The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and ...

European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.73

The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: immigrant-majority relations in Germany HANNA ZAGEFKA* AND RUPERT BROWN University of Kent at Canterbury, UK

Abstract This study examined the impact of the acculturation strategy preferences of both immigrants and host society on intergroup relations. It was expected that integration would lead to the best outcome for both groups. Moreover, it was tested whether the relative ‘fit’ between host society and immigrant strategy preference would predict intergroup relations. The predictive power of two different operationalisations of fit was compared. School students (193 German host society members and 128 immigrants to Germany) participated in a questionnaire study. Findings revealed that both acculturation strategies of one group and relative ‘fit’ between immigrant and host society strategy preference were predictive of intergroup relations. In general, a strategy of integration was associated with more favourable intergroup relations in both groups, and a mismatch between host and immigrant preferred strategies yielded the most negative outcomes. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Migration is a fact of modern life. Just to give a single instance, about 50 million people migrated over German borders from 1952 to 1995 (http://www. uni-bamberg.de/ ba6ef3/ds211a_d.htm). Such widespread movement of people inevitably brings different groups into contact with one another, as immigrants and members of a host society. The changes in the original cultural pattern of either or both groups as a result of that contact have been labelled acculturation (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). In many settings the groups co-exist relatively harmoniously and there is consensus as to what changes are desirable; other contexts are marked by intergroup tension or conflict. In such situations the groups usually disagree about what changes should occur, and on which side. The research reported here examines some of the social psychological consequences of such agreement and disagreement between immigrants and the host society over their preferred acculturation strategies. The attitudes immigrants can hold towards acculturation and the strategies they might employ to deal with their situation have been classified by Berry (1974, 1980). According to Berry, two dimensions are relevant for acculturation strategy choice: the newcomers’ desire to maintain their original culture, and their desire to have relationships and contact with members of the host society. The combination of these dimensions of culture maintenance and contact results in four distinct *Correspondence to: Hanna Zagefka, Department of Psychology, Keynes College, The University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 4 November 2000 Accepted 1 June 2001

172

Hanna Zagefka and Rupert Brown

acculturation strategies: integration, separation, assimilation and marginalisation. If immigrants wish to maintain their original cultural identity and are interested in interacting with host community members at the same time, the resulting acculturation strategy is integration. If immigrants want to maintain their original identity but do not want to participate in or engage with members of the host society, a strategy of separation results. Immigrants aim at assimilation if they abolish their original cultural identity and, at the same time, seek contact with members of the host community. Finally, if immigrants reject both their original culture and show no interest in having relations with members of the host community, marginalisation results. Most studies have found a strong tendency for immigrant groups to favour integration (Berry, 1997; Van de Vijver, Helms-Lorenz, & Feltzer, 1999; Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998). Furthermore, integration has been shown to be the most adaptive strategy in many settings, being associated with the best acculturative outcome (Berry, 1997; Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987; Liebkind, 1996; Liebkind, 2001). However, it has to be noted that most of this research has focused on intrapersonal variables like psychological adaptation of the immigrants or acculturative stress rather than on intergroup relations (e.g. Berry et al., 1987; Jerusalem, 1988). The positive effects of the integration strategy are consistent with recent experimental evidence on the effects of intergroup contact (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998; Gaertner, Dovidio, Rust, Nier, Banker, Ward, Mottola, & Houlette, 1999; Gonzalez & Brown, presentation at the BPS Social Psychology Section Conference, Lancaster, September 1999): Integration may lead to the best acculturative results because immigrants share a common identity with the host majority and yet are still able to distinguish themselves from the majority in a positive way (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Hewstone & Brown, 1986). In contrast, marginalisation with its negative orientations on both the culture maintenance and contact dimensions is likely to produce the worst acculturative results (Berry, 1997). This pattern has frequently been confirmed by empirical research (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992). Whilst psychological research has traditionally focused only on the immigrants’ attitudes and acculturation strategies, recently it has been pointed out that the host society’s attitudes are important for the outcome of the acculturation process as well (Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997a; Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998). Bourhis and colleagues argue that the host society, just like the immigrants, will typically display a preference for one of the four acculturation strategies, i.e. integration, assimilation, segregation (which is equivalent to separation) or exclusion (which is equivalent to marginalisation). In other words, the host society has specific ideas about how they want to deal with immigrants and about how they want immigrants to behave. For instance, Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzalek (2000) found a preference for integration within the German host society. However, research on host society strategy preference has been sparse so far. An appreciation of the importance of the host society’s acculturation attitudes as well as those of immigrant groups then raises the question of the compatibility (or otherwise) between them. According to the Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM, Bourhis et al., 1997a), acculturative outcome and intergroup relations between immigrants and host society are actually best predicted by the relative ‘fit’ of immigrant strategy preference and host society strategy preference. Following the predictions of Bourhis et al. (1997a), taking the relative ‘fit’ into consideration should allow more accurate predictions than if only one group’s strategy preference was considered in isolation. The IAM distinguishes between three different levels of ‘fit’: ‘consensual’, ‘problematic’ and ‘conflictual’. Table 1 shows which combinations of strategy preferences lead to which level of ‘fit’. For instance, while consensual fit results if both host society and immigrants prefer integration, conflictual fit results if immigrants prefer integration but the host society prefers marginalisation. Generally, the model suggests that ‘fit’ should be worst (i.e. conflictual) in all cases in which the host society denies contact with immigrants, and in all cases in which immigrants deny contact but do want to maintain their original culture. While consensus is thought to be achieved only in cases in which there is mutual Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

Acculturation strategies and intergroup relations Table 1.

173

The Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM, adapted from Bourhis et al., 1997a) Immigrant attitude

Host community attitude Integration

Integration

Assimilation

Separation

Marginalisation

Consensual

Problematic

Conflictual

Problematic

Assimilation

Problematic

Consensual

Conflictual

Problematic

Segregation (Separation)

Conflictual

Conflictual

Conflictual

Conflictual

Exclusion (Marginalisation)

