Toleration or trust? Investigating the acceptance of 'boat people' among young Australians.

Laughland-Booy, Jacqueline ; Skrbis, Zlatko ; Tranter, Bruce 等

Introduction

In Australia, the issue of asylum seekers arriving in the country by boat is a politically contentious topic. Since the first boat containing asylum seekers arrived in 1976, Australians have questioned their responsibilities towards those who arrive uninvited onto Australian shores (Betts 2001). As a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its associated 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (UNHCR 2010), Australia is expected to offer assistance towards those who cross its borders and subsequently request asylum (Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2012). However, asylum seekers, particularly those who travel towards Australia by boat, are often constructed in Australian public discourse as people who are not welcome. Consequently, many Australians believe these individuals should be prevented from reaching their country (Pedersen et al. 2006; Louis et al. 2007; McKay et al. 2011; McKay et al. 2012; Markus 2013). Public concerns surrounding the 'boat people' issue have resulted in the Australian government imposing strict measures against those who try to enter the country as unexpected arrivals (McAllister & Pietsch 2011). (1) As successive governments introduce increasingly harsher policies to prevent asylum seekers from reaching Australia by boat, debate continues over how Australia should fulfill its obligations towards humanitarian entrants. Many Australians believe exclusionary policies are necessary for the protection of Australia's sovereignty, whereas others argue that policies intended to prevent boats carrying asylum seekers from entering Australian territory disregard the country's human rights responsibilities (e.g., Australian Human Rights Commission 2013).

In this paper, we draw on data collected from a large representative sample of young people in Queensland, in order to investigate the attitudes of young Australians towards boat people. Although much research has been undertaken into the attitudes of adult Australians towards asylum seekers (e.g., Pedersen et al. 2005; Louis et al. 2007; McKay et al. 2012), less is known of the views of younger Australians. We believe it is important to document whether the attitudes of young Australians are similar to, or different from, adult Australians. We also shift our theoretical focus towards understanding mechanisms of acceptance of 'boat people'. While several studies using adult samples suggest some Australians are more accepting of asylum seekers than others (e.g., Hartley & Pedersen 2007; McAllister & Pietsch 2011; McKay et al. 2012; Markus 2013), we do not fully understand what motivates accepting views. Here we use the concepts of toleration and trust to improve our undertanding of how young Australians accept asylum seekers who have attempted to enter Australia by boat.

Before proceeding we wish to clarify the use of key terms in this article. First, considerable ambiguity often surrounds the categorisation of people who are seeking asylum in Australia (O'Doherty & Lecouteur 2007). When discussing asylum seekers who attempt to reach Australia by boat, we use the terms 'boat people' or 'unexpected arrivals'. When referring more broadly to people seeking humanitarian refuge, we apply the term 'asylum seekers'. Second, although the category of 'young people' can be quite broad, in this article we are referring to individuals who are aged in their mid to late teens.

When describing how people receive others, toleration is defined as a practice of active acceptance, undertaken despite feelings of disapproval towards others (Cohen 2004; Edyvane & Matravers 2011; Horton 2011). The motivation for toleration is based on the belief that, regardless of personal unease, there is greater value in accepting than rejecting (Cohen 2004). However, while toleration is a first step, it may not be sufficient for ensuring integration within a diverse society (Putnam 2007). Integration requires trust: an act of acceptance whereby both parties are equally invested and there is an expectation that all will benefit from the relationship (Hardin 2002; Uslaner 2011). We argue there are different modes of acceptance that must be acknowledged when examining acceptance of asylum seekers by a settled population. To this end, we propose a framework of acceptance that incorporates the concepts of toleration and trust. This will help to distinguish between those young people who are willing merely to accede to the circumstance of unexpected arrivals to Australia, and those who are prepared to engage with them from a position of trust.

Theorising acceptance

In 1954, Allport observed that phenomena of rejection (e.g., prejudice) were often the primary focus of social scientists. Contemporary researchers still tend to place greater emphasis on explaining why minority groups are excluded, rather than why they are included (Pittinsky 8c Montoya 2009). We address this by drawing on two constructs of acceptance of a minority group by a dominant group: toleration and trust. Both concepts describe an act of acceptance; however, as described below, they have quite discreet meanings.

Toleration

Toleration is often promoted as an act of acceptance that prevents conflict between groups that do not share the same views (Vollhardt et al. 2009). As such, the concept has appeal in the management of relationships between settled populations and migrant groups. The literature, however, reflects a degree of ambiguity regarding the meaning of the term toleration. First, there is ongoing discussion about how the concept should be applied. For some, toleration carries positive connotations of openness and recognition, whereas for others it expresses grudging endurance (Galeotti 2002; Cohen 2004). Consequently, there is debate over how toleration should be understood theoretically and how it may be recognised, measured and applied. Galeotti (2002) for example, believes the meaning of the term has consequences for the value of the act itself. She argues that toleration must evolve more positive connotations if people are to consider it a desirable quality. Galeotti (2002) also claims that for toleration to retain relevance it should imply an acceptance of others, and be void of disapproval and dislike. Others support the retention of what Edyvane and Matravers (2011, 282) refer to as a 'no-frills' application of the concept, arguing that to complicate the meaning further would see it fall into obscurity. From this perspective, toleration is viewed as a minimal act of acceptance: where people elect to put up with others despite having reasons not to (Cohen 2004; Horton 2011; Balint 2013). This approach acknowledges situations in which there is dislike and disapproval, but where people still choose to accept. Determining whether such an act is desirable occurs via analysis of costs and benefits rather than manipulation of the meaning of the concept. To this end, we subscribe to the latter definition of the term toleration and its associated theoretical frameworks. Furthermore, ambiguity also surrounds the use of the words 'toleration' and 'tolerance'. For the purpose of clarity, Cohen (2004) suggests the term 'toleration' be used to describe an action or behaviour, reserving the term 'tolerance' to describe an attitude based upon the value of accepting others --one that some claim to be a moral virtue. Whilst acknowledging that the terms are often used interchangeably in the literature, we will employ the term 'toleration' throughout the paper.

