Ryan D.Enos and Noam Gidron Ouillian 2005).However.currently"most of the exist- sures a person's willingness to participate in relation- ing literature on discrimination finds that stated atti- ships of varying degrees of closeness with a member of tudes are practically useless in explaining behaviour' a group in order to capture "personal-group relations" (Zussman 2013,436).2 In fact,recent scholarship has (Bogardus 1933)-that is,the affective feelings of an also claimed that even implicit measures of prejudice individual toward a group.Psychological studies have (Greenwald,McGhee,and Schwartz 1998)are poor treated social distance as a "commonly accepted gen- predictors of discriminatory behavior(Mitchell and eral measure of ethnic prejudice"(Weaver 2008,779)3 Tetlock 2017).By showing the strong and robust con- but for the purposes of political science research,it is nection between exclusionary attitudes and coopera- especially useful because it captures behavioral inten- tion,we present a counterpoint to these claims.We tions(Binder et al.2009)about the political question of suggest that a possible path forward in research on prej- exclusion,so that a stated desire to exclude may trans- udice and discrimination,rather than relying on noisy late into political behavior,such as voting (see,for ex- self-reported measures of behavior or poorly under- ample,Hainmueller and Hangartner(2013)). stood laboratory constructs,is to make use of the social The scale,developed by Bogardus,measures the de- distance scale next to well-validated tools of behavioral gree to which respondents prefer to exclude outgroup economics. members by asking whether they would accept a mem- Relatedly,our evidence for a direct connection be- ber of the group at increasing levels of closeness.The tween attitudes and behaviors also represents an im- scale ranges from family relative(minimal distance)to portant improvement over much of the literature on friend,neighbor,coworker,citizen,visitor,and none intergroup relations-a literature plagued by unre (maximal distance).Agreement with any one of the solved controversies over the nature and meaning of items implies agreement with the previous items.For survey attitudes (e.g..Sniderman and Tetlock (1986): instance,it is assumed that if someone will accept a per- Hochschild (2000)).Because we focus on questions son as a family member,they will also accept them as that directly measure exclusion and connect these to visitor and everything in between revealed behaviors in an economic game,our outcomes This scale has attractive properties that may improve are less likely than many others to reflect artifacts over other common measures of intergroup attitudes. of measurement error(Achen 1975),capture nonat- Political scientists often measure intergroup attitudes titudes (Zaller 1992),or suffer from false positives through culturally specific stereotypes (e.g.,asking if a (Kramer 1986).It is,perhaps,not surprising if a sur- group is "intelligent"(Kinder and Kam 2009))through vey attitude is correlated with another survey attitude questions specific to one group,such as African Amer- measuring a similar concept,especially given the large icans (e.g.,Tarman and Sears(2005));or through ques- menu of survey items often available to researchers. tions about specific policy measures,such as immigra- However,as discussed above,it is not obvious that a tion (e.g.,Enos (2014)).While these measures can all survey attitude will correlate with a behavior,espe- certainly be useful,group-specific measures make it cially a potentially costly one like non-cooperation.By difficult to compare attitudes across different groups demonstrating this connection,we move beyond deter- (e.g.,African Americans and Muslims)and individu- mining the meaning of survey attitudes by examining als may also hold negative feelings about a group with- other survey attitudes and,instead,show that these at- out endorsing specific stereotypes (Cuddy,Fiske,and S5.501g titudes are meaningful because they are tied to costly Glick 2007).Furthermore,attitudes about specific poli- behaviors. cies are problematic for capturing the attitudes of the large majority of most mass publics that have low en- EXCLUSION gagement in politics and hold unstable attitudes(Zaller 1992). We define exclusion as closing all or part of a society The social distance scale.in contrast,was intended from certain groups of people.Conflicts over the legal as a general measure to be used across multiple groups exclusion of low-status populations have been central (Bogardus 1926).It captures basic affective attitudes: to the politics of countries across the globe (Sidanius a person does not have to endorse specific stereotypes and Pratto 2001)and are at the heart of many political to know that they do not want to have a person from conflicts in advanced democracies.We focus on pref- an outgroup as a spouse or coworker.This allows erences for exclusion,not just from the country in the comparisons across groups,so that,for example,in the form of restricting immigration,but from national and American context.attitudes about African Americans subnational communities,in the form of excluding in- can be compared to attitudes about Latino immigrants dividuals from local institutions,such as a workplace. Thus,in Israel,we can usefully compare exclusion to- To measure exclusion,we turn to the concept of so- ward PCI to exclusion of other social groups,for in- cial distance.Social distance is a commonly used con- stance,as we do in this study,different groups of Jews. cept in sociology and psychology (see,for example Other measures commonly found in political science, Liviatan,Trope,and Liberman (2008)),but has seen lit- such as feeling thermometers,have similar properties tle use in political science (but see,in the Israeli context. Halperin,Canetti-Nisim,and Pedahzur(2007)).It mea- See also Marger(2003)and Simpson and Yinger(2013). For example,Binder et al.(2009,848)argues that social distance "generalizes to the outgroup as a whole without any reference to a 2 For a review of related literature,see Pager and Shepherd(2008). specific context or interaction.' 