Conflictual

Conflictual

Conflictual

Conflictual

agreement on the strategy of integration or assimilation, all other combinations are thought to lead to an intermediate (i.e. problematic) level of fit.1 ‘Consensual fit’ is thought to lead to low acculturative stress, low intergroup tension, positive interethnic attitudes, few negative stereotypes and little discrimination, ‘problematic fit’ is thought to lead to less favourable results, and ‘conflictual fit’ is thought to result in the worst intergroup outcomes of all. Although, formally, the concept of ‘fit’ in the IAM refers to the objective correspondence of host and immigrant attitudes, Bourhis et al. (1997a) point out that the subjective perception of host society strategies and state policies by the immigrants is important. Indeed, there is some evidence suggesting that the correspondence between self-described strategy preference and the perception of this preference by the respective outgroup is often poor (Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998). For instance, even if the vast majority of immigrants prefer integration, the host society might still perceive separation to be the strategy favoured most by the immigrants. Because we assume that an individual’s psychological responses to reality are mediated by the subjective perceptions of this reality, the measurement of perceived strategies and the assessment of fit between preferred and perceived strategies is considered more valuable for the prediction of acculturative outcome than some direct, objective measurement (cf. also Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack, ‘Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat’ unpublished manuscript, 2000, Roccas, Horenczyk, & Schwartz, 2000; Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998). Essentially, we argue that people’s subjective perceptions of reality constitute and become the reality that informs their psychological responses. Therefore, the present study will focus on the perception of the respective outgroup’s strategy preference when determining relative fit and testing the predictions of the IAM.2 However, there are other possible definitions of relative ‘fit’ of acculturation strategy preference of immigrants and host society, which deviate from the operationalisation the IAM provides. For instance, ‘fit’ could be operationalised as the discrepancy between the own desire for culture maintenance and contact and the perception of the respective outgroup’s desire for culture maintenance and contact. The bigger the attitude discrepancy on either dimension, the worse the ‘fit’. It should be noted that this definition of ‘fit’ is substantially different from the one the IAM provides, since attitude discrepancies on either dimension and ‘fit’ as defined by the IAM are not linearly related. The IAM suggests different effects for different discrepancy combinations. If, for instance, both 1

For a more detailed discussion of the rationale of the model, see Bourhis et al. (1997a, b). A test of the effects of relative fit between ‘real’ preferred strategies of host society and immigrants (rather than the fit between own preference and the perception of the other’s preference) would to our mind not only be unnecessary, because we see perceived reality as the crucial factor that determines social psychological responses, but would also necessitate the identification of at least four host societies in which the majority of hosts prefer either integration, assimilation, separation or marginalisation. The considerable practical difficulties entailed in such a large-scale study were a further factor which led us to focus on perceived rather than actual strategy preferences when determining relative fit. 2


Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

174


parties prefer integration (which is equivalent to a zero discrepancy), the IAM predicts ‘consensual fit’, whereas if both parties prefer marginalisation (which is also equivalent to a zero discrepancy), the IAM predicts ‘conflictual fit’. The ‘discrepancy’ definition of ‘fit’ focuses on absolute attitude deviations, without differentiating between different discrepancy scenarios. Since neither the IAM nor any other definition of ‘fit’ has been tested systematically so far (cf. Bourhis et al., 1997b; Liebkind, 2001), it seems sensible to test various definitions of ‘fit’ in order to evaluate their predictive power and usefulness relative to each other. In sum, while immigrant acculturation strategies and their consequences, at least for intrapersonal variables like psychological adaptation and stress, have attracted much attention in the past, host society acculturation strategies have been widely neglected. Furthermore, despite its interesting predictions, neither the Interactive Acculturation Model of ‘fit’ nor any other operationalisation of ‘fit’ have yet been tested to our knowledge. The present study was designed to address these neglected issues. Before presenting the hypotheses that were tested, some notes on the particular intergroup context in which the study was set are in order. The study examined the strategy preferences of immigrants in Germany and those of the German host society. The two largest immigrant groups in Germany are Turkish people with 2.1 million and ‘Aussiedler’ with 4 million3 (www.einbuergerung.de). Many of the Turks are third or second generation immigrants whose parents came to Germany as guest workers in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the vast majority of them have not been granted German citizenship and are still treated as foreign (cf. Pettigrew, 1998). In contrast, most Aussiedler migrated to Germany after the political changes in the former Eastern bloc. Aussiedler are ethnic Germans whose ancestors moved to Russia and other Eastern countries, in many cases more than 200 years ago. Because of the German notion of blood citizenship, Aussiedler are granted the German passport immediately, regardless of the fact that their cultural background is as different from the German culture as it is for many other immigrant groups (Schmitt-Rodermund & Silbereisen, 1999; Silbereisen, Lantermann, & Schmitt-Rodermund, 1999, pp. 16–17). There are several other immigrant groups of substantial size in Germany, some of which were also represented in the present study, such as Kosovan refugees or Polish guest workers. With this setting in mind, the research was designed to examine the following issues: distribution of preferred and perceived acculturation strategies; the relationship between acculturation strategy preference and intergroup relations; and the relationship between relative fit of immigrant and host society strategy preferences and intergroup relations. First, in line with previous research, immigrants were expected to prefer the strategy of integration to all others. Following one of the few studies that have addressed host society strategy preference (Piontkowski et al., 2000), the same pattern was expected for the German host majority.4 A further question concerned how far the self-described strategy preferences and the perception of these preferences by the respective outgroup matched each other. Previous research suggests that the correspondence between these two is often poor (Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998). Additionally, acculturation strategy preferences of Turkish immigrants and Aussiedler (i.e. the two biggest immigrant groups in the present sample) were compared. There was reason to assume that the two groups might differ because of their different political and historical background, because of different state policies towards them (Bourhis et al., 1997a), and because the different average time length spent in Germany might cause different amounts of contact with the host majority (Pettigrew, 3 At present, about 7.3 million foreigners are living in Germany, which is about 9% of the total population. Thus, about 29% of all foreigners in Germany are Turks. The 4 million ‘Aussiedler’ are not included in this foreigner statistic, because of their special legal status, and have to be accounted for separately. 4 Although the few studies that have assessed host society strategy preference so far have not always found a preference for integration (cf. Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998), we based our predictions on Piontkowski et al. (2000) because their study had been carried out in Germany, i.e. in the same cultural context as our research.


Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

Acculturation strategies and intergroup relations

175

Jackson, Brika, Lemaine, Meertens, Wagner & Zick, 1998; Wagner & Machleit, 1986; Zheng & Berry, 1991). Second, the relationship between acculturation strategy preferences and intergroup relations was explored for both the immigrant and the host society groups. As outlined above, research on the effect of immigrants’ strategy choice has traditionally focussed on intrapersonal consequences rather than intergroup relations. The present study addressed the question of whether the positive effect of immigrants’ preference for integration on intrapersonal variables can be generalised to intergroup relations. The key indicators here were ingroup bias, perceived intergroup relations and perceived discrimination. Integration was expected to be associated with less ingroup bias, less perceived discrimination and more harmonious perceived intergroup relations. Although, to our knowledge, no data about the consequences of strategy choice within host societies have yet been published, there were reasons to assume that this pattern would also hold true in the host society (Bourhis, Montreuil, & Barrette, ‘Testing the Interactive Acculturation Model in Quebec’, unpublished manuscript, 1999). Furthermore, it was expected that both a positive orientation towards contact and a positive orientation towards culture maintenance contribute to better acculturative outcome/intergroup relations (Berry, 1997), although no a priori hypotheses could be made as to the relative importance of the two dimensions or as to whether the relative importance of the two dimensions would be the same for different outcome variables. Third, the present research aimed to test the key prediction of the IAM: does a good ‘fit’ between preferred and perceived acculturation strategies lead to better intergroup relations (i.e. less bias, perceived discrimination and intergroup conflict)? Additionally, it was tested whether the ‘discrepancy definition of fit’ described above would predict intergroup relations, in order to evaluate the predictive power of both definitions of ‘fit’ relative to each other.