'Toleration' is defined as an act of acceptance of others that is undertaken despite disapproval of the presence or actions of those individuals. People accept others different from themselves because they believe the consequences of non-acceptance are less desirable than the consequences of acceptance. This occurs even though they believe they have the prerogative to reject. Cohen (2004, 69), for example, defines toleration as: 'an agent's intentional and principled refraining from interfering with an opposed other (or their behaviour, etc.) in situations of diversity, where the agent believes she has the power to interfere'. Similarly, for Horton (2011, 290) toleration is 'a deliberate exercise of self-restraint, a willed refusal to interfere coercively with what is regarded as the objectionable behaviour of others'. More recently, Balint (2013, 1) has described the concept as involving three elements: '(a) objecting to something; (b) the power (including both opportunity and willingness) to negatively interfere with the thing or its holder and (c) intentionally not negatively interfering with this thing or its holder'. Such definitions are salient when seeking to identify and describe acts of acceptance exercised by a settled population towards a minority. Toleration describes situations where the dominant group accepts, despite disapproving of the actions of the minority group and believing they can stop them.

Whilst toleration may prevent conflict between groups (Edyvane & Matravers 2011; Horton 2011), it is not the optimal solution to achieving social integration. Firstly, toleration is a relationship built on power relationships and is an act undertaken by those who believe they have the choice to accept or reject (Cohen 2004; Balint 2013). It is also contingent on the presence of disapproval (Horton 2011). So, although toleration is a foundation on which relationships can be built, by its very nature it is capricious and generally leads to weak relationships. When talking of the acceptance of asylum seekers by a dominant population, we believe such a mode of acceptance makes conditions for asylum seekers decidedly precarious. As Putnam (2007) observes, toleration of others is the beginning, but it is not sufficient for building an integrated society. The latter requires a practice of acceptance by the settled population, where those who are more dominant do not impose conditions upon the minority.

Trust

Broadly speaking, trust is an act of mutual acceptance whereby both parties are active participants in the relationship (Sztompka 1999). It is, as Hardin (2002, 1) describes, 'encapsulated interest' by which both parties are mutually invested and both stand to benefit from the relationship if it is successful. However, while members of a settled population may be willing to tolerate people from other groups, they may not be willing to trust them. As Uslaner (2011, 225) observes, trust 'is based upon the notion of a shared fate and accepting people of different backgrounds as part of our moral community'. Trust serves a crucial function within a society. It enables communication and cooperation, and is important for building strong communities (Fukuyama 1995; Sztompka 1999; Uslaner 2002; Nooteboom 2011). Scholars who subscribe to a social capital framework have argued that trust is fundamental in the development and maintenance of strong social networks. Coleman (1988), for example, believes social capital is built through relationship networks in which individuals depend on others and, in turn, will act in the interests of others. Similarly, Putnam (2000, 19) argues that social capital is created by, 'social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them' and is sustained through acts of mutual interest or civic engagement within these networks.

Not only is it advantageous to be engaged in networks with those who are similar, but also with those who are different. Granovetter (1983) writes of the benefits of 'weak ties': relationships with people from groups outside one's primary network. Such connections offer access to resources and people who one might not ordinarily associate with. The concept of 'bridging' (weak tie relationships) versus 'bonding' (strong tie relationships) has been further developed by Putnam (2000). He believes that 'bridging' social capital (i.e., maintaining trusting relationships with those outside one's normal social circles), expands outlooks and facilitates the progression of ideas and perspectives, contributing to social integration (Putnam 2007).

Just as we argue that acceptance manifests in various ways, so too does trust (Uslaner 2002; Newton & Zmerli 2011). The type of trust we extend towards those we know and with whom we have had positive dealings is not necessarily the same as the type of trust we may extend toward those we have not met (Uslaner 2002). While particularised trust is developed through intimate knowledge of others we know, generalised trust is extended towards others who are not known personally to us. Generalised trust implies others are dependable on the basis of a conviction that most people are generally trustworthy and do not deserve suspicion (Fukuyama 1995; Putnam 2000; Uslaner 2002, 2011). However, while generalised trust may be extended to those who are not familiar to us, this does not mean that such trust will be extended to all. As Nannestead (2008, 417) points out, 'nobody trusts everybody' and this will depend upon people's perceptions of who truly belongs to their 'moral community' and who does not. We suggest that in order for Australians more readily to accept 'boat people' and other asylum seekers into their society, there must be potential to build trusting relationships. Whilst toleration is a good first step, it is important to know if Australians who are accepting of asylum seekers might also be inclined to trust these individuals.

The attitudes of Australians towards asylum seekers and 'boat people'

Previous studies of Australians' attitudes towards asylum seekers, in particular 'boat people', show clear divisions of public opinion on this issue. For more than a decade the Australian Election Study (AES) has included questions on asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat. Immediately following the events of the Tampa 'crisis' (O' Doherty & Augoustinos 2008) and 11 September 2001, more than 62 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement, 'All boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned back'. By 2010, the percentage had decreased, but still remained over 50 per cent (McAllister & Pietsch 2011).

The attitudes of Australians towards 'boat people' have also been investigated by the Scanlon Foundation Surveys, which measure core indicators of social cohesion within Australia (Markus 2013). In the most recent survey, Marcus (2013) reports that 33 per cent of Australians believe boats carrying asylum seekers should be immediately turned around, and another 13 per cent support the suggestion that boat people should be detained and deported. While 49 per cent of respondents in the Scanlon study said boat people should be accepted into Australia, only 18 per cent agree that the arrangement should be permanent. Compared with previous surveys, Markus (2013) notes an increase in negative attitudes among Australians, with those most likely to reject unexpected arrivals being Coalition (Liberal/National) supporters, those aged 55 to 64, the less educated, people living in regional areas, and those who are experiencing economic hardship (Markus 2013, 41).

