1
MSc Training and Development / Social Psychology
Masterthesis
Variables associated with Acculturation
Attitudes and Recommendations on promoting
an Integrative Ideology
Associations between Contact, Intergroup Attitudes and
Acculturation Attitudes
Dutch respondents about Syrian refugees
__________________________________________________________________________
By
Supervisor
Words
Chantal Ruijter
Allard Feddes
5801
10183280
2
Contents
Abstract ... 3
Introduction ... 3
Acculturation Attitudes and Intergroup Attitudes... 4
Contact Hypothesis and Acculturation Attitudes ... 7
Mediators in the Association between Contact and Acculturation ... 8
The Present Research ... 9
Method ...10
Materials ...10
Procedure ...13
Results ...13
Participants ...13
Data & Research Results ...13
Main Analysis ...18
Exploratory Analysis ...22
Discussion ...26
Limitations and future indications ...28
Conclusions ...29
References ...30
Appendix A Factor Analysis ...34
Appendix B Recommendations for Development of a Training for Dutch Nationals about Refugees ...36
Introduction ...36
Method ...36
Results and Recommendations ...37
References ...40
3
Abstract
The last few years the Netherlands experienced a significant influx of mainly Syrian refugees who will need to acculturate. Integration seems to be the most adaptive model for
acculturation. To get insight in how to promote an integrative ideology among members of a host society, this study aims to clarify which variables are associated with acculturation attitudes of Dutch nationals. Results show intergroup attitude, empathy and threat are associated with an integrational ideology. Extended contact is associated with decreased symbolic threat and therefore with an integrative ideology. These implications are used to give recommendations about what a possible training to promote an integrative ideology among Dutch nationals should focus on.
Introduction
The Netherlands has a multicultural society, where different ethnicities live together. The last few years the Netherlands experienced a significant influx of mainly Syrian refugees who try to escape the regime of the Islamic State in the Middle East. (Ministry of Security and
Justice, Immigration and Naturalisation Service and IND Business Information Centre, 2016). Research by the “Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP)” shows that Dutch nationals have great concern about the immigration and integration of those refugees (SCP, 2016).
Research shows immigrants and members of the host society don’t always share the same acculturation preference and this discordance has several negative consequences for both immigrants and members of the host society (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003; Rohmann , Piontowski, & Randenborgh, 2016). Furthermore, integration seems to be the most adaptive model for acculturation and most conductive to immigrants’ well-being (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). To get insight in how to promote an integrative ideology amongst Dutch nationals, this study aims to get more insight in how Dutch nationals form acculturation attitudes about Syrian refugees.
4 Research has shown intergroup attitudes are related directly to acculturation
preference. In different German subsamples (Van Dick, Wagner, Adams &, Petzel, 1997), integration as acculturation preference correlates negatively with both blatant and subtle prejudice (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). A great amount of research can be found on how contact plays a role in intergroup attitude (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), but little is known about the association between contact and acculturation attitudes. Other than direct contact, research also supports the association between indirect forms of contact and intergroup attitude (Dovidio, Eller & Hewstone, 2011). To our knowledge, no research aimed to study the association between indirect contact and acculturation attitudes and moreover, there is a total lack of research about how perceived acculturation is formed.
This study aims to confirm the association between contact and intergroup attitude but more importantly aims to add to existing literature by studying the association between direct and indirect contact and both acculturation preference and perceived acculturation. To get more understanding of the processes involved, the mediational roles of perceived threat and empathy are studied. In the following section we will first describe different types of acculturation attitudes and the association between acculturation attitudes and intergroup attitudes. Then we will describe the association between contact and acculturation attitudes. At last the variables that may mediate the association between contact and acculturation attitudes will be described.
Acculturation Attitudes and Intergroup Attitudes
Acculturation plays an important role in how someone with a different background is going to adapt living in a new society. Acculturation is the process of cultural and psychological change that follows intercultural contact (Berry, 2003). Berry (1980) proposed that there are two independent dimensions underlying the process of acculturation: the immigrant’s link to his/her original culture and their link to the host society. These two dimensions can be combined to form four possible acculturation styles: assimilation, integration, separation and
5 determined: ‘Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and characteristics?’ And ‘Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with other groups?’ (see Figure 1).
YES NO
YES Integration Assimilation
NO Seperation Marginalization
Dimension 1: Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and characteristics?
Figure 1. The Berry (1980) bidimensional model of immigrant acculturation orientation
It seems that immigrants and members of the host society don’t always share the same acculturation preference. Research shows most members of host societies prefer
assimilation, where the original culture of immigrants is considered unimportant and contact
with the majority is considered important (Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk,1998; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002; Kosic, Mannetti, & Sam, 2005). Most immigrants seem to prefer either integration, where both original culture and contact with the majority are
important (Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrza,, 2000; Rohmann, Florack, &
Piontkowski, 2006) or assimilation (Zagefka & Brown, 2002). Separation, where the original culture is considered important whereas contact with the majority is not and marginalization, where both the original culture and contact with the majority are considered unimportant are the least preferred forms of acculturation.
Further, while research shows immigrants prefer strategies that imply contact
(integration and assimilation), members of the host society perceive them to favour strategies that imply culture maintenance (integration and separation)(Zagefka & Brown, 2002). Thus both acculturation preference and perceived acculturation seem to be discordant.
Dimension 2: Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with other groups?
6 Acculturation preference is what acculturation style an individual finds most suitable.
Perceived acculturation is what acculturation style a member of the host society thinks immigrants prefer. In this study, the term acculturation attitude is used when both acculturation preference and perceived acculturation are included in this term. Several studies have shown that discordance in acculturation attitudes between members of the host society and immigrants leads to more perceived discrimination and experienced stress by immigrants (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2003) it even leads to higher perceived threat on both sides (Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack, 2002, Rohmann et al., 2006, Rohmann et al., 2016). Further, studies have shown integration would be the most adaptive model for acculturation and most conductive to immigrants’ well-being (Berry, 1997; Howard, 1998; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Oppedal, Røysamb, & Sam, 2004; Ward et al., 2001; Berry et al., 2006). Moreover, perceived pressure to assimilate results in lower levels of life
satisfaction of some immigrants (Roccas, Horenczyk & Schwartz, 2000), higher levels of stress and lower levels of psychological and socio-cultural adaptation, mediated by acculturation strategies (Kunst & Sam, 2013). Moreover, studies showed that migration is linked to clinical disorders such as mood disorders (Swinnen & Selten, 2007) and
schizophrenia (Veling et al., 2007). This indicates a more adaptive acculturation style could prevent psychological problems amongst immigrants. It follows therefore that an integrative ideology should be promoted.
