and how social distance should be characterized. 11 We also checked for ordering effects of when the subject encoun. 12 Note that we are subsetting the data here to only those respon- dents who self-identify as either secular or ultra-Orthodox.We ac- tered the PCI player on the probability of cooperation and see no ef- count for the full range of Jewish religious identities in Israel-ultra- fects.Percent cooperating with PCI in first round is 34,second round Orthodox.religious,traditional,and secular-in later analyses.While is 30,third round is 35.The T-statistic for a test of difference of means we also included a category for "anti-religious,"since only four re between rounds 1 and 2,T=0.75;rounds 1 and 3,T=-0.18;and spondents identified as such,we merged this category with "secular' rounds 2 and 3,T=-0.97 in the analyses below. 748Ryan D. Enos and Noam Gidron FIGURE 1. Social Distance by Group Share of respondents UO toward Secular UO toward Arabs relative friend neighbor coworker citizen visitor none 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 (a) ultra-Orthodox (UO) Share of respondents Secular toward UO Secular toward Arabs relative friend neighbor coworker citizen visitor none 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 (b) Secular player (N = 268) and 63% cooperated with the ultra￾Orthodox player (N = 277).11 After completing the experimental games, respon￾dents were asked a series of demographic survey questions. They were then asked for their opinions about intergroup relations in Israel, including how they would position different outgroup members— including PCI—along the social distance scale, using the following wording: “Below are some groups of peo￾ple in Israel. Look at each of them and say which is the closest relationship you would find acceptable for each group. For example, if you would accept some￾one from a group living on your street, but not as a close friend, then you would choose neighbors.” Re￾spondents were asked to choose from relative, friend, neighbor, coworker, citizen, visitor, and none. We also asked participants about the trustworthiness of differ￾ent groups in Israel, including PCI, using the following wording: “Below are some groups of people in Israel. For each, please mark how much you trust people from that group.” Possible responses were “none,” “little,” “some,” and “a lot.” RESULTS Before exploring the relationship between exclusion￾ary preferences, as measured by social distance and co￾operation, as measured by the public goods game, we first examine the distribution of preferences for exclu￾sion and how social distance should be characterized. 11 We also checked for ordering effects of when the subject encoun￾tered the PCI player on the probability of cooperation and see no ef￾fects. Percent cooperating with PCI in first round is 34, second round is 30, third round is 35. The T-statistic for a test of difference of means between rounds 1 and 2, T = 0.75; rounds 1 and 3, T = −0.18; and rounds 2 and 3, T = −0.97. Because social distance is rarely used in political sci￾ence literature, this will help us to interpret the mean￾ing of the variable and its relationship with coopera￾tion. In Figure 1, we show the distribution in our sam￾ple of social distance attitudes among ultra-Orthodox Jews toward secular Jews and PCI, and secular Jews toward ultra-Orthodox Jews and PCI.12 The distribu￾tion of Jews’ preferred social distance from PCI is strik￾ing: only a minority of Israeli Jews, either secular or ultra-Orthodox, expresses a willingness to have even minimal interpersonal relationships with PCI. The high share of ultra-Orthodox Jews who would prefer PCI to not be citizens of Israel is especially noteworthy: over 60% of ultra-Orthodox respondents would prefer not to admit PCI to Israel at all—not even as visitors. Less than 10% would event accept PCI as coworkers, and levels of acceptance for closer relationships are vanish￾ingly small. Notably, for both ultra-Orthodox and secular Jews, the distribution of exclusion toward a Jewish outgroup is starkly different. Even though many secular Jews have marked hostility toward ultra-Orthodox (Enos and Gidron 2016), secular Jews are far more accept￾ing of this group than of the PCI outgroup, with a ma￾jority willing to accept ultra-Orthodox as neighbor or closer but a majority not willing to accept PCI in any personal relationship, not even as a coworker. The dif￾ferences between levels of exclusion toward the Jewish 12 Note that we are subsetting the data here to only those respon￾dents who self-identify as either secular or ultra-Orthodox. We ac￾count for the full range of Jewish religious identities in Israel—ultra￾Orthodox, religious, traditional, and secular—in later analyses.While we also included a category for “anti-religious,” since only four re￾spondents identified as such, we merged this category with “secular” in the analyses below. 748 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000266