Several reasons are offered as to why some Australians feel hostile towards asylum seekers. In many Western nations, politicians and the media often frame asylum seekers as presenting a threat to settled populations. As Castles and Miller (2003, 102-3) put it, when referring to refugees and asylum seekers, 'sensationalist journalists and right wing politicians map out dire consequences, such as rocketing crime rates, fundamentalist terrorism, collapsing welfare systems and mass unemployment'. Such constructions induce anxieties among citizens who fear they will be disadvantaged by adopting an accepting and benevolent stance. Similarly, in Australia, politicians and the media have often been accused of inciting public fear of asylum seekers (e.g., Klocker & Dunn 2003). Through public constructions that frame asylum seekers as being untrustworthy and at times dangerous, many Australians fear that asylum seekers pose a legitimate threat to their country. For example, there are concerns that asylum seekers may be terrorists (McDonald 2011; McKay et al. 2011) or, that they will threaten the Australian way of life because of irreconcilable cultural differences (Every & Augoustinos 2008). Many question the legality of the actions of asylum seekers who come to Australia by boat and the legitimacy of their claims for refugee status (McDonald 2011). They are frequently framed as 'illegal immigrants' who have attempted to enter Australia without permission, and accused of 'jumping the queue' ahead of others who have applied for refugee status overseas and have waited to be granted an Australian visa (Schweitzer et al. 2005; Hartley 8c Pedersen 2007). Unexpected arrivals are also often accused of placing an unreasonable burden upon Australia by taking resources from Australians who are seen as being more deserving (Pedersen et al. 2005; Pickering 2008).

Researchers have applied numerous theoretical frameworks to explain the negative attitudes of some Australians towards asylum seekers. Pedersen et al. (2006), for example, have demonstrated how 'false beliefs' (e.g., factually incorrect beliefs about asylum seekers) are associated with negative public attitudes. Louis and associates (2007) have further suggested intergroup processes related to social identity can lead to the endorsement of exclusionary behaviours. Taking another perspective, Pietsch and Marotta (2009) have drawn on the classic sociological concept of 'the stranger' to explain exclusionary beliefs. Studies such as these have all provided important theoretical insight into why Australians might exhibit exclusionary attitudes. Yet, while a number of studies have focussed upon identifying mechanisms of exclusion that are active within the Australian settled population, fewer have considered mechanisms of acceptance. At the theoretical level, there are different types of acceptance. There are constructs that describe instances of conditional acceptance and others that describe a more unqualified relationship between the person who is accepting and the person being accepted. At the empirical level, however, studies measuring acceptance have tended to view the concept as being more absolute in nature. In this study, we start to explore empirically the spectrum of acceptance and apply a methodological approach that considers not only if members of the Australian settled population are accepting, but also how they are accepting.

Past research has identified certain demographic characteristics that are associated with Australians who are supportive of asylum seekers. Women are more accepting than men (McKay et al. 2012; Markus 2013), as are people with left-wing political orientations (Pedersen et al. 2005; Hartley & Pedersen 2007; Markus 2013). In addition educational levels tend to moderate attitudes towards asylum seekers (Pedersen et al. 2005; McKay et al. 2012; Markus 2013). Nevertheless, a theoretical framework that better describes this acceptance is largely absent in the literature.

Little is also known about how young Australians are responding to this issue. Previous studies have tended to draw the data from adult Australians (e.g., Louis et al. 2007; McKay et al. 2012) and, while it has been noted that younger people may be generally more sympathetic towards asylum seekers, few studies have specifically examined the views of young Australians on this issue. Where they have (e.g., Nickerson & Louis 2008), the sample has been restricted (e.g., a university population), and not drawn from a representative sample of young people.

Researching the opinions of young people on this issue is important. Young people act as a gauge for measuring societal change (Mokwena 2001). They are, as Mokwena (2001, 29) argues, 'barometers through which we can measure the level of social cohesion, democratization or lack thereof'. Australia's young people were raised in the shadow of the events of 11 September 2001 and the 2002 Bali bombings. During their formative years they were exposed to a socio-political environment where they were cautioned by government and media to be suspicious and vigilant. For more than a decade, media reports on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and stories of the purported invasion of asylum seekers attempting unlawfully to reach Australia have been commonplace. Consequently, it would be difficult to sustain an argument that these young Australians have not, in some way, been exposed to these messages. Given the socio-political backdrop of their formative years, it is important to investigate how younger Australians are responding to unexpected arrivals.

The aim of this study is to investigate the attitudes of young Australians towards people who come to Australia by boat to request asylum. We also compare the views of younger Australians with their Australian adult counterparts. Moreover, we believe it is important to explore the nature of this acceptance more rigorously. In this study, we therefore focus on the following research questions:

1. How willing are young Australians to accept 'boat people' into Australia, and are they more or less accepting than older Australians?

2. What social and political factors are associated with acceptance of 'boat people' by young Australians?

3. Are the social and political factors associated with acceptance of 'boat people' also associated with trust in people from other countries?

Data and methods

The data analysed here derives from the 'Social Futures and Life Pathways' project. Also known as the Our Lives study, this longitudinal study follows the social orientations of a single age cohort of young people from Queensland, Australia. (2) Commencing in 2006, Our Lives surveys have been carried out every 2-3 years. The 2006 baseline survey collected data on 7,031 young people aged 12-13 years old who were recruited from 213 government-funded, independent and Catholic schools across Queensland. A further 71 schools were approached, but declined to be involved in the project. The final sample of schools was representative of Queensland schools by geographic region, although there was an over-representation of female students and students from independent schools. This bias was corrected with post-stratification weighting in the univariate and bivariate responses and is further explained below.

The third wave of this project was undertaken in 2010, when the cohort was 16-17 years old and in their final year of secondary education. The Wave 3 survey included items on participants' attitudes, orientations and behaviours as well as questions on demographic background. Participants were contacted directly and the survey was conducted using online and hardcopy formats. The Wave 3 survey was administered in two versions. A full version of the survey was sent to participants who completed previous waves of the survey, with a condensed version sent to those from the baseline group who had not participated since Wave 1. There were 2,378 responses to the full version, and 761 responses to the shorter version of the survey. Wave 3 was the first time the Our Lives survey included a question relating to the participants' views towards 'boat people', which appeared in the full version of the survey instrument. This was the AES item: 'All boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned back'.

