The dynamics of contact and acculturation Rupert Brown School of Psychology Sussex University [email protected] With: Gulseli Baysu (Istanbul, Turkey);

The dynamics of contact and acculturation

Rupert Brown

School of Psychology

Sussex [email protected]

With: Gulseli Baysu (Istanbul, Turkey); Jens Binder (Nottingham Trent University, UK); Lindsey Cameron (Kent University, UK); Roberto Gonzalez (Santiago, Chile); Rosa Hossain (Kent University, UK); Camilla Matera (Firenze, Italy); Dennis Nigbur (Christchurch University, UK); Elizabeth Okoh (Sussex University, UK); Karen Phalet (Leuven University, Belgium); Adam Rutland (Goldsmiths, UK); Christina Stefanile (Firenze, Italy); Linda Tip (Sussex University, UK); Hanna Zagefka (Royal Holloway, UK)

Migration and acculturation: a global phenomenon

• Over 232 million people (3.2% of world’s population) live in a country other than that of their birth; in Europe alone there are 72 million migrants (UN, 2013).

• Such mass migration poses many challenges as migrants and members of receiving society come into contact with one another: Migrants - changing identities, new social mores and values, discrimination experiences; Receiving society – perceived economic and symbolic threats

What is acculturation?

“Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups”.

Redfield, Linton & Herskovits (1936, p. 149)

What is acculturation?

“Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups”.

Redfield, Linton & Herskovits (1936, p. 149) Note• Intergroup phenomenon (not just something that

happens to one group)• Dynamic process (concerned with change)• Involves intergroup contact

Berry’s frameworkFrom: Sam & Berry (2010)

Berry’s framework: some observations

• Traditional focus: on immigrant or minority groups; majority just seen as ‘background’.

• What’s best for you? Integration is often the modal preference for minorities and is thought to yield best adaptation outcomes, but this may depend on the prevailing societal climate or local context (e.g., Berry et al., 2006). Experienced discrimination is frequently as a strong (or stronger) predictor of minority group well-being as acculturation attitudes.

• Very few longitudinal (or experimental) studies: exceptions Oppedal et al. (2004), Jasinskaja-Lahti (2008); hence, causal inferences difficult.

• Majority-Minority concordance: Subsequent models stress the importance of concordance/discrepancy between majority and minority acculturation attitudes for intergroup relations: Bourhis et al. (1997), Piontkowski et al. (2002).

• Implications for social adaptation? Traditional focus is on individual adaptation (e.g., well-being, life chances), but social adaptation matters too (e.g., quality of majority-minority relations); this was little studied prior to 2000.

The Contact Hypothesis: some observations

• Traditional focus: on majority group members – what can be done to reduce their prejudiced attitudes? Minorities little studied (Dixon et al., 2012)

• Allport(1954): classic formulation with its four conditions (equal status, acquaintance potential, cooperation, institutional support.

• Pettigrew & Tropp (2006): Meta-analysis of 515 studies with 713 samples (N > 250,000). Effect sizes, r = -.20 to -.23 (for contact-prejudice relationship); minorities and majorities differ (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005): stronger effects for majorities (.24) than for minorities (.18).

• Very few longitudinal studies – exceptions, Binder et al., 2009; Levin et al., 2003; Swart et al., 2011. Hence, causal inferences difficult .

• Is direct contact necessary? The Extended Contact Hypothesis (Wright et al., 1997): knowing ingroup members with outgroup friends can reduce prejudice (changed ingroup norms?).

Acculturation & Contact: developing a dynamic intergroup perspective

Brown & Zagefka (2011) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 129-184

• Contact is a common denominator in both research traditions (therefore, incorporate both acculturation and contact variables in the same research design).

• Importance of studying both majority and minority groups (acculturation is not a one-way process).

• Need for a more dynamic approach (therefore, study change, including developmental effects, and mutual intergroup influence).

• Use more longitudinal and experimental designs (greater causal interpretability).

Some recent illustrative research

• [A] Acculturation and minority group adaptation: the importance of intergroup context

• Young ethnic minority children’s acculturation attitudes and well-being in UK• African migrants to UK: acculturation attitudes, discrimination, well-being• Acculturation attitudes and well-being among Muslims in UK & Netherlands• Acculturation attitudes, school climate and educational achievement in

Belgium• [B] Acculturation and mutual adaptation: intergroup dynamics • Indigenous and majority group acculturation preferences in Chile • Experimental analysis of effects of perceived immigrant acculturation

attitudes on Italian majority intergroup attitudes• Direct and indirect contact as antecedents of acculturation attitudes among

Peruvian migrants and Chilean majority• Prejudice as an antecedent and consequence of acculturation attitudes in

three European countries

[A] Acculturation and minority group adaptation: the importance of

intergroup context

Acculturation as a process: a developmental studyBrown et al. (2013) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1656-1667