Research has shown intergroup attitudes are related directly to acculturation attitudes. In different German subsamples (Van Dick et al, 1997), the degree of integrative acculturation preferences correlates negatively with both blatant and subtle prejudice (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). While much research exists on how intergroup attitudes are formed, not much exists about how acculturation attitudes are formed. Since intergroup attitudes and acculturation attitudes are directly related, this study aims to investigate if acculturation attitudes can be predicted by the same variables that research has found to predict intergroup attitudes. By investigating how variables play a role in forming
7 acculturation attitudes of Dutch nationals, we hope to get insight in how to promote an
integrative ideology amongst Dutch nationals
Contact Hypothesis and Acculturation Attitudes
A great amount of research can be found on how contact is associated with intergroup attitude, but not much exists about how it is associated with acculturation attitudes. A well-known hypothesis in this field is Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis. This hypothesis states that direct contact between groups under optimal conditions could reduce intergroup
prejudice. According to Allport the conditions that have to be present for the contact effect to work are ‘equal status between the groups in the situation’, ‘common goals’, ‘intergroup cooperation’ and ‘the support of authorities, law, or custom. A meta-analytic test with over 500 studies conducted by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) clearly indicates that intergroup contact reduces intergroup prejudice. It also shows that the effects generalize beyond participants in the immediate contact situation and in different intergroup situations and contexts. The optimal conditions Allport stated to be necessary seemed to improve the contact effect, but are not necessary for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice. Literature shows different definitions of prejudice, many of which also include stereotypes. In this study the term ‘intergroup attitudes’ will be used which consist of both prejudice, what is defined as the affective attitude towards outgroup members(e.g. I feel anger towards immigrants), and stereotypes what is defined as the more cognitive attitudes (e.g. I think immigrants are lazy). While much research exists about the association between contact and intergroup attitudes, there is little research about the association between contact and acculturation attitudes. However, in the study of Piontkowski et al. (2000) several variables, which in intergroup research have been found to have influence on the interaction between groups, were examined with regard to their success to predict acculturation preferences. Analyses were done for members of host societies (Germans, Swiss and Slovaks) and immigrants (Turks, Yugoslavians and Hungarians). Perceived similarity, contact, identification, self-efficacy, perceived outcome, permeability, vitality and intergroup bias were found to be
8 predictors of acculturation preferences. However, the variables seem to vary between
different groups. They found contact to be a predictor of more integrative and less assimilative acculturation preferences among members of the host society. To our knowledge, no research exists about the association between contact and perceived acculturation.
Other than direct contact, research has also focussed on indirect forms of contact. The extended contact hypothesis is derived from the contact hypothesis and states that knowledge of intergroup friendships between an ingroup member and an outgroup member can also improve intergroup attitudes (Wright, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997).There is evidence to support this hypothesis (e.g.Turner, Hewstone, Voci, Paolini, & Christ, 2007; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008). A review by Dovidio et al. (2011) shows that also vicarious contact (observing an ingroup member interacting with an outgroup member), imagined contact (imagining oneself interacting with an outgroup member) and parasocial contact (being exposed to members of the ingroup and outgroup interacting in fictitious media portrayals) improve intergroup attitudes. Furthermore, in practical terms, indirect contact between members of a host society and refugees or immigrants is easier to realize than direct contact. If indirect contact is associated with more integrative acculturation preferences it could function as a way to prepare members of the host society for direct contact. Indirect contact could then be used as an intervention to promote an integrative acculturation attitudes amongst Dutch nationals. In this study we use the term indirect contact as a broad term which will include different forms of indirect contact. When the term contact is used, both direct, extended and indirect contact are included in this term.
Mediators in the Association between Contact and Acculturation
A meta-analytic test conducted by Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) shows that contact reduces negative intergroup attitudes by increasing knowledge about the outgroup, reducing
9 mediational role of perceived threat and empathy to be stronger than for knowledge. The intergroup-threat theory states that realistic threat, symbolic threat and inter-group anxiety cause prejudice (Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999). Realistic threat can be conceptualized in economic, physical, and political terms. It relates to a perception that material interests of one self or one's in-group are in danger because of an outgroup. Symbolic threat is
experienced when members of the in-group perceive that their system of values is being undermined by an outgroup. Intergroup anxiety refers to the experience of being personally threatened while interacting with outgroup members. To add to existing literature this study will not only investigate the mediational role of perceived threat and empathy in the
association between contact and intergroup attitudes, but also in the association between contact and acculturation attitudes
. In summary there is little research on the association between contact and
acculturation preferences and perceived acculturation. More so, especially indirect contact and perceived acculturation are barely studied. For that reason this study aims to investigate the association between direct and indirect contact and acculturation preferences and
perceived acculturation. To get more understanding of the processes involved, the
mediational roles of perceived threat and empathy are studied. At last we aim to confirm the contact and extended contact hypothesis.
The Present Research
Based on the earlier research described above the following hypothesis are formed. We expect to confirm that contact reduces negative intergroup attitudes by reducing perceived threat and increasing empathy. Since intergroup attitudes and acculturation preference are directly related we expect to find the same pattern for contact and acculturation preference. Furthermore, we expect to confirm earlier findings that more contact is associated with integration and not assimilation as acculturation preference. Because more contact is strongly related to less negative intergroup attitudes we expect to find the same association between intergroup attitudes and acculturation preference. Since
10 so little research exists on perceived acculturation, we have no hypothesis about that
variable and exploratory analysis will be done.
Figure 2 shows hypothesized associations of acculturation preferences in a model.
Figure 2. Hypothesized model of the association between direct contact, indirect contact,
intergroup attitudes and acculturation preferences with perceived threat and empathy as mediators. The + towards acculturation preferences stands for integration.
Method
Materials
All English questionnaires were translated to Dutch by the researcher and back-translated by the supervisor for the optimal translation (See appendix B for the full survey).