METHOD Participants A total of 321 school students in Germany participated in the study. The sample consisted of 193 Germans and 128 immigrants. Of the immigrants, 44 participants were of Turkish descent and 40 participants were Aussiedler of Russian–German descent. Furthermore, the sample included 14 Polish, 10 Lebanese, 6 Kosovan and 14 people from various other places; 171 participants were male, 150 female. The age of the participants varied from 12 to 19, with a mean of 15.10 years. Age and gender distributions did not differ between the German and the immigrant samples.

Procedure and Measures Questionnaires were filled out in year levels 7 to 10 of five schools in the ‘industrial area’ of Germany (Ruhrgebiet). All schools were catering for low to medium ability students and were recruiting students from areas with very similar socio-demographic make-up.5 Two questionnaires were constructed, one for Germans and one for immigrants. Participants filled out the version for Germans 5 Data was collected at Haupt- and Gesamtschulen. The population in the industrial area of Germany is mainly working-class, and the vast majority of the students included in the present study can be assumed to have this background. Furthermore, the foreign population, particularly of Turks, is a lot denser in this area than in most other parts of Germany.


Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

176


if both their parents were German, and the version for immigrants if both their parents were not from Germany. Very few participants had parents who came from different countries. These respondents were excluded from the study. Both questionnaires were in German. The vast majority of immigrants were proficient enough in German to answer the questionnaire without problems. The few students that had serious language difficulties were excluded from the study. The questionnaires included the following items:

Demographic Data Potentially influential background information was collected (Berry et al., 1992): age, sex, country of birth and nationality, length of residence in Germany and the parent’s country of origin. Also, intergroup contact was measured with regard to three different and conventionally used domains (Pettigrew, 1997).

Preferred and Perceived Acculturation Strategies The participants’ desire for culture maintenance and contact were measured in line with Berry’s (1997) taxonomy of acculturation strategies. The two dimensions were later combined into an overall strategy preference. Although Bourhis’s approach of measuring acculturation strategies is slightly different (see the Immigrant Acculturation Scale and the Host Society Acculturation Scale, Bourhis, ‘Immigrant Acculturation Scale and Host Community Acculturation Scale’, unpublished manuscript, 1997), this approach was chosen because it allows an examination of the effects of the two underlying dimensions separately. However, as a consequence of our measurement approach, a fifth strategy proposed by Bourhis et al. (1997a), namely ‘individualism’, could not be examined in the study. All items that tackled preferred and perceived acculturation strategies were measured on 5-point Likert scales (1 ¼ strongly agree to 5 ¼ strongly disagree): The participant’s attitude towards culture maintenance was measured with the following items: ‘I think it is important that my cultural group in Germany maintains its culture’, ‘I think my cultural group in Germany should maintain its religion, language and clothing’ and ‘I think it is important that my cultural group in Germany maintains its own way of living’ for immigrants, and ‘I do not mind if immigrants in Germany maintain their own culture’, ‘I do not mind if immigrants maintain their own religion, language and clothing’ and ‘I do not mind if immigrants in Germany maintain their own way of living’ for Germans. (On this three-item scale, lower values indicate more agreement, Cronbach’s alpha () ¼ 0.70 for immigrants and 0.80 for Germans.) The participant’s attitude towards contact was measured as follows for the immigrants: ‘I think it is important that members of my cultural group have German friends’, ‘I think it is important that members of my cultural group also spend time with Germans after school’ and ‘I think that members of my cultural group should stick to their own kind’. For the Germans, the term ‘members of my cultural group’ was substituted by ‘immigrants’. The last item (‘I think that members of my cultural group/immigrants should stick to their own kind’) was excluded from the scale because this led to a substantial increase in Cronbach’s alpha (). (On the resulting two item scale, lower values indicate more agreement, Cronbach’s alpha () ¼ 0.66 for immigrants and 0.88 for Germans.) Next, the perception of the outgroup’s attitude towards culture maintenance was measured. Immigrants indicated how much they believed that Germans do not mind the Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)


177

participant’s cultural group maintaining its own culture, how much they believed that Germans do not mind them maintaining their own religion, language and clothing and how much they believed that Germans do not mind them maintaining their own way of living. Germans indicated how much they believed that immigrants want to maintain their own culture, want to maintain their religion, language and clothing and want to maintain their own way of living (On this three item scale, lower values indicate the perception of more positive attitudes of the respective outgroup towards culture maintenance, Cronbach’s alpha () ¼ 0.77 for immigrants and 0.72 for Germans). Finally, the perception of the outgroup’s attitude towards contact was assessed as follows. For immigrants: ‘I believe the Germans think it is important that members of my cultural group have German friends’, ‘I believe that Germans find it important that members of my cultural group also spend time with Germans after school’ and ‘I believe that Germans want members of my cultural group to stick to our own kind’. Germans indicated how much importance they thought immigrants would assign to each of these subscales. The last item was dropped from the scale for both versions of the questionnaire, because this led to a substantial increase in Cronbach’s alpha () (On the resulting two item scale, lower values indicate the perception of more positive attitudes of the respective outgroup towards contact, Cronbach’s alpha () ¼ 0.87 for immigrants and 0.85 for Germans).