• Study of British ethnic minority children (N = 206, age 5 – 11 years), primarily from S Asia (e.g., India, Sri Lanka)

• Measures: acculturation attitudes; adaptation (e.g., self esteem, emotional symptoms (teacher ratings))

• Three wave study, 6 months between testing

Acculturation attitudes by age Brown et al. (2013)

5-7 yrs 8-11 yrs

Changes in self-esteem for immigrant children (2nd generation) with different acculturation strategies

Brown et al. (2013)

3,22

2,93

3,00

3,10

2,98

2,983,02

2,91

2,95

2,83

2,93

3,02

2,60

2,70

2,80

2,90

3,00

3,10

3,20

3,30

TIME1 TIME2 TIME3

SE

LF

ES

TE

EM INTEGRATION

ASSIMILATION

SEPARATION

MARGINAL

Effects of an ‘integrationist’ orientation on emotional symptoms (teacher ratings)

Brown et al. (2013)

‘Integrationist’ orientation

Emotional symptoms

Emotional symptoms

t1t2

+.18**

+.65**

Acculturation attitudes and well-being among African migrants in UK

Okoh & Brown (in prep)

• Sample: N=228 African migrants to UK (Mage = 21.6, range 12-42), incl. many Muslims

• Measures: acculturation attitudes, well-being (PANAS, General Health), contact with majority, perceived discrimination

• Design: cross-sectional survey

Acculturation attitudesOkoh & Brown

Acculturation attitudes and well-being

PANAS

Culture Maintenance

Discrimination

+.22**

-.22**

Acculturation attitudes and well-being

PANAS

Culture Maintenance

Discrimination

Culture Maintenance

Discrimination

Contact (with majority)

Gen Health

+.22**

-.22**

+.19**

-.21**

+.21*

R2 = .13

R2 = .16

Acculturation attitudes and well-being: a longitudinal study

Tip & Brown (under review)

• Design: Two longitudinal (internet-based) studies of Muslims (UK, Netherlands): Ns = 209, 70 ‘matched’, UK; 230, 70 ‘matched’, Netherlands. Mage = 27.4, 29.9 years; 122/163F, 87/67M; ~6 weeks time lag.

• Measures: Culture Maintenance (CM), Desire for Contact (DC), in both Public (and Private) domains; perceived discrimination; well-being (PANAS).

Acculturation attitudes and well-being: a longitudinal study: cross-sectional

results

In both studies: pubCM, p < .01, pubCM X Discrim interaction, p < .05

Acculturation attitudes and well-being: longitudinal results

Public CM Well-being

In both studies, the only significant longitudinal predictor, controlling for the DV at t1, was Public CM, p < .05; reverse paths were ns.

+.29* (UK), +.26* (Ne)

t1 t2

R2 = .74 (UK), .65(Ne)

Acculturation, adaptation and intergroup climateBaysu, Phalet & Brown (2011) Social Psychology Quarterly, 74, 121-143

• According to Berry, adaptation outcomes of minority group acculturation depend on social climate; if this is antithetical to multiculturalism, Integration might not be optimal strategy.

• Study of Turkish immigrants in Belgium (N = 576, age 18 – 35 yrs); – adaptation = educational outcomes (final level of

school/college achieved), controlling for secondary school entry (academic vs vocational);

– acculturation measured via identification (Ethnic group, National group); four classic Berry ‘strategies’ derived from crossing Ps’ levels on those two measures (Hi vs. Lo).

– key moderator: level of perceived discrimination experienced at school (intergroup climate)

Acculturation, adaptation and intergroup climateBaysu, Phalet & Brown (2011)

Probability of academic success

[B] Acculturation and mutual adaptation: intergroup dynamics

Perceptions of majority members’ acculturation preferences can shape minority members’ own acculturation preferences: evidence from Chile

Zagefka, Gonzalez & Brown (2011) British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 216-233.

• Samples: Mapuche school students (age 14 – 23 years), Ns = 566 (Study 1) and 394 (Study 2). The Mapuche are the largest single indigenous group in Chile.

• Design: cross-sectional surveys conducted in Santiago and Temuco

• Measures: – own acculturation attitudes (desire for contact/culture maintenance); – perceived acculturation attitudes of the majority for the Mapuche (desire for

contact/culture maintenance).

Association between perceived (majority) acculturation attitudes and own acculturation

attitudesZagefka et al. (2011)

Influence of perceived acculturation attitudes of outgroup

Matera, Stefanile & Brown (2011) Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 776-785

• Context: majority attitudes towards immigrants in Italy

• Two experimental studies: (Ns = 220*, 135, native Italians): the perceived acculturation preferences of an African immigrant were manipulated via a fake – but seemingly real – newspaper interview. He expressed (independently) preference for Cultural Maintenance (or not) and Contact (or not) in 2 X 2 design.