Direct, Extended and Indirect Contact. To measure the amount of direct contact
respondents have with Syrian refugees a single item was used: ‘How many of your friends and good acquaintances are Syrian refugees?’ (Pettigrew, Christ, & Wagner, 2007). Another item measured extended contact : ‘How many of your friends have friends who are Syrian refugees?’ (Pettigrew et al., 2007). Answer options for both items were: ‘none’, ‘1 tot 2’, ‘3 to
11 5’, ‘6 to 10’, ‘more than 10’. Because only a small part of the Syrian refugees are assigned a house in communities, and most of them still live in refugee centres we expect direct and extended contact to be low. To produce more variability, more items were added to the survey, measuring types of indirect contact. The first added indirect contact item states ‘How often do you encounter Syrian refugees (for example in the streets or in the supermarket), without further contact?’. The second added indirect contact item states ‘How often do you hear/see/read about Syrian refugees in the media?’. The last indirect contact item states: ‘How often do you speak about Syrian refugees with friends/family or good acquaintances?’. Answer options for all three items were: ‘never’, ‘daily’, ‘weekly’ or ‘monthly’. For the last two questions participants were asked to rate the valence, that is to what extend the experience was negative or positive, rated respectively from 0 to 9.
Intergroup Attitude. Intergroup Attitude was measured with the ‘Subtle Prejudice
Scale’ (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995) and the measure of attitudes Stephan, Ybarra and Bachman (1999) used. Two items measured to what extend respondents have experienced ‘sympathy’ and ‘admiration’ towards Syrian refugees (α = .80) (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Respondents had to rate on a 5-point Likert scale running from 0=never to 4=always. On the Measure of Attitudes scale respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they felt 12 distinct evaluative or emotional reactions toward Syrian refugees on a 10-point Likert scale running from 0=no___ at all (e.g., hatred) to 9=extreme___(e.g., hatred). The evaluations and emotions include hostility, admiration, disliking, acceptance, superiority, affection, disdain, approval, hatred, sympathy, rejection and warmth. The scales taken together show sufficient reliability (Chronbach’s α=.90).
Perceived Threat. Realistic threat, symbolic threat and inter-group anxiety were
measured using a translated version of the scales from Stephan, Ybarra and Bachman (1999). Realistic threat (Chronbach’s α=.81) was measured with 8 items and a sample item is 'Refugee immigration has increased the tax burden on Dutch people’. Symbolic threat (Chronbach’s α=.78) was measured with 7 items and a sample item is 'Refugees should
12 learn to conform to the rules and norms of Dutch society as soon as possible’. Both were rated on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 0, ‘don’t agree’ to 4 ‘fully agree’. Inter-group anxiety (Chronbach’s α= .91) was assessed by rating 12 emotions like 'worried' and 'confident' from 0, ‘not at all’ to 4 ‘extremely’.
Empathy. Empathy (Chronbach’s α=.92) was measured by using a questionnaire
based on the one used by Finlay & Stephan (2000). The questionnaire asked respondents to rate compassion, sympathy and understanding on the degree to which Syrian refugees caused them to feel these emotions. The emotions were rated on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from 0, ‘not at all’ to 6 ‘extremely’.
Acculturation Preferences. Acculturation preferences were determined by an adapted
form of the two questions Berry (1980) used to measure acculturation attitudes (see Figure 1). Items were ‘To what degree do you consider it to be of value that Syrian refugees maintain their Syrian cultural identity and customs?’ and ‘To what degree do you consider it to be of value that Syrian refugees form relationships with Dutch people?’. The answer was given on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 0, ‘not at all’ to 9 ‘extremely’.
Perceived Acculturation. Perceived acculturation was measured by an altered form of
the acculturation preference items. The first item was ‘To what degree do you think Syrian refugees consider it to be of value that they maintain their Syrian cultural identity and
customs?’. The second item was ‘To what degree do you think Syrian refugees consider it to be of value to form relationships with Dutch people?’. The answer was given on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 0, ‘not at all’ to 9 ‘extremely’.
Demographic Survey. The demographic survey consisted of basic demographic
questions such as questions about age, gender, nationality, where they live, occupation and highest completed education.
Survey Training and Development. To get more insight of the needs participants
experience concerning information about refugees, a self-constructed survey consisting of 5 items was taken. Items were about what kind of information participants were interested in,
13 how they would like to receive information, from what source they would like to receive information and what kind of activities with refugees they would be interested in undertaking. Participants could choose multiple options.
Procedure
Before data-collection started the study was approved by the ethical commission of
University of Amsterdam (2016SP7321). Using Qualtrics , the link to the survey was spread on social media and on a research website of de University of Amsterdam. Opening the link, respondents would first read the information brochure. After an informed consent was signed the other questionnaires were completed. When all questionnaires were completed
respondents received a debriefing and had the option to leave their e-mail address to receive final results of the study. The data was automatically saved in Qualtrics and could be
downloaded by the researcher.
Results
Participants
Based on the study of Piontkowski et al. (2002), where they used n=122 and n=143 to research acculturation attitudes of members of a host society towards immigrants, this study aimed to have at least 150 respondents. After selection the final sample consisted of 180 respondents, with the average age of 27 (SD=13.48) , of which 81.1% was female and 73.3% was student. Eighty-five percent was completely Dutch, 4.4% was first generation immigrant and 10.6% was second generation immigrant. First year Psychology students could receive .25 participation points, other participants did not receive any compensation.
Data & Research Results
Means and frequencies. Table 1 shows percentages of how much direct and extended contact respondents have. Noticeable is that both direct and extended contact are low, which
14 means our sample has little contact with Syrian refugees. Other forms of contact were almost non-existent and are therefore not shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Percentages of Direct and Extended Contact
None 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Direct contact 89.4 8.3 .6 1.1 .6 Extended contact 58.3 35 4.4 0 2.2
Table 2 shows means and standard deviations of predictor and outcome variables. Symbolic threat is higher than realistic threat and intergroup anxiety. Participants seem to be worried more about cultural differences than economical or physical threat.