Intergroup Relations Three scales were designed to measure the quality of intergroup relations with regard to aspects emphasised by Bourhis et al. (1997a): ingroup bias, perception of favourable intergroup relations and perception of discrimination. The measures were shortened and simplified versions of the Immigrant Acculturation Scale (IAS) and the Host Society Acculturation Scale (HCAS), (Bourhis, unpublished manuscript, 1997). These modifications were necessitated by the younger and less highly educated nature of our sample. Again, all items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ not at all to 5 ¼ very much). To measure ingroup bias, participants indicated how comfortable they were with members of their own group and members of their respective outgroup, and how much they thought their own group and the respective outgroup were ‘nice’, ‘aggressive’ and ‘friendly’. In analogy to the method used by Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk (1999), a difference score was conducted for each of these four dimensions and the values were combined into a single bias measure, with positive values representing ingroup favouritism (Cronbach’s alpha () ¼ 0.75 for Germans and 0.51 for immigrants). Next, participants indicated how good they thought the intergroup relations between their own ingroup and the respective outgroup to be (original item: ‘Was glaubst du, wie gut sind die Beziehungen zwischen Immigranten/Mitgliedern deiner eigenen kulturellen Gruppe und Deutschen?’). For this item, higher values indicate better intergroup relations. Finally, perception of discrimination was measured as follows: Immigrants indicated their level of agreement with the following two items: ‘Are members of your cultural group discriminated against at school (Werden Mitglieder deiner kulturellen Gruppe in der Schule benachteiligt)?’ and ‘Are members of your cultural group discriminated against in other domains in Germany (Werden Mitglieder deiner kulturellen Gruppe in Deutschland sonst benachteiligt)?’ For Germans, the term ‘members of your cultural group’ was exchanged with the word ‘immigrants’ (On this two-item scale, high values indicate much discrimination; Cronbach’s alpha () ¼ 0.73 for immigrants and 0.58 for Germans). Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

178

Hanna Zagefka and Rupert Brown RESULTS

Results of our analyses are reported in the following order: distribution of preferred and perceived acculturation strategies (analyses for the German and the overall immigrant sample, as well as for Aussiedler and Turks separately), acculturation strategy preference and intergroup relations (separate analyses for the immigrant and the German sample), and relative ‘fit’ and intergroup relations (separate analyses for the immigrant and the German sample, and analyses for the ‘IAM’ and the ‘discrepancy’ operationalisations of ‘fit’).

Distribution of Preferred and Perceived Acculturation Strategies Strategy preference was initially determined by a midpoint scale split, following Dona and Berry (1994). Participants who scored below the midpoint of the scale were assigned to the group wanting contact; participants above the midpoint were assigned to the group not wanting contact. The same was done for the culture maintenance dimension. The two dimensions were combined to derive overall strategy preference, according to Berry’s (1997) taxonomy. Table 2 displays the distribution of acculturation strategy preferences for the immigrants and for the Germans (%). Additionally, it shows the percentage of the immigrants and the Germans perceiving their respective outgroup to engage in each of the four strategies. Strategy Preference6 Integration is the most frequently chosen strategy in both groups, and the majority of both groups perceive the respective outgroup to prefer integration as well. In both the host society and immigrant groups, there is also marked support for assimilation. Thus, strategies that imply contact (i.e. integration and assimilation) enjoy substantial support in both the immigrant and the German group. However, 19% of the Germans prefer marginalisation, which is the strategy least preferred by Table 2. Distribution of preferred and perceived acculturation strategies (%) Immigrants

Integration Assimilation Separation Marginalisation

Host society

Own preference (N ¼ 110)

As perceived by host society (N ¼ 132)

Own preference (N ¼ 138)

As perceived by immigrants (N ¼ 86)

75 18 5 2

66 3 28 3

61 18 2 19

56 24 8 12

Note: To achieve a particularly clean categorisation of strategy preferences, those participants that scored exactly on the midpoint of the scales were excluded from this analysis. 6 Note that due to our effort to develop items that would feel ‘natural’ to the students (as opposed to unusual questions the students would have found awkward to answer), the wording of the items that assess strategy preference differ slightly between the immigrant and the German version of the questionnaire. Due to this, one should be cautious when making direct comparisons between immigrant and host society preference (host society members should be slightly more likely to chose integration and separation), while comparisons between own strategy preference and the perception of this preference by the respective outgroup are unaffected by the differences in wording and are thus unproblematic.


Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)


179

immigrants. Thus, in the German sample, there also is a preference for strategies that imply no culture maintenance (i.e. assimilation and marginalisation).

Perception of the Outgroup’s Preference The support for marginalisation within the host society is reflected in the perception of host society preference, with 12% of the immigrants thinking that marginalisation is the most preferred strategy of the Germans. Globally, host society preference and perception of this preference by the immigrants correspond to each other. On the other hand, the Germans’ perception of immigrant preference does not match the immigrants’ self-described preference as accurately. While many Germans correctly think that most immigrants want to integrate, immigrant preference for assimilation remains largely unnoticed by the Germans. Instead, 28% of the Germans suspect that immigrants want to separate. Thus, while immigrants almost exclusively choose strategies that imply contact (i.e. integration and assimilation), the host society perceives them to favour those strategies that imply culture maintenance (i.e. integration and separation).

Aussiedler and Turks Analyses were also carried out separately for the two biggest immigrant groups: Aussiedler and Turks. These two groups differed on various dimensions. While 95% of the Aussiedler possess German citizenship, 91% of the Turks do not, 2(1, 84) ¼ 61.86, p < 0.001. While none of the Turks had been living in Germany for less than 3 years and 88% were actually born in Germany, none of the Aussiedler was born in Germany and 56% had been living there for less than 3 years, 2(3, 82) ¼ 66.54, p < 0.001. T-tests revealed that Turks have significantly more contact with Germans than Aussiedler do, t(74) ¼ 4.93, p < 0.001. Comparing strategy preference (determined by midpoint scale split, see above) of Turks (N ¼ 39) and Aussiedler (N ¼ 34), it has to be noted that 95% of the Turks prefer integration, while Aussiedler choose integration (44%) and assimilation (44%) in equal measure, 2(3, 73) ¼ 23.33, p < 0.001.

Acculturation Strategy Preference and Intergroup Relations In the following analyses, each of the three outcome variables (ingroup bias, perceived intergroup relations and perceived discrimination) was regressed from the participant’s desire for ‘culture maintenance’, from the desire for ‘contact’ and from the interaction between these two variables. For all analyses, culture maintenance and contact were entered in a first step in hierarchical regression, and the interaction term was entered in a second step. Contrasts were then conducted to test the hypothesis that integration should be associated with better intergroup relations than the other strategies. The analyses were carried out separately for the immigrant and the German sample. It should be noted that although we tested the interaction between the culture maintenance and contact dimension, a significant interaction term was not a crucial part of our hypothesis, as we did not (necessarily) predict a multiplicative effect of the two dimensions. Rather, we predicted that integration should be better than any of the other strategies, an effect that could also be due to one or two main effects. Therefore, contrasts were conducted to test our hypothesis regarding ‘integration’ even in cases where the interaction term was not significant. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