Our focus on the acceptance of 'boat people' by young Australians was initially informed by discussions on how accepting the Australian adult population is of these arrivals at the national level. Given that data from AES and Our Lives were being collected at the time, the inclusion of this AES item into the Our Lives survey enabled an excellent opportunity for making a direct comparison between an adult Australian sample and a sample of younger Australians. The data from this item can also be applied to understanding the nature of acceptance towards 'boat people'. As has been explained, toleration involves a deliberate decision not to prevent another from engaging in an action that is objectionable, despite the first party believing they have the power to do so. Toleration towards asylum seekers coming to Australia might then be demonstrated through expressing the belief that boats carrying asylum seekers should not be turned away, despite there being objection to the practice of asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat, and believing that Australia has the power to prevent them from doing so. Participants who indicate disagreement with the item 'All boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned back', are at the very least prepared to tolerate 'boat people'. However, some participants may be expressing a type of acceptance that does not involve objection, power, or deliberate restraint. We therefore investigate if any factors that predict acceptance of 'boat people' also predict a broader orientation towards trusting people who are from another country.

Two dependent variables are analysed. The first variable measures acceptance of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat. Like the AES study, our participants were asked to respond to the statement: 'All boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned back', (responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale: strongly agree to strongly disagree). We model agreement and disagreement with the statement to measure acceptance. The second variable is a measure of trust in foreign others, derived from the question: 'How much trust do you have in people from another country?' (responses: a great deal of trust; quite a lot of trust; not very much trust; none at all).

Dummy (binary) variables were constructed to examine parental education, respondent sex, school type (government, independent and Catholic), respondent university intentions, political party identification, the importance of belonging to a global community, and the importance of being an Australian. A composite independent variable measures xenophobic attitudes (Hjerm 2001). This was constructed by combining the responses to the following: There are different opinions about the effects that immigrants have on Australia. How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?: 1. Immigrants increase the crime rate; 2. Immigrants are generally good for Australia's economy; 3. Immigrants take jobs away from people who are born in Australia; 4. Immigrants make Australia more open to new ideas and cultures.

The composite scale resulting from these four statements is reliable, with a Cronbach's Alpha of .76 (items 2 and 4 are reverse scored).

In the section that follows, Figure 1 shows the comparison of young peoples' responses to the 'boat people' statement with adult responses from the 2010 Australian Election Study (McAllister & Pietsch 2011). We weight the univariate responses that appear in Figure 1 and the bivariate (crosstabs) responses in Table 2. Other data presented here are not weighted. Unweighted regression estimates are preferable because they are 'unbiased, consistent, and have smaller standard errors' when the sampling weights applied are 'a function of independent variables included in the model' (Winship 8c Radbill 1994, 230), as they are in this instance.

The bivariate associations between the two dependent variables and various independent variables are examined in Table 1. Cross tabulations are presented with higher percentages representing more accepting attitudes towards 'boat people' and greater trust in people from other countries respectively. Probability values based upon chi-squared tests are presented to estimate the probability that the sample results hold in the population of Queensland's young people rather than only in our sample. Based upon binary logistic regression analysis (Agresti 8c Finlay 1997), associations between several independent variables and the two dependent variables are then presented in multivariate tables (Tables 2 and 3). The results presented are odds ratios in which asterisks denote the level of statistical significance. In Table 2, we examine the social and political background of the 'acceptance of boat people' dependent variable, and in Table 3 we examine the 'trust' dependent variable. Three models are presented in each table. Model 1 introduces social background variables to the regression equation; Model 2 adds several attitudinal variables; and Model 3 includes political party identification. As we argue that acceptance of 'boat people' may or may not be related to trust, we also include the trust measure in Table 3, Model 2, as an independent variable. This allows us to examine the extent to which trust in people from other countries shapes attitudes towards 'boat people' (see Appendix Table A for descriptive statistics on all variables).

Results

How accepting of 'boat people' are young Australians?

When measuring acceptance of 'boat people', the data from the Our Lives study display a fairly even distribution of opinion. Our findings suggest that 33 per cent of participants are accepting, in that they either strongly disagree or disagree that boats carrying asylum seekers towards Australia should be turned away. Another 36 per cent agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, and 31 per cent were ambivalent on the issue. (3)

By comparison, the 2010 AES (McAllister & Pietsch 2011) suggests Australian adults are less accommodating. Fifty one per cent of Australian adults supported the statement that the boats should be turned away, 20 per cent reported that they neither agreed or disagreed with the statement, and 29 per cent indicated they were accepting. The most notable difference between these two samples, therefore, is that while there is a spread of opinion in the sample of young people, the adult sample is skewed towards the rejection of boat people (Figure 1).

Bivariate results

The bivariate results in Table 1 indicate that 33 per cent of the students sampled either disagree or strongly disagree that all boat people should be turned back, while 52 per cent have either a great deal or quite a lot of trust in people from other countries. With the exception of the association between sex and 'acceptance' ([chi square] p < .014) as well as sex and 'trust' ([chi square] p < .501), all of the results presented in Table 1 are highly statistically significant ([chi square] p < .0001). The cross-tabulations indicate that young women (36 per cent) are more accepting of 'boat people' than are young men (31 per cent). Parental education plays a role here, with the children of tertiary educated parents far more accepting of unexpected arrivals and trusting of people from other countries than the non-tertiary educated. Students who attend independent (41 per cent) and Catholic schools (40 per cent) are also far more accepting than government school students (28 per cent). Educational aspirations also have a strong influence, with those who intend to study at university after leaving school far more likely to exhibit favourable attitudes towards 'boat people' and more likely to trust people from other countries. Young people who see themselves as belonging to the 'global community' are more accepting of 'boat people' and trusting of foreign others, but those who believe in the importance of 'being Australian', exhibit opposite tendencies.

Political party affiliation is a very strong indicator here. Greens party identifiers are most likely to adopt a more accepting stance (60 per cent) towards 'boat people', compared to Fiberal supporters (25 per cent), National party supporters (11 per cent), or the non-aligned (29 per cent). Labor supporters (37 per cent) sit in between these extremes on the acceptance measure, but are quite similar to Liberal supporters on the trust measure.