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations and Range of Outcome and Predictor Variables
M SD Range Direct contact 1.15 .52 1-5 Extended contact 1.53 .78 1-5 Intergroup attitude 3.70 .62 1-5 Symbolic threat 3..13 .73 1-5 Realistic threat 2.29 .73 1-5 Intergroup Anxiety 2.85 .47 1-5 Empathy 7.28 1.89 1-10
15 Table 3 shows percentages of acculturation preferences and perceived acculturation. The majority of the respondents prefer and perceive integration as acculturation style. This means participants seem to prefer and perceive Syrian refugees wanting to have relationships with Dutch nationals and keeping their own culture. As participants barely preferred separation and marginalisation, further analyses are only conducted for integration as assimilation as acculturation preference. As participants barely perceived assimilation and marginalisation, further analyses are only conducted for integration and separation as
perceived acculturation.
Table 3
Percentages of Acculturation Preferences and Perceived Acculturation
Acculturation preference Perceived acculturation
Integration 78.9 85.6
Separation 2.8 11.7
Assimilation 17.2 1.1
Marginalisation 1.1 1.7
Correlations. Table 4 shows correlations of predictor and outcome variables. Noticeable is
that intergroup anxiety is correlated with both direct contact and acculturation attitudes. Symbolic threat is correlated with direct contact, extended contact, acculturation attitudes and intergroup attitude. This indicates possible indirect effects. This will be further analysed in the main analysis.
Remarkable is that valence of media contact is positively correlated with intergroup attitude, empathy, integration as acculturation preference and perceived acculturation and negatively with intergroup anxiety. Suggesting that how the media portraits Syrian refugees is associated with people’s attitudes towards them. This will be further analysed in the exploratory analysis. As said earlier, other forms of indirect contact are almost non-existent.
16 They also did not show significant correlations with the outcome variables or other predictors and are therefore not shown in the correlation table and not analysed any further.
17
Table 4. Correlations of Predictor and Outcome Variables Direct contact Extended contact Valence media contact Intergroup attitude Empathy Symbolic threat Realistic threat Intergroup anxiety Acculturation preference integration Acculturation preference assimilation Perceived acculturation integration Perceived acculturation separation Direct contact - Extended contact .394** - Valence media contact .108 .064 - Intergroup attitude .167* .105 .193** - Empathy .082 .076 .154* .780** - Symbolic threat -.181* -.175* -.143 -.679** -.569** - Realistic threat -.124 -.048 -.081 -.758** -.689** .633** - Intergroup anxiety -.207** -.121 -.251** -.568** -.494** .453** .501** - Acculturation preference integration .097 .106 .159* .519** .533** -.433** -.469** -.284** - Acculturation preference assimilation -.075 -.064 -.112 -.476** -.473** .459** .434** .287** -.882** - Perceived acculturation integration .088 .096 .171* .305** .306** -.262** -.245** -.228** .368** -.273** - Perceived acculturation separation -.071 -.113 -.126 -.184* -.203** .221** .187* .123 -.321** .247** -.884** - *p≤.01, **p≤.05
18
Main Analysis
Contact and Intergroup Attitude. Table 5 shows results of linear regression analyses about
the association between contact, perceived threat, empathy and intergroup attitude. Results show direct contact, symbolic threat, realistic threat, intergroup anxiety and empathy
predicted intergroup attitudes as expected. Extended contact did not predict intergroup attitude. To see if perceived threat or empathy have a mediating role in the association between direct contact and intergroup attitude the Sobel test was executed by entering symbolic threat, realistic threat and intergroup anxiety in the regression analysis together and empathy was entered individually. Direct contact no longer predicted intergroup attitudes (β= .02, p=.722), but symbolic threat (β= -.29, p<.001), realistic threat (β= -.48, p<.001) and intergroup anxiety (β= -.20, p<.001) did. The indirect effects were tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Results indicated that the indirect effect of symbolic threat (95% CI= .4634, 3.4727) and realistic threat (95% CI= -1.2835, 3.0302) were not significant, but the indirect effect of intergroup anxiety was (95%
CI= .4792, 3.4302). Thus, intergroup anxiety partially mediates the association between
direct contact and intergroup attitudes. This means direct contact is associated with
decreased intergroup anxiety and therefore predicts more positive intergroup attitudes. Both direct contact (β= .10, p=.027) and empathy (β= .77, p<.001) were predictors of intergroup attitudes. Bootstrap analysis also indicate that the indirect effect of empathy is not significant (95% CI= -1.8635, 3.2221).Thus, empathy does not mediate the association between direct contact and intergroup attitudes. Since symbolic threat is correlated with both extended contact and intergroup attitudes (see Table 4), the mediational role of symbolic threat is tested using bootstrap analysis. Results indicate symbolic threat fully mediates the
association between extended contact and intergroup attitudes(95% CI=.2038, 2.3983). This means that more extended contact is associated with decreased symbolic threat and
19 Table 5
Associations between Contact, Perceived Threat, Empathy and Intergroup Attitude
Predictor Outcome variable β p
Direct contact Intergroup attitude .17 .025
Extended contact Intergroup attitude .11 .162
Symbolic threat Intergroup attitude -1.15 <.001 Realistic threat Intergroup attitude -1.12 <.001 Intergroup anxiety Intergroup attitude -.54 <.001
Empathy Intergroup attitude 1.19 <.001
Contact and Acculturation Preference. Table 6 shows results of logistic regression analyses
about the association between contact, intergroup attitude, perceived threat, empathy and acculturation preference. Results show that intergroup anxiety, symbolic threat, realistic threat, intergroup anxiety and empathy are associated with acculturation preference as expected. Direct contact and extended contact are not associated with acculturation preferences directly. Since symbolic threat is correlated with both direct contact, extended contact and acculturation preference (see Table 4), the mediational role of symbolic threat is tested with bootstrap analysis. Results indicate symbolic threat does not mediate the
association between direct contact and integration (95% CI=-.1930, .7891) and assimilation (95% CI=-.9383, .1491) as acculturation preference. Symbolic threat does fully mediate the association between extended contact and integration (95% CI=.0437, .5465) and
assimilation (95% CI=-.6338, -.0165) as acculturation preference. This means that more extended contact is associated with decreased symbolic threat and therefore predicts integration and not assimilation as acculturation preference.