744 3Ryan D. Enos and Noam Gidron Quillian 2005). However, currently “most of the exist￾ing literature on discrimination finds that stated atti￾tudes are practically useless in explaining behaviour” (Zussman 2013, 436).2 In fact, recent scholarship has also claimed that even implicit measures of prejudice (Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998) are poor predictors of discriminatory behavior (Mitchell and Tetlock 2017). By showing the strong and robust con￾nection between exclusionary attitudes and coopera￾tion, we present a counterpoint to these claims. We suggest that a possible path forward in research on prej￾udice and discrimination, rather than relying on noisy self-reported measures of behavior or poorly under￾stood laboratory constructs, is to make use of the social distance scale next to well-validated tools of behavioral economics. Relatedly, our evidence for a direct connection be￾tween attitudes and behaviors also represents an im￾portant improvement over much of the literature on intergroup relations—a literature plagued by unre￾solved controversies over the nature and meaning of survey attitudes (e.g., Sniderman and Tetlock (1986); Hochschild (2000)). Because we focus on questions that directly measure exclusion and connect these to revealed behaviors in an economic game, our outcomes are less likely than many others to reflect artifacts of measurement error (Achen 1975), capture nonat￾titudes (Zaller 1992), or suffer from false positives (Kramer 1986). It is, perhaps, not surprising if a sur￾vey attitude is correlated with another survey attitude measuring a similar concept, especially given the large menu of survey items often available to researchers. However, as discussed above, it is not obvious that a survey attitude will correlate with a behavior, espe￾cially a potentially costly one like non-cooperation. By demonstrating this connection, we move beyond deter￾mining the meaning of survey attitudes by examining other survey attitudes and, instead, show that these at￾titudes are meaningful because they are tied to costly behaviors. EXCLUSION We define exclusion as closing all or part of a society from certain groups of people. Conflicts over the legal exclusion of low-status populations have been central to the politics of countries across the globe (Sidanius and Pratto 2001) and are at the heart of many political conflicts in advanced democracies. We focus on pref￾erences for exclusion, not just from the country in the form of restricting immigration, but from national and subnational communities, in the form of excluding in￾dividuals from local institutions, such as a workplace. To measure exclusion, we turn to the concept of so￾cial distance. Social distance is a commonly used con￾cept in sociology and psychology (see, for example, Liviatan, Trope, and Liberman (2008)), but has seen lit￾tle use in political science (but see,in the Israeli context, Halperin,Canetti-Nisim, and Pedahzur (2007)). It mea- 2 For a review of related literature, see Pager and Shepherd (2008). sures a person’s willingness to participate in relation￾ships of varying degrees of closeness with a member of a group in order to capture “personal-group relations” (Bogardus 1933)—that is, the affective feelings of an individual toward a group. Psychological studies have treated social distance as a “commonly accepted gen￾eral measure of ethnic prejudice” (Weaver 2008, 779)3 but for the purposes of political science research, it is especially useful because it captures behavioral inten￾tions (Binder et al. 2009) about the political question of exclusion, so that a stated desire to exclude may trans￾late into political behavior, such as voting (see, for ex￾ample, Hainmueller and Hangartner (2013)). The scale, developed by Bogardus, measures the de￾gree to which respondents prefer to exclude outgroup members by asking whether they would accept a mem￾ber of the group at increasing levels of closeness. The scale ranges from family relative (minimal distance) to friend, neighbor, coworker, citizen, visitor, and none (maximal distance). Agreement with any one of the items implies agreement with the previous items. For instance,it is assumed that if someone will accept a per￾son as a family member, they will also accept them as visitor and everything in between. This scale has attractive properties that may improve over other common measures of intergroup attitudes. Political scientists often measure intergroup attitudes through culturally specific stereotypes (e.g., asking if a group is “intelligent” (Kinder and Kam 2009)) through questions specific to one group, such as African Amer￾icans (e.g., Tarman and Sears (2005)); or through ques￾tions about specific policy measures, such as immigra￾tion (e.g., Enos (2014)). While these measures can all certainly be useful, group-specific measures make it difficult to compare attitudes across different groups (e.g., African Americans and Muslims) and individu￾als may also hold negative feelings about a group with￾out endorsing specific stereotypes (Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick 2007). Furthermore, attitudes about specific poli￾cies are problematic for capturing the attitudes of the large majority of most mass publics that have low en￾gagement in politics and hold unstable attitudes (Zaller 1992). The social distance scale, in contrast, was intended as a general measure to be used across multiple groups (Bogardus 1926). It captures basic affective attitudes: a person does not have to endorse specific stereotypes to know that they do not want to have a person from an outgroup as a spouse or coworker.4 This allows comparisons across groups, so that, for example, in the American context, attitudes about African Americans can be compared to attitudes about Latino immigrants. Thus, in Israel, we can usefully compare exclusion to￾ward PCI to exclusion of other social groups, for in￾stance, as we do in this study, different groups of Jews. Other measures commonly found in political science, such as feeling thermometers, have similar properties 3 See also Marger (2003) and Simpson and Yinger (2013). 4 For example, Binder et al. (2009, 848) argues that social distance “generalizes to the outgroup as a whole without any reference to a specific context or interaction.” 744 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