180


The Immigrant Sample When regressing ingroup bias from desire for contact, culture maintenance and their interaction term, the first step in the hierarchical regression was significant, R square (R2) ¼ 0.15, F(2, 118) ¼ 10.05, p < 0.001, whereas the second step (i.e. the interaction) was not, R2 change ¼ 0.01, F change (1, 117) ¼ 0.87, ns. Only desire for contact contributed significantly to the prediction of ingroup bias, standardised beta coefficient () ¼ 0.38, p < 0.001, squared semipartial correlation (sr2) ¼ 0.14. Thus, the more desire for contact, the less bias.7 The same model was used to regress perceived intergroup relations. In this analysis, step one (culture maintenance and contact) yielded a marginally significant result, R2 ¼ 0.04, F(2, 118) ¼ 2.57, p < 0.08 ( ¼ 0.15, p < 0.12, sr2 ¼ 0.02 for culture maintenance and ¼ 0.12, p < 0.18, sr2 ¼ 0.02 contact). Step two (the interaction) did not add significantly to the prediction, R2 change ¼ 0.01, F change (1, 117) ¼ 1.32, ns. Thus, more desire for both culture maintenance and contact is weakly associated with better perceived intergroup relations. Finally, discrimination was predicted in the same fashion. Neither culture maintenance and contact (step one, R2 ¼ 0.01, F(2, 123) ¼ 0.34, ns) nor the interaction between the two (step two, R2 change ¼ 0.01, F change (1, 122) ¼ 1.10, ns) yielded a significant result. Next, a MANOVA was conducted to test whether integration is associated with better overall intergroup relations than any of the other strategies. Strategy preference was calculated using a median split on each of the two dimensions of culture maintenance and contact.8 Participants scoring below the median (above the median) were assigned to the group favouring (not favouring) culture maintenance and contact, respectively. The preference on each of the two dimensions was then combined into the overall strategy preference, which was used as the independent variable in the MANOVA (thus, there was one IV with four levels: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation). Ingroup bias, perceived intergroup relations and perceived discrimination were the dependent variables. Overall strategy preference yielded a significant multivariate effect, F(9, 270) ¼ 3.72, p < 0.001. As suggested by the regression analyses, there was a univariate effect of strategy preference on ingroup bias, F(3, 113) ¼ 7.90, p < 0.001, MSE ¼ 0.75, and a marginal effect on perceived intergroup relations, F(3, 113) ¼ 2.42, p < 0.07, MSE ¼ 0.86. More importantly, Helmert contrasts revealed that integration was indeed associated with more favourable intergroup relations than any of Table 3. Acculturation strategy preference and intergroup relations: means for ingroup bias and perceived intergroup relations in the immigrant sample Integration (N ¼ 30) culture: yes contact: yes

Assimilation (N ¼ 24) culture: no contact: yes

Separation (N ¼ 27) culture: yes contact: no

Marginalisation (N ¼ 36) culture: no contact: no

Ingroup bias

0.01(0.84)

0.14(0.80)

1.00(0.81)

0.67(0.96)

Favourable intergroup relations

3.77(0.73)

3.42(0.97)

3.56(1.19)

3.17(0.81)

Note: Standard deviations in parentheses. High values indicate more bias and more favourable intergroup relations. 7 Note that the desire for contact and culture maintenance scales are reverse scored, so that low values indicate greater desire for contact and culture maintenance, respectively. 8 A median split was used because midpoint splits resulted in a very uneven distribution of participants across the four acculturation strategies (see Table 2), which would have made the further analyses impossible.


Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)


181

the other strategies, i.e. with less bias, F(1, 113) ¼ 15.72, p < 0.001, and more favourable perceived intergroup relations, F(1, 113) ¼ 3.74, p < 0.052 (for a summary of cell means, see Table 3).

The German Sample The three dependent variables (ingroup bias, perceived intergroup relations and perceived discrimination) were also regressed from the German participants’ desire for culture maintenance and contact as well as from the interaction between these two variables. Again, culture maintenance and contact were entered in a first step in hierarchical regression, and the interaction term was entered in a second step. When regressing ingroup bias from desire for contact, culture maintenance and their interaction term, the first step in the hierarchical regression was significant, R2 ¼ 0.24, F(2, 183) ¼ 28.74, p < 0.001, as was the second step (i.e. the interaction), R2 change ¼ 0.03, F change (1, 182) ¼ 5.94, p < 0.02. All three predictors contributed significantly: ¼ 0.34, p < 0.001, sr2 ¼ 0.08 for culture maintenance, ¼ 0.21, p < 0.006, sr2 ¼ 0.03 for contact and ¼ 0.66, p < 0.02, sr2 ¼ 0.02 for the interaction between the two. Thus, the higher the desire for culture maintenance and the higher the desire for contact, the lower the ingroup bias. ANOVA was conducted to assess the nature of the significant interaction term. Strategy preference was calculated using a median split of both desire for culture maintenance and contact. The preference on each of the two dimensions was then combined into overall strategy preference, which was used as the independent variable (with four levels: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation) in the ANOVA to predict ingroup bias. A useful way to interpret the interaction is to look at the pairwise comparisons (with adjusted alpha levels) of the means for groups with different strategy preferences. This analysis revealed that the means for ‘separationists’, ‘assimilationists’ and ‘integrationists’ do not differ significantly from each other, but do all significantly differ from the mean of ‘marginalisationists’. The same regression model as above was used to predict perceived intergroup relations. In this analysis, step one (culture maintenance and contact) yielded a significant result, R2 ¼ 0.20, F(2, 183) ¼ 23.03, p < 0.001, while step two (the interaction) was not significant, R2 change ¼ 0.001, F change (1, 182) ¼ 0.25, ns. Both culture maintenance ( ¼ 0.26, p < 0.001, sr2 ¼ 0.05) and contact ( ¼ 0.25, p < 0.002, sr2 ¼ 0.04) were important predictors. Thus, the higher the desire for culture maintenance and contact, respectively, the more favourable the perceived intergroup relations. Finally, discrimination was predicted in the same fashion. Neither culture maintenance and culture (step one, R2 ¼ 0.01, F(2, 185) ¼ 0.54, ns) nor the interaction between the two (step two, R2 change ¼ 0.003, F change (1, 184) ¼ 0.48, ns) yielded a significant result. Next, a MANOVA was conducted to test whether integration does lead to better overall intergroup relations than any of the other strategies. Again, strategy preference was calculated using a median split on both dimensions and combining the preferences on each dimension into overall strategy preference. A MANOVA was then conducted with overall strategy preference as the independent variable and ingroup bias, perceived intergroup relations and perceived discrimination as dependent variables. Overall, strategy preference yielded a significant multivariate effect, F(9, 424) ¼ 7.33, p < 0.001. As suggested by the regression analyses, there were univariate effects of strategy preference on ingroup bias, F(3, 176) ¼ 14.05, p < 0.001, MSE ¼ 1.41, and intergroup relations, F(3, 176) ¼ 12.98, p < 0.001, MSE ¼ 1.19. More importantly, Helmert contrasts revealed that integration was indeed associated with more favourable perceived intergroup relations than any of the other strategies, F(1, 176) ¼ 9.46, p < 0.001. The contrast for ingroup bias was not significant, due to the nature of the interaction described above (for a summary of cell means, see Table 4). Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