20 Table 6
Associations between Contact, Intergroup Attitude, Perceived Threat, Empathy and Acculturation Preferences
Predictor Outcome variable Acculturation preference
β p
Direct contact Integration .19 .225
Assimilation -.62 .217
Extended contact Integration .42 .160
Assimilation -.25 .396
Intergroup attitude Integration .17 <.001
Assimilation -.16 <.001
Symbolic threat Integration -.24 <.001
Assimilation .28 <.001
Realistic threat Integration -.22 <.001
Assimilation .91 <.001
Intergroup anxiety Integration -.08 <.001
Assimilation .08 <.001
Empathy Integration .26 <.001
Assimilation -.21 <.001
Contact and Acculturation Dimensions. Acculturation preference and perceived acculturation
are measured with two dimensions. Combining the dimensions lead to categorical classification of acculturation attitudes (See Figure 1). Table 7 shows results of linear regression analysis about the association of the acculturation dimensions and contact. Results show direct contact predicts the acculturation preference about refugees maintaining
21 their own cultural identity. Direct contact and extended contact predict the perceived
acculturation about refugees wanting to have contact with Dutch nationals. To see if perceived threat and empathy have a mediating role in the association between direct contact and the preference to maintain culture the Sobel test was executed by entering symbolic threat, realistic threat and intergroup anxiety in the regression analysis together and entering empathy individually. Direct contact was no longer a predictor of the preference of maintaining culture (β= .05, p=.408), symbolic threat (β= -.33, p<.001) and realistic threat were (β= -.33, p<.001) and intergroup anxiety was not (β=-.03, p=.683). The indirect effects were tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples. The results indicated that the indirect effect of symbolic threat (95% CI= -.0685, .8106) and realistic threat (95%
CI= -.1994, .6605) were not significant. Direct contact was no longer a predictor of the
preference of maintaining culture (β= .12, p=.069), but empathy was (β= .63, p<.001). The indirect effects were tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples. The results indicated that the indirect effect of empathy was not significant (95% CI= -.3557, .7558). This means perceived threat and empathy do not mediate the association between direct contact and the acculturation preference to maintain culture. To see if threat and empathy have mediating roles in the association between extended contact and the
perceived acculturation of wanting contact Sobel test was executed. Results show extended contact was still a predictor (β= .14, p=.039) when threat was entered in the regression. When empathy was entered in the regression, extended contact was again still a predictor (β= .17, p=.014). Thus, perceived threat and empathy do not mediate the association between extended contact and the perceived acculturation of wanting contact.
22 Table 7
Associations between Contact and the Acculturation Dimensions
Predictor Outcome variable Acculturation dimension
β p
Direct contact Preference
maintaining culture .16 .035 Preference wanting contact .08 .305 Perceived maintaining culture -.05 .502 Perceived wanting contact .19 .013
Extended contact Preference
maintaining culture .14 .058 Preference wanting contact .08 .268 Perceived maintaining culture -.10 .180 Perceived wanting contact .20 .008
Exploratory Analysis
Contact and Perceived Acculturation. Table 8 shows results of logistic regression analyses
about the association between contact, intergroup attitude, perceived threat, empathy and perceived acculturation. Results show direct contact and extended contact are not
associated with perceived acculturation directly. Less negative intergroup attitudes and more empathy are associated with perceiving acculturation as integration and not as separation.
23 More perceived threat is associated with perceiving acculturation as separation and not as integration. To see if perceived threat and empathy have a mediating role in the association between intergroup attitudes and perceived acculturation the Sobel test was executed by entering symbolic threat, realistic threat and intergroup anxiety in the regression analysis together and entering empathy individually. Intergroup attitude was no longer a predictor of an integration as perceived acculturation (β= .20, p=.105), but nor were symbolic threat (β= -.09, p=.352), realistic threat (β=.01, p=.969) and intergroup anxiety (β= -.07, p=.414). When empathy was entered in the regression analysis, intergroup attitude was no longer a
predictor of an integration as perceived acculturation (β= .17, p=.140), but nor was empathy (β= .18, p=.126). Intergroup attitude was also no longer a predictor of separation as
perceived acculturation (β= -.019, p=.879), but nor were symbolic threat (β= .16, p=.115), realistic threat (β=.07, p=.576) and intergroup anxiety (β= .01, p=.957). When empathy was entered in the regression analysis, intergroup attitude was no longer a predictor of a
separation as perceived acculturation (β= .-.06, p=.587), but nor was empathy (β= -.15,
p=.193). This indicates perceived threat and empathy do not mediate the association
between intergroup attitude and perceived acculturation. Since symbolic threat is correlated with direct contact, extended contact and perceived acculturation (see Table 4), the
mediational role of symbolic threat is additionally tested with bootstrap analysis. Results indicate symbolic threat does not mediate the association between direct contact and integration (95% CI=-.0195, .5734) and separation (95% CI=-.5666, .0209) as perceived acculturation. Symbolic threat does fully mediate the association between indirect contact and integration (95% CI=.0226, .4186) and separation(95% CI=-.3342, -.0142) as perceived acculturation. This means that more extended contact is associated with decreased symbolic threat and therefore predicts integration and not separation as perceived acculturation.