Multivariate results

To identify the social and political determinants of acceptance of 'boat people' as well as trust in people from other countries in a more robust manner, we examined the two outcome measures using logistic regression analyses (Tables 2 and 3). For the 'acceptance of boat people' dependent variable (Table 2; Model 1), the findings suggest that women (OR 1.4) are more accepting than men. Other social background effects are also apparent. Parental education has an influence, with the children of tertiary educated parents more accepting of 'boat people', although the effects are much weaker when attitudes are controlled in models 2 and 3. Planning to pursue a tertiary education after leaving secondary school is also important. Those who intend to go to university are about twice as likely as other younger people to be accepting of 'boat people' (Model 3, OR 1.7). Controlling for differences in social background, young people who attend Catholic schools are 1.8 times more likely than government school students to hold favourable attitudes towards unexpected arrivals (Model 1), with both independent school and Catholic school effects remaining significant in all models when attitudinal and political party identification variables are included in the regression equation.

Attitudinal variables are strongly associated with the 'acceptance' dependent variable. Identification with the global community (Model 3; OR 1.4) is associated with increased acceptance, while those who stress the importance of being Australian are only about half as accepting as others. Not surprisingly, scoring high on the xenophobia scale is strongly associated with non-acceptance of 'boat people'. This finding holds after controlling for social background and political party identification (Model 3). Political party identification also has a strong impact of its own. The odds for Greens identifiers are over 3 times as large as those for Liberal and National supporters, suggesting Greens supporters are far more accepting of unexpected arrivals, with a similar but weaker effect apparent for Labor supporters (OR 1.8). The politically non-affiliated are also 40 per cent (OR 1.4) more likely than Coalition supporters to accept 'boat people'. The high Nagelkerke pseudo [R.sup.2] statistics (Nagelkerke 1991) suggest that the full model (Model 3) offers a good fit with these data.

While several independent variables are associated with acceptance of 'boat people', these patterns are less apparent for the trust dependent variable (Table 3). Firstly, the gender effect is absent for trust, with odds ratios of approximately 1.0 for each model, as although women are more inclined to be accepting of unexpected arrivals, gender does not predict trust in people from other countries. Independent school students (OR 1.2) are slightly more likely than those who attend government schools to trust people from other countries, while Catholic school students are slightly less trusting than their government school counterparts (OR 0.7).

Other predictors of acceptance were also not as consistent in predicting trust. Those who plan to attend university scored highly on the 'acceptance of boat people' variable, but the effects are somewhat weaker for trust (Model 1; OR 1.6). Similarly, while Labor supporters were more accepting of 'boat people' than supporters of the conservative parties (i.e., Liberal and National), they were not significantly more trusting of foreign others at the 95 per cent level of statistical significance. Our findings show the only relatively strong and consistent predictors of accepting 'boat people' and trusting people from other countries are: university educational aspirations, a belief in the importance of belonging to the global community, and identification with the Australian Greens Party.

Discussion

This study examined survey data collected from a large sample of young people from Queensland, Australia in 2010 to understand their attitudes towards 'boat people' coming to Australia. Broad comparisons were then made with results of the Australian Election Survey, which measured the attitudes of adult Australians in the same year (McAllister & Pietsch 2011). In order to examine the extent to which trust shapes attitudes towards 'boat people', we also measured the levels of trust the sample of young Australians extended towards people who are from another country.

Our analyses revealed some important insights into attitudes on the issue. As with adult Australians, the political divide is also apparent among younger people. Yet, our research suggests young Australians are generally more accepting of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat than their adult counterparts. This finding is consistent with other Australian studies, which also report a negative correlation between age and expressed acceptance of asylum seekers (e.g., McKay et al. 2012). This may be an age-based phenomenon where expressed views could alter over time (e.g., Stewart et al. 2009; Radvansky et al. 2010), or alternatively, it could be a generational phenomenon, by which younger Australians are, and will remain, more accepting of those requesting humanitarian assistance than older Australians. If this is the case, we will see this acceptance pattern sustained over time. Further longitudinal analysis is needed to investigate this and will be undertaken in subsequent Our Lives surveys. At this point in time, however, what we have found is that young people who were growing up in Australia during the first decade of this millennium were more accepting of 'boat people' than Australians who are older.

Our findings show that a number of social and political factors indicate increased likelihood of holding accepting views towards allowing 'boat people' into Australia. Consistent with McKay and associates (2012) and Markus (2013), for example, we found that women are more inclined towards acceptance than men. Also, as has been reported in the past by authors such as Hartley and Pedersen (2007) and Markus (2013), political identification also plays a part. The results here show both Greens and Labor supporters, as well as those who have no political affiliation, as more accepting of unexpected arrivals than Coalition (i.e., conservative) supporters. A number of factors relating to education also contribute: parental education level, aspirations for university education, and the type of school a person attends. What we also discovered, however, was that while several demographic variables correspond to disagreement that boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned away from Australia, fewer variables predicted a broader trust in people from another country. The only exceptions were an intention to attend university, a sense in belonging to the global community, and identification with The Australian Greens. Groups with these attributes appear to possess an outlook that encourages a greater propensity to be inclusive and be trusting of 'boat people'.

What of those who express acceptance but trust less? We believe that this inconsistency points to the presence of a mechanism of acceptance that is not based on a preparedness to accept 'boat people' as future members of Australia's 'moral community', but on toleration. In making this distinction we are not suggesting that people who are prepared to tolerate 'boat people' should be viewed critically. After all, toleration serves a valuable function in contexts where diverse peoples are brought together, as it can prevent conflict and disharmony (Edyvane & Matravers 2011; Horton 2011; Balint 2013). Nevertheless, we do maintain that it is important for the differences between 'toleration' and 'trust' to be acknowledged and problematised.

While the study revealed several demographic variables relating to acceptance, it adds an additional perspective to the relationship between education and the acceptance of asylum seekers. Education level has long been associated with acceptance of minority groups by dominant groups (Bobo & Licari 1989; Hjerm 2001; Hello et al. 2006). Consistent with this pattern, previous studies report positive relationships between higher educational achievement and a willingness to accept asylum seekers (Betts 2001; Pedersen et al. 2005; McKay et al. 2012). As a single age cohort in their final year of secondary education, level of education and duration of education has been largely held constant.