182


Table 4. Acculturation strategy preference and intergroup relations: means for ingroup bias and perceived intergroup relations in the German sample Integration (N ¼ 59) culture: yes contact: yes

Assimilation (N ¼ 19) culture: no contact: yes

Separation (N ¼ 39) culture: yes contact: no

Marginalisation (N ¼ 63) culture: no contact: no

Ingroup bias

0.77(0.99)

0.45(0.94)

0.60(1.36)

1.85(1.29)


3.46(1.10)

3.16(1.12)

3.03(1.11)

2.25(1.06)

Note: Standard deviations in parentheses. High values indicate more bias and more favourable intergroup relations.

Relative ‘Fit’ and Intergroup Relations ‘Fit’ According to the IAM An index of ‘fit’ was conducted for each participant according to Bourhis et al.’s Interactive Acculturation Model (1997a) through combining each participant’s preferred and perceived acculturation strategies (both of these were determined by median splits of the culture maintenance and contact dimensions, respectively, and then combined into overall strategy preference). For instance, if a respondent preferred integration and perceived that the outgroup also preferred integration, he/she would be classified as ‘consensual’, if he/she preferred integration and perceived that the outgroup preferred something different, he/she would be classified as ‘problematic’ or ‘conflictual’ (see Table 1). This classification of relative ‘fit’ was then used to predict intergroup relations. MANOVAs were conducted separately for immigrants and Germans in order to assess the impact of relative fit (used as an independent variable with the three levels consensual, problematic and conflictual) on the dependent variables ingroup bias, perceived intergroup relations and perceived discrimination.

The Immigrant Sample In the immigrant sample, there was a significant multivariate effect of Fit, F(6, 224) ¼ 2.23, p < 0.05. Follow-up univariate tests revealed that this was observed only on ingroup bias, F(2, 114) ¼ 5.62, p < 0.005, MSE ¼ 0.82 (Ms ¼ 0.04 for ‘consensual’, 0.39 for ‘problematic’ and 0.67 for ‘conflictual’ fit). In other words, as predicted, bias increased with worsening ‘fit’. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjusted alpha-levels revealed that the means for ‘consensual’ and ‘problematic’ fit did not differ significantly from each other, and neither did the means for ‘problematic’ and ‘conflictual’ fit. However, ‘consensual’ and ‘conflictual’ fit differed significantly, p < 0.004.

The German Sample In the German sample, there was also a significant multivariate effect of ‘fit’, F(6, 344) ¼ 4.18, p < 0.001. This was observed on both the ingroup bias, F(2, 174) ¼ 4.65, p < 0.02, MSE ¼ 1.67, and on perceived intergroup relations, F(2, 174) ¼ 10.79, p < 0.001, MSE ¼ 1.29 (see Table 5). The pattern of means is in line with the predictions only for perceived intergroup relations (i.e. the relations Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)


183

Table 5. Relative ‘fit’ (as defined by the IAM) and intergroup relations: means for ingroup bias and perceived intergroup relations in the German sample Consensual

Problematic

Conflictual

Ingroup bias

0.77(0.67)

0.65(1.16)

1.31(1.43)


3.68(1.14)

3.26(1.04)

2.64(1.17)

Note: Standard deviations in parentheses. High values indicate more bias and more favourable intergroup relations.

are perceived as more favourable the better the ‘fit’), but not for ingroup bias. For perceived intergroup relations, pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjusted alpha-levels revealed that ‘consensual’ and ‘problematic’ fit did not differ. However, both ‘consensual’ and ‘problematic’ fit differ significantly from ‘conflictual’ fit, p < 0.001 and p < 0.02, respectively. For ingroup bias, pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjusted alpha-levels revealed that ‘consensual’ fit differs from neither ‘problematic’ nor ‘conflictual’ fit. However, ‘problematic’ and ‘conflictual’ fit do differ significantly from each other, p < 0.03.

The ‘Discrepancy’ Definition of ‘Fit’ Analyses were also carried out with a different operational definition of ‘fit’, namely the discrepancy between own strategy preference and perceived strategy preference of the respective outgroup on both the culture maintenance and the contact dimensions. A difference score was calculated by subtracting the perceived outgroup’s desire for culture maintenance (contact) from the own desire for culture maintenance (contact) for each participant. High absolute values indicated high attitude discrepancy on both dimensions, i.e. low ‘fit’. The discrepancy in attitudes on both the culture dimension and the contact dimension, as well as the interaction between these two, were then used to predict ingroup bias, perceived intergroup relations and perceived discrimination.

The Immigrant Sample In predicting ingroup bias from the discrepancies on the culture maintenance dimension and the discrepancies on the contact dimension (which were entered in a first step in hierarchical regression) and the interaction between these two (which was entered in a second step in hierarchical regression), the first step was marginally significant, R2 ¼ 0.04, F(2, 116) ¼ 2.51, p < 0.09. Fit on the culture dimension added marginally to the prediction of ingroup bias, ¼ 0.17, p < 0.07, sr2 ¼ 0.03. Thus, the better the fit, the lower the bias. When predicting perceived intergroup relations from the same independent variables, ‘fit’ on the contact dimension added significantly to the prediction, ¼ 0.19, p < 0.042, sr2 ¼ 0.04, although the overall model was not significant (R2 ¼ 0.04, F(2, 117) ¼ 2.19, ns, for the first step in the hierarchical regression). Thus, the better the ‘fit’ on the contact dimension, the more favourable the perceived intergroup relations. Predicting perceived discrimination from the same independent variables, the first step in the hierarchical regression yielded a significant result, R2 ¼ 0.05, F(2, 121) ¼ 3.45, p < 0.04. ‘Fit’ on the culture dimension was the principal predictor, ¼ 0.24, p < 0.011, sr2 ¼ 0.05. Thus, the worse the ‘fit’ of attitudes towards culture maintenance, the higher the perceived discrimination. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