24 Table 8
Associations between Contact, Intergroup Attitude, Perceived Threat, Empathy and Perceived Acculturation
Predictor Outcome variable
Perceived acculturation
β p
Direct contact Integration 1.06 .237
Separation -.85 .366
Extended contact Integration .46 .201
Separation -.67 .130
Intergroup attitude Integration .10 <.001
Separation -.06 .017
Symbolic threat Integration -.15 .001
Separation .13 .004
Realistic threat Integration -.11 .002
Separation .09 .015
Intergroup anxiety Integration -.07 .003
Separation .04 .102
Empathy Integration .13 <.001
25
Valence of Media Contact and Acculturation Attitudes. Because valence of media contact
was significantly correlated with acculturation preference and perceived acculturation, exploratory analyses were executed. Table 9 shows results of logistic regression analyses about the valence of media contact, acculturation preference and perceived acculturation. Results show more positive media contact predicted integration as acculturation preference and perceived acculturation. To see if symbolic threat, realistic threat, intergroup anxiety and empathy have mediating roles in the association between the valence of media contact and integration as acculturation preference the Sobel test was executed. Results show valence of media contact was no longer a predictor (β= .10, p=.131) when perceived threat was entered in the regression. Symbolic threat (β= -.21, p=.015) and realistic threat (β= -.33, p<.001) were, and intergroup anxiety was not (β= .01, p=.947). Bootstrap analysis don’t support the mediational role or symbolic threat (95% CI= .0110, .2797) and realistic threat (95% CI= -.0908, .2417). When empathy was entered in the regression, valence of media contact was no longer a predictor (β= .08, p=.224), but empathy was (β= .52, p<.001). Bootstrap analysis don’t support the mediational role of empathy (95% CI= -.0072, .3803). The same was analysed for integration as perceived acculturation. When perceived threat was entered in the regression, valence of media contact was no longer a predictor (β= .12, p=.101). Neither were symbolic threat (β= -.14, p=.138), realistic threat (β= -.11, p=.280) and intergroup anxiety (β= -.08, p=.355). When empathy was entered, valence of media contact was no longer a predictor (β= .13, p=.078), but empathy was (β= .29, p<.001). Bootstrap analysis don’t support the mediational role of empathy (95% CI= -.0016, .1872). This means perceived threat and empathy do not mediate the association between valence of media contact and acculturation attitudes.
26 Table 9
Associations between the Valence of Media Contact, Acculturation Preference and Perceived Acculturation
Predictor Outcome variable β p
Acculturation preference Valence of media contact Integration .28 .036 Assimilation -.21 .134 Perceived acculturation Valence of media contact Integration .35 .024 Separation -.28 .093
Discussion
This study aimed to add to existing literature by investigating the association between direct and indirect contact and acculturation attitudes. Additionally, this study aimed to confirm the association between contact and intergroup attitudes. To get more understanding of the processes involved, the mediational roles of perceived threat and empathy were studied. Results show no direct association of contact and acculturation preferences, but symbolic threat fully mediates the association between extended contact and integration and assimilation as acculturation preference. When looking at the acculturation dimensions, direct contact is associated with the acculturation preference of maintaining culture and the perceived acculturation of wanting contact. Extended contact is associated with perceived acculturation of wanting contact. Furthermore, a more positive intergroup attitude and more empathy predict integration and not assimilation as acculturation preference and integration
27 and not separation as perceived acculturation. More perceived threat predicts assimilation and not integration as acculturation preference and separation and not integration as
perceived acculturation. Further, results confirm that more direct contact is associated with a more positive intergroup attitude, intergroup anxiety partially mediates this association. Symbolic threat fully mediates the association between extended contact and intergroup attitudes. At last, more empathy is associated with more positive intergroup attitudes and more perceived threat is associated with les positive intergroup attitudes.
This means the direct association Piontkowski et al. (2000) found on direct contact and acculturation preferences could not be confirmed. Also no expected extended contact effects were found. However, indirect effects show more extended contact decreases symbolic threat and therefore predicts integration and not assimilation as acculturation preference. Further, more direct contact between Dutch nationals and Syrian refugees is associated with Dutch nationals being open to Syrian refugees maintaining their culture and perceiving Syrian refugees wanting contact with Dutch nationals. More extended contact between Dutch nationals and Syrian refugees is associated with perceiving Syrian refugees to wanting contact with Dutch nationals. This study confirms earlier findings of Dick et al. (1997) that more positive intergroup attitudes are associated with integration as acculturation preference. Positive intergroup attitudes and more empathy are associated with Dutch nationals being open to Syrian refugees maintaining their culture and having contact with Dutch nationals. Furthermore, it’s associated with Dutch nationals receiving the acculturation attitudes from Syrian refugees as such. Experiencing threat is associated with Dutch
nationals not wanting Syrian refugees to maintain their culture but openness to contact. It’s also associated with perceiving Syrian refugees as wanting to maintain their culture and not wanting contact with Dutch nationals. At last, this study confirms Allport’s contact hypothesis (1954), but not the extended contact hypothesis. Although, indirect effects show extended contact decreases symbolic threat and therefore predicts more positive intergroup attitudes. Exploratory analysis show direct and extended contact are not associated with
28 perceived acculturation directly. Indirect effects show symbolic threat mediates the
association between extended contact and perceived acculturation. This means extended contact is associated with decreased symbolic threat and therefore predicts integration and not separation as perceived acculturation. Other analysis show more positive media contact predicted integration as acculturation preference and perceived acculturation. This indicates that the media portraying Syrian refugees positively is associated with Dutch nationals being open to Syrian refugees maintaining their culture and wanting contact with Dutch nationals. It is also associated with Dutch nationals perceiving Syrian refugees wanting to maintain their culture and wanting to have contact with Dutch nationals.
Limitations and future indications
That almost no contact effects were found in this study, could be due to the low variability in contact amongst the participants. Syrian refugees are mainly living in refugee centres, waiting to get asylum. Because they don’t live in communities yet, there might be little contact between Syrian refugees and Dutch nationals. This was expected and therefore this study aimed to measure different types of indirect contact. Unfortunately, these types of contact were so low in variability that they were no further analysed. Future studies could focus on improving the way indirect contact was measured or finding participants with higher levels of contact.
Since valence of media contact is associated with attitudes toward Syrian refugees, further research would be interesting. An experimental research design with control condition could determine the existence of a causal effect. This way the effect of valence of media contact on intergroup attitudes and acculturation attitudes towards Syrian refugees can be studied.
Another limitation of this study, is that the sample mainly exists of female students. The sample is not representative while the Dutch population exists of around the same amount of males and females (CBS, 2017) and we assume the Dutch population does not
29 exist of mainly students. Therefore, results cannot be generalized to the Dutch population. Future studies should focus on finding a sample more comparable to the Dutch population.
Conclusions
This study adds to existing literature by studying what variables are associated with acculturation attitude and to get insight in how an integrative ideology could be promoted amongst Dutch nationals. Due to low variability no direct or extended contact effects with acculturation attitudes were found. More positive intergroup attitudes, lower perceived threat and more empathy are directly associated with an integrative ideology. Moreover, extended contact is associated with decreased symbolic threat and therefore is indirectly associated with an integrative ideology. Therefore, it seems possible interventions to promote an
integrative ideology should focus mainly on symbolic threat by for example creating extended contact. Furthermore interventions could focus on realistic threat, intergroup anxiety,
30
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Berry, J.W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.) Acculturation, theory, models and some new findings, Colorado, CO: Westview Press.
