1 / 37

The dynamics of contact and acculturation

The dynamics of contact and acculturation. Rupert Brown School of Psychology Sussex University r.brown@sussex.ac.uk.

neka
Télécharger la présentation

The dynamics of contact and acculturation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The dynamics of contact and acculturation Rupert Brown School of Psychology Sussex University r.brown@sussex.ac.uk 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)

  2. 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

  3. 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)

  4. 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

  5. Berry’s frameworkFrom: Sam & Berry (2010)

  6. 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.

  7. 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?).

  8. Acculturation & Contact: developing a dynamic intergroup perspectiveBrown & 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).

  9. 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

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

  11. 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

  12. Acculturation attitudes by ageBrown et al. (2013) 5-7 yrs 8-11 yrs

  13. Changes in self-esteem for immigrant children (2nd generation) with different acculturation strategiesBrown et al. (2013)

  14. Effects of an ‘integrationist’ orientation on emotional symptoms (teacher ratings)Brown et al. (2013) t2 t1 ‘Integrationist’ orientation +.18** Emotional symptoms Emotional symptoms +.65**

  15. Acculturation attitudes and well-being among African migrants in UKOkoh & 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

  16. Acculturation attitudesOkoh & Brown

  17. Acculturation attitudes and well-being Culture Maintenance +.22** PANAS Discrimination -.22**

  18. Acculturation attitudes and well-being Culture Maintenance +.22** PANAS Discrimination -.22** R2 = .13 Culture Maintenance +.19** Gen Health -.21** Discrimination +.21* R2 = .16 Contact (with majority)

  19. Acculturation attitudes and well-being: a longitudinal studyTip & 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).

  20. Acculturation attitudes and well-being: a longitudinal study: cross-sectional results In both studies: pubCM, p < .01, pubCM X Discrim interaction, p < .05

  21. Acculturation attitudes and well-being: longitudinal results t1 t2 Public CM Well-being +.29* (UK), +.26* (Ne) R2 = .74 (UK), .65(Ne) In both studies, the only significant longitudinal predictor, controlling for the DV at t1, was Public CM, p < .05; reverse paths were ns.

  22. 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)

  23. Acculturation, adaptation and intergroup climateBaysu, Phalet & Brown (2011) Probability of academic success

  24. [B] Acculturation and mutual adaptation: intergroup dynamics

  25. Perceptions of majority members’ acculturation preferences can shape minority members’ own acculturation preferences: evidence from ChileZagefka, 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).

  26. Association between perceived (majority) acculturation attitudes and own acculturation attitudesZagefka et al. (2011)

  27. Influence of perceived acculturation attitudes of outgroupMatera, 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

  28. Influence of perceived acculturation attitudes of outgroup (Study 1)Matera, Stefanile & Brown (2011) 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)

  29. Contact, norms and acculturation attitudesGonzalez, Zagefka, Brown et al. (in prep) Context:Intergroupattitudes 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

  30. own preference for culture maintenance [t2] 0.147 ** 0.276 * friends approval for contact with outgroup[t1] Positive affecttowards outgroup [t2] .141 0.075 ns Direct Contact[t1] 0.086 ns 0.190 *** own preference for contact [t2] Control: t1 of all variables measured at T2

  31. own preference for culture maintenance [t2] 0.147 ** 0.276 * Extended Contact [t1] 0.200** R2=.0.361 0.300 *** -0.006 ns friends approval for contact with outgroup[t1] Positive affecttowards outgroup [t2] .141 0.075 ns 0.199 *** Direct Contact[t1] 0.086 ns 0.190 *** own preference for contact [t2] Chilean. RMSEA=0.067; SRMR=0.056; CFI=0.971; Chi=31.598; p=0.000; n=475 Control: t1 of all variables measured at T2

  32. own preference for culture maintenance [t2] -0.160 * 0.147 ** -0.199 Ϯ 0.276 * Extended Contact [t1] 0.142 ns 0.200** R2=.0.395 R2=.0.361 0.311 *** 0.300 *** 0.026 ns -0.006 ns friends approval for contact with outgroup[t1] Positive affecttowards outgroup [t2] .141 -0.100 ns 0.075 ns 0.077 Ϯ 0.199 *** Direct Contact[t1] 0.585 * 0.086 ns -0.017 ns 0.190 *** own preference for contact [t2] Peruvian. RMSEA=0.000; SRMR=0.036; CFI=01.00; Chi=9.177; p=0.515; n=112 Chilean. RMSEA=0.067; SRMR=0.056; CFI=0.971; Chi=31.598; p=0.000; n=475 Control: t1 of all variables measured at T2

  33. 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

  34. Reciprocal effects of prejudice and acculturation attitudesZagefka et al. (in press) T1 T2 -.27*** CMaint Prejudice CAdoption +.21*** Majority

  35. Reciprocal effects of prejudice and acculturation attitudesZagefka et al. (in press) T1 T2 -.27*** +.05 CMaint R2 = .41 R2 = .25 Prejudice CAdoption R2 = .33 R2 = .33 +.21*** -.09* Majority Minority

  36. Reciprocal effects of prejudice and acculturation attitudesZagefka et al. (in press) T1 T2 -.27*** +.05 CMaint R2 = .41 R2 = .25 Prejudice CAdoption R2 = .33 R2 = .33 +.21*** -.09* -.05* +.07° CMaint Prejudice +.06* -.06° CAdoption R2 = .66 R2 = .40 CM X CA -.03* +.03 T1 values of DV controlled Majority Minority

  37. 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

More Related