Due to this constancy,, we have found a positive relationship between attending non-government (i.e., independent and Catholic) schools and accepting asylum seekers. However, the influence of independent school education on young Australians' willingness to trust people from other countries is far weaker. Furthermore, Catholic school students are slightly more distrusting of foreign others than government school students. How do certain educational experiences inspire the conviction that asylum seekers should be allowed to enter the country, yet not necessarily inspire trust in them?

One possibility is that 'school type' is a proxy for socio-economic status. Enrolment in a non-government school is associated with financial privilege. Additionally, those who attend private schools are also more likely to achieve higher learning outcomes than those in government-funded schools (Ryan & Sibieta 2011). Young people educated within the private school sector may, therefore, be less concerned about material threats that asylum seekers are seen to pose than those of lower socio-economic status, who may perceive asylum seekers as posing a threat to their livelihoods.

Another contributing factor may be the school environment. As is often pointed out, schools socialise students to their expected norms (e.g., Kingston et al. 2003; Hello et al. 2004). It is, therefore, possible that independent schools and Catholic schools do more to reinforce the expression of altruistic sentiment towards those less fortunate than do government-funded schools. Given that many independent schools in Australia have a religious affiliation (Independent Schools Council of Australia 2013), this is a distinct possibility. It may be, however, that there are few opportunities for young people in these schools to form bridging-type relationships with people who are different from themselves. We would suggest that within any primarily homogeneous school environment, expression of such sentiments might be serving to strengthen bonding-type trust relationships amongst members of the school community. They may be learning to trust those within their own group, but not necessarily those who are outside of that group (Green & Preston 2001). Perhaps if these schools could encourage positive contact between their students and humanitarian entrants living in the community, this willingness to tolerate could transform into a willingness to trust (Christ et al. 2014).

This study has investigated the extent to which young Australians are prepared to accept 'boat people' into Australia. It has also proposed a framework for better understanding the nature of that acceptance. Two items were measured. The first asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the statement: 'All boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned back'. The second asked respondents: 'How much trust do you have in people from another country?' We do, however, wish to place some caveats upon the use of these items.

The first relates to future application of the concept of toleration to the 'boat people' item. We remind the reader that the data were collected in 2010. At that time, federal government policy was to detain 'boat people' within Australia while their applications were processed. Asylum seekers found to be 'genuine' refugees were then resettled in Australia. Australians who at this time disagreed with a policy of turning boats around were agreeing that passengers aboard these boats should be brought into Australia. This is no longer the case. The introduction of the 'Regional Resettlement Arrangement' by the Labor government in 2013 (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2013) and 'Operation Sovereign Borders' by the incumbent Coalition government (Liberal Party of Australia 2013), means people who disagree these boats should not be turned away are not necessarily indicating a preparedness to accept 'boat people' into Australia. Now, they may be expressing the view that 'boat people' should be given the opportunity to have their claims processed offshore and be resettled in countries other than Australia: a perspective that is not accepting.

Secondly, the 'trust' measure was used to tap into broader trusting orientation towards people who are from countries other than Australia. This item contained no suggestion that the people from these countries were boat people, refugees, or for that matter migrants either living in, or wishing to come to, Australia. Our goal was to establish a baseline, 'no strings attached', measurement of trust towards foreign others. Without this general level of trust, we believe trust in 'boat people' would be more unlikely. While we believe that making associations between these two items is appropriate, in future studies we aim to measure more directly the willingness of Australians to live alongside, and trust, 'boat people' and other humanitarian entrants.

Conclusion

This study addresses an important issue currently facing Australia. It investigates the extent to which young Australians will be prepared to accept those who seek humanitarian protection, and the conditions under which acceptance will be offered. It also provides insight as to whether 'boat people' can expect to be merely endured, or, welcomed and trusted. Further investigation via subsequent waves of survey data collection and more research of a qualitative nature--both currently underway--will further expand our understanding of this phenomenon. Nevertheless, our study demonstrates that acceptance of 'boat people' into Australia is multi-dimensional and that it cannot always be assumed that all who are prepared to accept unexpected arrivals into Australia will be willing to enter into a relationship with them based on mutual reciprocity and trust. Appendix Table A: Descriptive statistics Standard Mean Deviation Range N Dependent Variables 'Boat People' 3.01 1.25 1-5 2,251 Trust 2.50 0.68 1-4 2,377 Independent Variables Father has a degree 0.33 0.47 0/1 2,309 Mother has a degree 0.34 0.47 0/1 2,309 Women 0.64 0.48 0/1 2,377 Plan to attend University 0.74 0.44 0/1 2,386 Independent School 0.36 0.48 0/1 2,391 Catholic School 0.18 0.39 0/1 2,391 Global community 0.17 0.38 0/1 2,377 Being Australian 0.40 0.49 0/1 2,377 Xenophobia (scale) 11.21 2.80 4-20 2,391 Interpersonal trust 0.45 0.50 0/1 2,385 Labor ID 0.19 0.39 0/1 2,391 Green ID 0.13 0.33 0/1 2,391 No Party ID 0.39 0.49 0/1 2,391

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jonathan Smith and three anonymous referees for their useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997) Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences, 3rd edn, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Allport, G. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice, Cambridge, MA, Addison-Wesley.

Australian Human Rights Commission (2013) Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights: Snapshot Report 2013, http://www.humanrights.gov.au/ publications/asylum-seekers-refugees-and-human-rights-snapshot-report

Balint, P. (2013) 'Acts of tolerance: a political and descriptive account', European Journal of Political Theory, doi 10.1177/1474885113492729.

Betts, K. (2001) 'Boat people and public opinion in Australia', People and Place, 9 (4), 34-48.

Bobo, L. and Licari, F. C. (1989) 'Education and political tolerance: testing the effects of cognitive sophistication and target group affect', The Public Opinion Quarterly, 53 (3), 285-308.