184


The German Sample When predicting ingroup bias with hierarchical regression, the first step was significant, R2 ¼ 0.20, F(2, 180) ¼ 22.74, p < 0.001. ‘Fit’ on both dimensions were reliable predictors, ¼ 0.40, p < 0.001 sr2 ¼ 0.16 for culture and ¼ 0.15, p < 0.031, sr2 ¼ 0.02 for contact. Thus, the worse the ‘fit’ in attitudes towards culture maintenance and contact, the higher the bias. The prediction of perceived intergroup relations again yielded a significant effect for step one, R2 ¼ 0.06, F(2, 180) ¼ 5.37, p < 0.005. Fit on the culture dimension was the main predictor, ¼ 0.23, p < 0.002, sr2 ¼ 0.05. The better the ‘fit’ on the culture dimension, the better the perceived intergroup relations. Predicting perceived discrimination from the same model did not yield any significant effects, R2 ¼ 0.02, F(2, 182) ¼ 1.91, ns for step one and R2 change ¼ 0.003, F change (1, 181) ¼ 0.56, ns for step two.

DISCUSSION The main results can be briefly summarised. As predicted, integration was the acculturation strategy most preferred by immigrants and host society, there were important discrepancies between own strategy preferences and the perception of this preference by the outgroup, and acculturation strategies of immigrants, of the host society, and the relative fit between the two were predictive of intergroup relations.

Distribution of Preferred and Perceived Acculturation Strategies As hypothesised, integration is the preferred strategy for both the German host society and immigrants in Germany. However, the fact that 19% of the Germans prefer marginalisation, which is the strategy least preferred by immigrants, is noteworthy. Furthermore, whilst the immigrants’ perception of the host society’s strategy preference is quite accurate, the host society’s perception of immigrant strategy choice is less so. There is a discrepancy of perceptions, which is in line with our predictions and previous findings. Whilst immigrants actually prefer strategies that imply contact, in the eyes of the host society they are involved in strategies that imply culture maintenance. These findings underline that it is important to look at the perception of the outgroup’s strategy preference rather than at selfdescribed preference only. They justify the new approach taken in the present study, namely estimating ‘fit’ between preferred and subjectively perceived strategies. Furthermore, they have some important policy implications. It might be beneficial in many contexts to take measures to counteract wrong beliefs about the respective outgroup’s attitudes, since corrected perceptions might contribute to more harmonious intergroup relations. As expected, Aussiedler and Turks differ with regard to the length of time spent in Germany, the amount of contact with Germans (see also ‘Viele Tu¨rken’, 2000) and the frequency with which they obtain the German citizenship. The significant differences found in acculturation strategy choice, with Turks almost exclusively choosing integration and Aussiedler choosing integration and assimilation in equal measure, can be explained if the political background is taken into consideration. Most of the Turks, who have been born in Germany but have also been largely influenced by their parents’ culture, might have developed a true ‘dual’ identity, which is reflected in their preference for integration. On the other hand, Aussiedler often come to Germany to live as ‘Germans among other Germans’ (Dietz Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)


185

& Roll, 1998). ‘To become as German as possible is one of the most important motives during the first years spent in Germany’ (Schmitt-Rodermund & Silbereisen, 1999). Consequently, the strategy of assimilation enjoys large support amongst Aussiedler.

Acculturation Strategy Preference and Intergroup Relations In line with the predictions, the findings revealed that both a positive attitude towards culture maintenance and towards contact were associated with better overall intergroup relations, for both the German and the immigrant samples. Consequently, integration was associated with better overall intergroup relations in most cases, and marginalisation (with its underlying negative attitudes on both dimensions) yielded the worst outcome. It is also important to note that the two dimensions of culture maintenance and contact show a differential correlational pattern with our outcome variables: For instance, while ingroup bias is most strongly related with attitudes towards contact for the immigrants, it is most strongly related with attitudes towards culture maintenance for host society members. Therefore, it is concluded that both underlying dimensions are important, and that the present measurement approach, which allows one to differentiate between the effects of the two dimensions, seems to offer some advantages over approaches which measure strategy choice directly, disregarding the underlying dimensions. Unexpectedly, there were no significant effects on the perception of discrimination measure, even though ‘integrationists’ were expected to show especially low scores in this domain because of their positive orientation towards the host culture. On the other hand, ‘integrationists’ are also by definition individuals who are willing to engage in intergroup contact, and other research suggests that intergroup contact and comparisons make group members aware of intergroup discrimination and relative deprivation they would not have noticed without intergroup contact (Crocker & Major, 1989; Hegelson & Mickelson, 1995; Runciman, 1966). Possibly both mechanisms, i.e. the positive effect of acculturation strategies and the negative effect of intergroup contact, influenced the perception of discrimination and cancelled each other out.

Relative ‘Fit’ and Intergroup Relations As predicted, both operationalisations of relative ‘fit’, i.e. the IAM and the ‘discrepancy’ definition, significantly predicted intergroup relations. However, while the IAM operationalisation of ‘fit’ predicted only ingroup bias for the immigrants, the ‘discrepancy’ definition predicted all outcome variables, i.e. ingroup bias, perceived intergroup relations, and perceived discrimination. Furthermore, the hypothesised distinction between the three levels of ‘fit’ (with correspondingly different outcomes) within the IAM was not well supported by our data (neither for the immigrant nor for the German sample), since pairwise comparisons did not yield significant differences between all levels of ‘fit’. Moreover, when predicting ingroup bias for the Germans with the IAM definition of fit, the pattern of means was in the wrong direction. In contrast, our analyses showed that ‘fit’ as defined by the ‘attitude discrepancy’ was consistently associated with the outcome variables in the predicted fashion. Considering these results, one might conclude that the ‘attitude discrepancy’ definition of ‘fit’ might have more predictive value. This definition has certainly much to recommend it, because it preserves interval data, rather than relying on categorical information. In particular, the finding that ‘attitude discrepancy fit’ is associated with perceived discrimination for the immigrants (which was not associated with immigrant acculturation strategy preference) is encouraging. This finding implies that the ‘attitude discrepancy’ definition of ‘fit’ is not only preferable to the IAM definition, but also Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