Berry, J.W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chun, P. Balls- Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement and applied
research (pp. 17–37).Washington, DC: APA Press.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55(3), 303–332. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Acculturation and
intercultural relations. Cross-cultural psychology, 345-383. .
Den Ridder, J., Mensink, W., Dekker p., & Schrijver E.(2016) Burgerperspectieven 2016/2.
Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP)
Dovidio, J. F., Eller, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 14(2), 147-160.
Finlay, K. a., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of
empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1720– 1737 Howard, R. (1998). Being Canadian: Citizenship in Canada. Citizenship Studies, 2, 133–152 Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G., & Schmitz, P. (2003). The interactive nature
of acculturation: Perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel and Germany. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 27(1), 79–97.
Kosic, A., Mannetti, L., & Sam, D. L. (2005). The role of majority attitudes towards out-group in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants. International Journal of
31 Kunst, J. R., & Sam, D. L. (2013). Relationship between perceived acculturation expectations
and Muslim minority youth’s acculturation and adaptation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 37(4), 477–490.
Ministry of Security and Justice (2016). Monthly Report on Asylum Applications in The Netherlands and Europe: Recent trends. Immigration and Naturalisation Service and
IND Business Information Centre. Available on: https://ind.nl/en/Documents/AT_June_2016.pdf
Oppedal, B., Røysamb, E., & Sam, D.L. (2004). The effect of acculturation and social support on change in mental health among young immigrants. Inter- national Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 481–494
Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., & Wagner, U. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice : A normative interpretation, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 31, 411–425.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57-75.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology Eur.,
39(June 2009), 922–934.
Phinney, J., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 3–32
Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrza, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups, International Journal of Intercultural
32 Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Concordance of acculturation attitudes
and perceived threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5(3), 221–232. Powers, D. A., & Ellison, C. G. (1995). Interracial contact and Black racial attitudes: The
contact hypothesis and selectivity bias. Social Forces, 74, 205–226.
Roccas, S., Horenczyk, G., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Acculturation discrepancies and well-being: The moderating role of conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology,
30(November 1998), 323–334.
Rohmann, A., Florack, A., & Piontkowski, U. (2006). The role of discordant acculturation attitudes in perceived threat: An analysis of host and immigrant attitudes in Germany.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 683–702.
Rohmann, A., Pointkowski, U., & Randenborgh, A. Van. (2016). When Attitudes Do Not Fit : Discordance of Acculturation Attitudes as an Antecedent of Intergroup Threat.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 337-352.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221-2237.
Swinnen, S. G. H. A., & Selten, J. (2007). Mood disorders and migration. Meta-analysis, 190, 6–10
Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Paolini, S., & Christ, O. (2007). Reducing prejudice via direct and extended cross-group friendship. European Review of Social
Psychology, 18, 212–255.
Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., & Vonofakou, C. (2008). A test of the extended contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 95, 843–860.
van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Adams, C.,&Petzel, T. (1997). Einstellungen zur Akkulturation: Erste Eval- uation eines Fragebogens an sechs deutschen Stichproben [Attitudes toward acculturation: Initial evaluation of a questionnaire performed on six German
33 samples]. Gruppendynamik, 28, 83–92.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 28(6), 995-1013.
Veling, W., Selten, J. P., Susser, E., Laan, W., Mackenbach, J. P., & Hoek, H. W. (2007). Discrimination and the incidence of psychotic disorders among ethnic minorities in The Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36(4), 761–768.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001), The psychology of culture shock. Hove: Routledge.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., Mclaughlin-volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect : knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice, Journal of
Personalityand Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90
Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: immigrant‐majority relations in Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 171-188.
34
Appendix A Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis with oblique rotation (promax) was conducted on the 46 items measuring contact, intergroup attitude, symbolic threat, realistic threat, intergroup anxiety and empathy, to obtain 6 factors (see Table 1). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO= .91. Barlett’s test of sphericity
x²(1035)=5284.85,p<.001, indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large. All 6 factors had eigenvalues greater than Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination
explained 58.31% of the variance. Table 5 shows the factor loadings greater that .25 after rotation. The items that cluster on the same components suggest that component 1 represents empathy, component 2 intergroup anxiety, component 3 intergroup attitude, component 4 realistic threat, component 5 contact and component 6 symbolic threat. It should be noticed that in component 1 items not only load highly on empathy but also on intergroup attitude. On component 3 components load highly on intergroup attitude, but not on empathy. Therefore we assume that the items do measure separate constructs. Some items load on different components, but since the reliability of all the scales are sufficient, no items were removed and the items are based on existing scales.
35 Table 1
Items and Factor Loadings in Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Rotaded factor loadings item
Empathy Intergroup anxiety
Intergroup attitude
Realistic threat Contact Symbolic threat Direct contact .261 -.807 Extended contact -.251 .345 -.299 -.741 Intergroup attitude 1 .787 Intergroup attitude 2 .909 Intergroup attitude 3 -.765 Intergroup attitude 4 .960 Intergroup attitude 5 -.677 Intergroup attitude 6 .715 -.261 Intergroup attitude 7 -.334 -.708 Intergroup attitude 8 ..740 .353 Intergroup attitude 9 -.843 Intergroup attitude 10 .830 Intergroup attitude 11 -.773 Intergroup attitude 12 .853 Intergroup attitude 13 -.633 Intergroup attitude 14 .750 .321 Symbolic threat 1 -.344 -.332 .689 Symbolic threat 2 -.506 .365 Symbolic threat 3 -.335 .260 .377 Symbolic threat 4 .355 .394 .255 Symbolic threat 5 .339 .531 -.313 Symbolic threat 6 .253 .463 Symbolic threat 7 .670 Realistic threat 1 -.630 .351 Realistic threat 2 -.263 .667 Realistic threat 3 -.384 .314 Realistic threat 4 .474 Realistic threat 5 -.348 -.257 .718 Realistic threat 6 -.399 Realistic threat 7 -.469 .254 Realistic threat 8 -.601 .259 Intergroup anxiety 1 .400 .263 .286 Intergroup anxiety 2 .783 Intergroup anxiety 3 .286 .691 Intergroup anxiety 4 .823 Intergroup anxiety 5 .482 .285 Intergroup anxiety 6 .323 .388 .267 Intergroup anxiety 7 .778 Intergroup anxiety 8 -.354 .685 Intergroup anxiety 9 .381 Intergroup anxiety 10 .872 Intergroup anxiety 11 .544 Intergroup anxiety 12 .838 Empathy 1 .712 Empathy 2 .772 Empathy 3 .778
36
Appendix B Recommendations for Development of a
Training for Dutch Nationals about Refugees
Introduction
The Netherlands has a multicultural society, where different ethnicities live together. The last few years the Netherlands experienced a significant influx of mainly Syrian refugees who try to escape the regime of the Islamic State in the Middle East. (Ministry of Security and
Justice, Immigration and Naturalisation Service and IND Business Information Centre, 2016). Research by the “Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP)” shows that Dutch nationals have great concern about the immigration and integration of those refugees (SCP, 2016).