Castles, S. & Miller, M.J. (2003) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World, 3rd edn, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.

Christ, O., Schmid, K., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Stolle, D., Tausch, N. et al. (2014) 'Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, early edition, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320901111.

Cohen, A.J. (2004) 'What toleration is', Ethics, 115 (1), 68-95.

Coleman, J.S. (1988) 'Social capital in the creation of human capital', American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), S95-S120.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2013) Regional resettlement arrangement between Australia and Papua New Guinea, https://www.dfat. gov.au/geo/png/regional-resettlement-arrangement-20130719.html

Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2012) Pact Sheet 61: Seeking Protection Within Australia, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/ fact-sheets/61 protection.htm

Edyvane, D. & Matravers, M. (2011) 'Introduction: toleration re-examined', Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 14 (3), 281-288.

Every, D. & Augoustinos, M. (2008) 'Constructions of Australia in pro- and anti-asylum seeker political discourse', Nations and Nationalism, 14 (3), 562-580.

Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, London, Hamish Hamiliton.

Galeotti, A.E. (2002) Toleration as Recognition, Cambridge, University of Cambridge.

Granovetter, M. (1983) 'The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited', Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.

Green, A., & Preston, J. (2001) 'Education and social cohesion: recentering debate', Peabody Journal of Education, 76(3/4), 247-284.

Hardin, R. (2002) Trust & Trustworthiness, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.

Hartley, L. & Pedersen, A. (2007) 'Asylum seekers: how attributions and emotion affect Australians' views on mandatory detention of "the other'", Australian Journal of Psychology, 59 (3), 119-131.

Hello, E., Scheepers, P. & Sleegers, P. (2006) 'Why the more educated are less inclined to keep ethnic distance: an empirical test of four explanations', Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29 (5), 959-985.

Hello, E., Scheepers, P., Vermulst, A. & Gerris, J.R.M. (2004) 'Association between eduction attainment and ethinic distance in young adults: socialization by school or parents?', Acta Sociologica, 47(3), 253-275.

Hjerm, M. (2001) 'Education, xenophobia and nationalism: a comparative analysis', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27 (1), 37-60.

Horton, J. (2011) 'Why the traditional conception of toleration still matters', Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 14 (3), 289-305.

Independent Schools Council of Australia (2013) About independent schools, http://isca.edu.au/about-independent-schools/

Kingston, P.W., Hubbard, R., Lapp, B., Schroeder, P., Wilson (2003) 'Why education matters', Sociology of Education, 76 (1), 53-17.

Klocker, N. & Dunn, K.M. (2003) 'Who's driving the asylum debate? Newspaper and government representations of asylum seekers' Media International Australia, 109, 71-92.

Liberal Party of Australia (2013) Operation Sovereign Borders, http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Policies/OperationSovereignBorders_Policy.pdf

Louis, W., Duck, J.M., Terry, D.J., Schuller, R.A. & Lalonde, R.N. (2007) 'Why do citizens want to keep refugees out? Threats, fairness and hostile norms in the treatment of asylum seekers', European Journal of Social Psychology, 37 (1), 53-73.

Markus, A. (2013) Mapping Social Cohesion: The Scanlon Foundation Surveys National Report 2013, http://www.scanlonfoundation.org.au/docs/2013_ SocC_report_final.pdf

McAllister, I. & Pietsch, J. (2011) Trends in Australian Political Opinion: Results from the Australian Election Study, 1987-2010, http://aes.anu.edu. au/sites/default/files/Trends%20in%20Australian%20Political %20Opinion.pdf

McDonald, M. (2011) 'Deliberation and resecuritization: Australia, asylum-seekers and the normative limits of the Copenhagen School', Australian Journal of Political Science, 46 (2), 281-295.

McKay F.H., Thomas, S.L. & Blood, R.W. (2011) "Any one of these boat people could be a terrorist for all we know!' Media representations and public perceptions of 'boat people' arrivals in Australia', Journalism, 12 (5), 607-626.

McKay, F.H., Thomas, S.L. & Kneebone, S. (2012) "It would be okay if they came through the proper channels': community perceptions and attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia', Journal of Refugee Studies, 25 (1), 113-133.

Mokwena, S. (2001) 'Deepening democracy: meeting the challenge of youth citizenship'. In J. Foster & K. Naidoo (eds), Young People at the Centre: Participation and Social Change, London, Commonwealth Secretariat.

Nagelkerke, N.J.D. (1991) 'A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination', Biometrika, 78 (3), 691-692.

Nannestad, P. (2008) 'What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything?', Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 413-436.

Newton, K. & Zmerli, S. (2011) 'Three forms of trust and their association', European Political Science Review, 3 (2), 169-200.

Nickerson, A.M. & Louis, W. R. (2008) 'Nationality versus humanity?

Personality, identity, and norms in relation to attitudes toward asylum seekers', Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38 (3), 796-817.

Nooteboom, B. (2011) 'The dynamics of trust: communication, action and third parties', Comparative Sociology, 10 (2), 166-185.

O'Doherty, K. & Lecouteur, A. (2007) '"Asylum seekers", "boat people" and "illegal immigrants": social categorisation in the media', Australian Journal of Psychology, 59 (1) , 1-12.

Pedersen, A., Attwell, J. & Heveli, D. (2005) 'Prediction of negative attitudes toward Australian asylum seekers: false beliefs, nationalism, and self-esteem', Australian Journal of Psychology, 57 (3), 148-160.

Pedersen, A., Watt, S. & Hansen, S. (2006) 'The role of false beliefs in the community's and the federal government's attitudes toward Australian asylum seekers', Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41 (1), 105-123.

Phillips, J. (2014) Boat arrivals in Australia: a quick guide to the statistics, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_ Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/ rpl314/QG/BoatArrivals

Pickering, S. (2008) 'The new criminals: refugees and asylum seekers', in T. Anthony & C. Cunneen (eds.), The Critical Criminology Companion, Sydney, Hawkins Press.

Pietsch, J. & Marotta, V. (2009) 'Bauman, strangerhood and attitudes towards immigrants among the Australian population', Journal of Sociology, 45 (2), 187-200.