• Tolerance: towards Africans, combination of evaluative and affective measures (r = .71).

* Study 1 used non-student Ps

Influence of perceived acculturation attitudes of outgroup (Study 1)

Matera, Stefanile & Brown (2011)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Lo Contact Hi Contact

To

lera

nce

Lo Maint

Hi Maint

ANOVA: Contact (F = 120.62***, η2 =.36); Maintenance (F = 10.71***, η2 =.05); Interaction (F = 18.91***, η2 =.08).

Effects of Contact on Tolerance were mediated by Symbolic Threat and Meta-stereotypic perceptions (what the outgroup thinks of Italy)

Contact, norms and acculturation attitudesGonzalez, Zagefka, Brown et al. (in prep)

• Context: Intergroup attitudes between Peruvian immigrants and Chile majority members; Peruvians are one of the largest immigrant groups to Chile.

• Longitudinal design: time lag, 5 months; Ns = 475 (majority, Chileans), 112 (minority, Peruvians).

• Measures: direct contact (# outgroup friends), extended contact (# friends with outgroup friends), norms about contact (friends’ approval of contact with outgroup), acculturation attitudes, positive feelings towards outgroup

.141

Direct Contact[t1]

Positive affect towards outgroup

[t2]

own preference for culture maintenance [t2]

own preference for contact [t2]

friends approval for contact with outgroup[t1]

Control: t1 of all variables measured at T2

0.276 *

0.086 ns

0.147 **

0.075 ns

0.190 ***

.141

Direct Contact[t1]

Positive affect towards outgroup

[t2]

own preference for culture maintenance [t2]

own preference for contact [t2]

Extended Contact [t1]

friends approval for contact with outgroup[t1]

Control: t1 of all variables measured at T2

-0.006 ns

0.276 *

0.086 ns

0.200**

0.199 ***

0.147 **

0.075 ns

0.300 ***

0.190 ***

Chilean. RMSEA=0.067; SRMR=0.056; CFI=0.971; Chi=31.598; p=0.000; n=475

R2=.0.361

.141

Direct Contact[t1]

Positive affect towards outgroup

[t2]

own preference for culture maintenance [t2]

own preference for contact [t2]

Extended Contact [t1]

friends approval for contact with outgroup[t1]

Control: t1 of all variables measured at T2

0.026 ns-0.006 ns

-0.199 Ϯ0.276 *

0.585 *0.086 ns

0.142 ns0.200**

0.077 Ϯ0.199 ***

-0.160 *0.147 **

-0.100 ns0.075 ns

0.311 ***0.300 ***

-0.017 ns0.190 ***

Peruvian. RMSEA=0.000; SRMR=0.036; CFI=01.00; Chi=9.177; p=0.515; n=112Chilean. RMSEA=0.067; SRMR=0.056; CFI=0.971; Chi=31.598; p=0.000; n=475

R2=.0.395R2=.0.361

Prejudice as an antecedent of acculturation attitudes (and vice versa)

Zagefka, Binder, Brown et al. (in press) European Journal Social Psychology

• Sample: N = 1655 (1143 majority, 512 minority) school students (16-18 yrs) from Be, De and GB

• Design: longitudinal, 6 month time lag

• Measures: – acculturation attitudes (desire for heritage culture maintenance, desire for

majority culture adoption); – prejudice towards the outgroup (social distance + negative intergroup emotions);– prior contact included as a control

Reciprocal effects of prejudice and acculturation attitudes

Zagefka et al. (in press)

Prejudice

CMaint

CAdoption

T1 T2

-.27***

+.21***

Majority

Reciprocal effects of prejudice and acculturation attitudes

Zagefka et al. (in press)

Prejudice

CMaint

CAdoption

T1 T2

-.27***+.05

+.21***-.09*

MajorityMinority

R2 = .41R2 = .25

R2 = .33R2 = .33

Reciprocal effects of prejudice and acculturation attitudes

Zagefka et al. (in press)

Prejudice

CMaint

CAdoption

CMaint

CAdoption Prejudice

CM X CA

T1 T2

-.27***+.05

+.21***-.09*

-.05*+.07°

+.06*-.06°

-.03*+.03 Majority

MinorityT1 values of DV controlled

R2 = .66R2 = .40

R2 = .41R2 = .25

R2 = .33R2 = .33

Policy implications

• Intergroup contact: contact – both actual and desired - is positively implicated in several studies; therefore need to promote more opportunities for the development of cross-group friendships (e.g., school diversity policies; single faith schools)

• Reciprocal perspectives: both majority and minority perspectives matter! Multiculturalism interventions should target both groups and should take account of possible (perceived) differences in their acculturation preferences

• Cultural climate: Institutional and normative climates may be crucial for success of Integration (or other) strategy