186


that ‘fit’ can make some important contributions over and above the acculturation strategies of one group taken singly. However, given that research into relative ‘fit’ and intergroup relations is still in its infancy, future research will have to clarify which definition of ‘fit’ is optimal (for a yet different definition, see Piontkowski et al., unpublished manuscript, 2000), and how much can be gained by considering relative ‘fit’ rather than the strategy preferences of one group only. We would like to conclude with some general reflections on the present research. To our mind, the present research is particularly valuable because of the sample used, which consisted of both host society members and immigrants and thus permitted the investigation of issues that until now have been largely neglected. However, we also acknowledge some limitations of our methodology, which future research should try to overcome: First, the reliability index for our ingroup bias measure was only moderate for the immigrant sample. However, since we nevertheless found strong effects on this variable, presumably the development of a more reliable measure would provide still further support for our hypothesis. Second, our cross-sectional design obviously does not permit any causal inference that intergroup attitudes are determined by acculturation strategies and ‘fit’. For that, a longitudinal approach would be needed. Third, practical constraints meant that we relied wholly on self-report measures which may be susceptible to social desirability effects. Future research could profitably supplement such self-report measures with more objective indices like teacher and parental ratings of acculturation strategies and outcomes. An important endeavour for future research would not only be to replicate our findings with regard to the ‘attitude discrepancy’ definition of ‘fit’, but also to address questions of causality. Furthermore, it would be important to establish whether our findings can be generalised to other cultural contexts. While the effects of acculturation strategies on intrapsychological variables have been investigated in many different countries, with widely converging findings, the consequences of different levels of ‘fit’ have hardly been investigated at all so far. To derive evidence for the claim that the effects of ‘fit’ are more generic, research would have to be carried out in different cultural settings, with different immigrant and host society groups.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was carried out with the support of a grant from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) to the first author.

REFERENCES Berry JW. 1974. Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism: unity and identity reconsidered. In Topics in Culture Learning, Brislin R (ed.). East–West Culture Learning Institute: Honolulu, HA; 17–22. Berry JW. 1980. Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In Acculturation, Theory, Models and Some New Findings, Padilla A (ed.). Westview Press: Colorado, CO; 9–25. Berry JW. 1997. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review 46(1): 5–68. Berry JW, Kim U, Minde T, Mok D. 1987. Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review 21: 491–511. Berry JW, Poortinga YH, Segall MH, Dasen PR. 1992. Cross-cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Bourhis RY, Moise LC, Perreault S, Senecal S. 1997a. Towards an interactive acculturation model: a social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology 32(6): 369–389. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)


187

Bourhis RY, Moise LC, Perreault S, Senecal S. 1997b. Immigration und Multikulturalismus in Kanada: Die Entwicklung eines interaktiven Akkulturationsmodells (Immigration and multiculturalism in Canada: the development of the interactive acculturation model). In Identita¨t und Verschiedenheit: Zur Sozialpsychologie der Identita¨t in komplexen Gesellschaften (Identity and diversity: social psychology of identity in complex societies), Mummendey A, Simon B (eds). Huber: Bern; 63–107. Crocker J, Major B. 1989. Social stigma and self-esteem: the self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review 96(4): 608–630. Dietz B, Roll H. 1998. Jugendliche Aussiedler — Portrait einer Zuwanderergeneration (Adolescent ethnic Germans — a portrait of a generation of immigrants). Campus: Frankfurt. Dona G, Berry JW. 1994. Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of central American refugees. International Journal of Psychology 29(1): 57–70. Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, Validzic A. 1998. Intergroup bias, status, differentiation, and a common ingroup identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75: 109–120. Ellemers N, Kortekaas P, Ouwerkerk JK. 1999. Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group selfesteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology 29: 371–389. Gaertner SL, Dovidio J. 2000. Reducing Intergroup bias. Psychology Press: Hove. Gaertner SL, Dovidio J, Rust M, Nier J, Banker B, Ward C, Mottola G, Houlette M. 1999. Reducing intergroup bias: elements of intergroup co-operation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 388–402. Hegelson VS, Mickelson KD. 1995. Motives for social comparison. Psychology Bulletin 21(11): 1200–1210. Hewstone M, Brown R (eds). 1986. Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters. Blackwell: Oxford. http://www.uni-bamberg.de/ ba6ef3/ds211a_d.htm, data of the Statistisches Bundesamt. Date of access: 18.10.2000. ¨ ngstlichkeit und Sozialklima von jugendlichen Migranten (Self-esteem, anxiety Jerusalem M. 1988. Selbstwert, A and social climate of adolescent Immigrants). Zeitschrift fu¨r Sozialpsychologie 19: 53–62. Liebkind K. 1996. Vietnamese refugees in Finland. Changing cultural identity. In Changing European identities. Social psychological analyses of social change, Breakwell G, Lyons E (eds). Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford; 227–240. Liebkind K. 2001. Acculturation. In Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 4), Brown R, Gaertner S (eds). Blackwell: Oxford; 386–406. Pettigrew TF. 1997. Generalised intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(2): 173–185. Pettigrew TF. 1998. Reactions toward the new minorities of Western Europe. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 77–103. Pettigrew TF, Jackson JS, Brika JB, Lemaine G, Meertens RW, Wagner U, Zick A. 1998. Outgroup prejudice in Western Europe. In European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 8), Stroebe W, Hewstone M (eds). John Wiley: Chichester; 241–273. Piontkowski U, Florack A, Hoelker P, Obdrzalek P. 2000. Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and nondominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24: 1–26. Redfield R, Linton R, Herskovits M. 1936. Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist 38: 149–152. Roccas S, Horenczyk G, Schwartz S. 2000. Acculturation discrepancies and well-being: the moderating role of conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology 30: 323–334. Runciman WG. 1966. Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth century England. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA. Schmitt-Rodermund E, Silbereisen RK. 1999. Determinants of differential acculturation of developmental timetables among adolescent immigrants to Germany. International Journal of Psychology 34(4): 219–233. Silbereisen RK, Lantermann ED, Schmitt-Rodermund E. 1999. Aussiedler in Deutschland, Akkulturation von Perso¨nlichkeit und Verhalten (Aussiedler in Germany, acculturation of personality and behaviour). Leske & Budrich: Opladen. Van de Vijver FJR, Helms-Lorenz M, Feltzer MJA. 1999. Acculturation and cognitive performance of migrant children in the Netherlands. International Journal of Psychology 34(3): 149–162. Van Oudenhoven JP, Prins KS, Buunk BP. 1998. Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology 28: 995–1013. Viele Tu¨rken haben Deutsche zu Freunden (Many Turks have German friends). 2000. Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung 16 March.


Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)

188


Wagner U, Machleit U. 1986. Gastarbeiter in the federal republic of Germany: contact between Germans and migrant populations. In Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters, Hewstone M, Brown R (eds). Blackwell: Oxford; 59–78. www.einbuergerung.de Zheng X, Berry JW. 1991. Psychological adaptation of Chinese sojourners in Canada. International Journal of Psychology 26(4): 451–470.


Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 171–188 (2002)