Pittinsky, T.L. & Montoya, R.M. (2009) 'Is valuing equality enough? Equality values, allophilia, and social policy support for multiracial individuals', Journal of Social Issues, 65 (1), 151-163.

Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone, New York, Simon and Schuster.

--(2007) 'E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century', Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), 137-174.

Radvansky, G.A., Copeland, D.E., von Elippel, W. (2010) 'Stereotype activation, inhibition, and aging', Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 46 (1), 51-60.

Ryan, C., & Sibieta, L. A. (2011) 'A comparison of private schooling in the Linked Kingdom and Australia', The Australian Economic Review, 44(3), 295-307.

Schweitzer, R., Perkoulidis, S., Krome, S., Ludlow, C. & Ryan, M. (2005) 'Attitudes towards refugees: the dark side of prejudice in Australia', Australian Journal of Psychology, 57 (3), 170-179.

Stewart, B. D., von Hippel, W., & Radvansky, G. A. (2009) 'Age, race, and implicit prejudice: using process dissociation to separate the underlying components', Psychological Science, 20 (2), 164-168.

Sztompka, P. (1999) Trust: A Sociological Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) (2010) Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, http://www.unhcr. org/3b66c2aa10.html

Uslaner, E.M. (2002) The Moral Foundations of Trust, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

--(2011) 'Trust, diversity, and segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom', Comparative Sociology, 10 (2), 221-247.

Vollhardt, J. K., Migacheva, K, & Tropp, L.R. (2009) 'Social cohesion and tolerance for group differences'. In J. de Rivera (ed.), Handbook on Building Cultures of Peace, New York, N.Y, Springer.

Wilson, L. (2014) Boats are stopping, says minister, http://www.theaustralian. com.au/nationaTaffairs/policy/boats-are-stopping-says-minister/ story-fn9hmlgu-1226794610362#mm-premium

Winship, C., & Radbill, L. (1994) 'Sampling weights and regression analysis' Sociological Methods and Research, 23 (2), 230-257.

Endnotes

(1.) In 2013, a total of 20,587 people travelled to Australia by boat to seek asylum (Phillips 2014). The current federal government claims a reduction in those numbers since it was elected into government in September 2013 and implemented 'Operation Sovereign Borders' (Wilson 2014).

(2.) The Social Futures and Life Pathways (Our Lives) project is funded through several Australian Research Council Discovery Grants (DP0557667, DP0878781 and DP130101490). Website: http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/ourlives/

(3.) The Our Lives questions also contained a 'Don't know' category for the 'boat people' item, with six per cent of young people selecting this option. 'Don't know' responses were removed from the analyses here. Table 1: Acceptance of 'boat people' and trust in people from other countries (per cent) Acceptance Trust Sex Male 30.7 49.9 Female 35.5 49.8 P <.014 .501 Parents have a degree No 26.2 43.8 One parent 37.6 55.8 Both parents 49.5 63.1 P <.0001 <.0001 School Government 27.6 47.2 Independent 41.0 61.3 Catholic 40.2 45.6 P <.0001 <.0001 University after school Yes 38.8 55.0 No 19.6 38.8 P <.0001 <.0001 Importance of being Australian Not very important 70.5 64.2 Not important 46.0 53.4 Somewhat important 44.5 59.6 Important 35.4 52.9 Very Important 20.8 42.3 p <.0001 <.0001 Part of global community Not very important 41.1 50.9 Not important 19.3 31.8 Somewhat important 26.8 45.0 Important 38.7 56.7 Very important 42.8 61.8 P <.0001 <.0001 Political party Labor 36.7 50.4 Liberal 25.0 46.9 National 11.1 43.6 Green 59.5 67.0 None 29.2 47.1 P <.0001 <.0001 Sample % 33.1 49.8 Notes: 'Acceptance' = percentage of those who disagree or strongly disagree that All boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned back; 'Trust' = those who have a great deal or quite a lot of trust in people from another country. Source: Our Lives Data 2010 (weighted). Table 2: All boats carrying asylum seekers should (not) be turned back (odds ratios) Model 1 2 3 Father has a degree 1.5 *** 1.1 1.1 Mother has a degree 1.4 *** 1.3 * 1.2 * Women 1.4 *** 1.3 ** 1.2 * University next 2.2 *** 1.7 *** 1.7 *** Independent school 1.5 *** 1.4 ** 1.5 *** Catholic school 1.8 *** 1.7 *** 1.7 *** Global community -- 1.5 *** 1.4 ** Being Australian -- 0.5 *** 0.6 *** Xenophobia (scale) -- 0.6 *** 0.7 *** Interpersonal trust -- 1.2 * 1.2 * Trust people from another country -- 1.9 *** 1.8 *** Labor ID -- -- 1.8 *** Green ID -- -- 3.3 *** No Party ID -- -- 1.4 ** Nagelkerke [R.sup.2] .12 .47 .49 N (2,145) (2,139) (2,139) * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Source: Our Lives Data 2010 Table 3: How much trust do you have in people from another country? (odds ratios) Model 1 2 3 Father has a degree 1.8 *** 1.5 *** 1.5 *** Mother has a degree 1.1 1.0 1.0 Women 1.1 1.0 1.0 University next 1.6 *** 1.4 ** 1.4 ** Independent school 1.3 ** 1.2 1.2 * Catholic school 0.8 0.7 ** 0.7 ** Global community -- 1.8 *** 1.7 *** Being Australian -- 0.7 ** 0.7 ** Xenophobia -- 0.8 *** 0.8 *** Interpersonal trust -- 2.0 *** 2.0 *** Labor ID -- -- 1.2 Green ID -- -- 1.6 ** No party ID -- -- 1.0 Nagelkerke [R.sup.2] .06 .24 .24 N (2,273) (2,270) (2,270) * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Source: Our Lives Data 2010 Figure 1: 'All boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned back' (per cent) Our lives AES Strongly Agree 16.8 29.6 Agree 18.8 21.5 Neither 31.3 19.5 Disagree 20.4 17.1 Strongly Disagree 12.7 12.3 Note: Table made from bar graph.