Research shows immigrants and members of the host society don’t always share the same acculturation preference and this discordance has several negative consequences for both immigrants and members of the host society (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003; Rohmann , Piontowski, & Randenborgh, 2016). Furthermore, integration seems to be the most adaptive model for acculturation and most conductive to immigrants’ well-being (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). To get insight in how to promote an integrative ideology amongst Dutch nationals, this study aimed to get more insight in how Dutch nationals form acculturation attitudes about Syrian refugees. Results will be used to form recommendations on development of a training for Dutch
nationals about Syrian refugees. A training is based on the experiential learning theory, which describes the process of learning through experience (Kolb & Kolb, 2012).
Method
Other than the results of the main study, results of a self-constructed are also taken into account. The self-constructed survey was constructed by the researcher and focussed on getting insight in the needs Dutch nationals experience concerning information about refugees. The survey existed of 5 items and asked about what kind of information
37 participants were interested in, how they would like to receive information, from what source they would like to receive information and what kind of activities with refugees they would be interested in undertaking. Participants could choose multiple options.
Results and Recommendations
Results of the main study indicate possible interventions to promote an integrative ideology should focus mainly on symbolic threat by for example creating extended contact.
Furthermore interventions could focus on realistic threat, intergroup anxiety, intergroup attitudes and empathy.
The self-constructed survey shows 50% of the participants was interested in getting more information about refugees in The Netherlands. Table 1 shows participants were most interested in getting information about the future perspectives for refugees in The
Netherlands and personal history of refugees. To make the training interesting for the trainees, information about the future perspectives for refugees could be integrated in the training.
Table 1
Percentage of Participants interested in certain Topics about Refugees in The Netherlands(N=180)
Topics n %
Practical information, like housing 42 23.3
Personal history of refugees 58 32.3
Syrian culture 47 26.1
State of war in Syria 53 29.4
Future perspectives for refugees in The Netherlands 75 41.7 Consequences of the influx of refugees for the Dutch population 49 27.2
38 Participants were most interested in receiving information from either refugees themselves or an organization committed to refugees, see Table 2. This indicates people are most
interested in first-hand information. The training could be part of a campaign of an
organization committed to refugees and maybe even have a refugee present. This would automatically create extended and direct contact, which the main study shows is associated with more positive intergroup attitudes and indirectly with an integrative ideology.
Table 2
Percentage of Participants and Preference for Information Source (N=180)
Who from n %
The government 46 25.6
The municipality 32 17.8
An organization committed to refugees 58 32.2
News program like NOS/Nieuwsuur 45 25
The police 4 2.2
A refugee 63 35
Other 1 .6
Participants prefer to receive the information either online or on television or radio, see Table 3. This indicates that Dutch nationals are possibly most reachable with an online training, rather than a real life training. This could interfere with the experiential learning process, because the experience is not as direct. Therefore, we expect a real-life training to be more effective. Perhaps, an online training could be used to promote a real-life training.
39 Table 3
Percentage of Participants in what Manner they would like to receive the Information (N=180)
Manners n %
Online 71 39.4
Television or radio 58 32.2
Information evening in community centre 19 10.6
Newsletter by mail 13 7.2
Other 10 5.6
At last, participants were most interested in having social contact with refugees, but are almost equally interested in doing a tour in a refugee centre or voluntary work with refugees, see Table 4. This could be integrated in the training.
Table 4
Percentage of Participants interested in certain Activities with refugees (N=180)
Topics n %
Social contact with refugee 59 32.8
Tour in refugee centre 42 23.3
Voluntary work with refugees 49 27.2
Other 5 2.8
Concluding, recommendations about the training to promote an integrative ideology amongst Dutch nationals are to focus on symbolic threat by creating extended contact. Extended contact could be created by a trainer being connected to an organization committed to refugees. Direct contact could be created by introducing a Syrian refugee, giving a tour in a refugee centre or letting the Dutch nationals do voluntary work with refugees. Although it is
40 expected to reach most Dutch nationals by an online training, we expect a real-life training to be more effective.
References
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55(3), 303–332.
Den Ridder, J., Mensink, W., Dekker p., & Schrijver E.(2016) Burgerperspectieven 2016/2.
Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP)
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G., & Schmitz, P. (2003). The interactive nature of acculturation: Perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel and Germany. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 27(1), 79–97.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Experiential learning theory. InEncyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning(pp. 1215-1219). Springer US.
Ministry of Security and Justice (2016). Monthly Report on Asylum Applications in The Netherlands and Europe: Recent trends. Immigration and Naturalisation Service and
IND Business Information Centre. Available on:
https://ind.nl/en/Documents/AT_June_2016.pdf
Rohmann, A., Pointkowski, U., & Randenborgh, A. Van. (2016). When Attitudes Do Not Fit : Discordance of Acculturation Attitudes as an Antecedent of Intergroup Threat.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 337-352.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001), The psychology of culture shock. Hove: Routledge.
41
Appendix C Survey
INFORMATIE BROCHURE VOOR DEELNEMERS Beste deelnemer,
Voordat het onderzoek begint, is het belangrijk dat u op de hoogte bent van de procedure die in dit onderzoek wordt gevolgd. Lees daarom onderstaande tekst zorgvuldig door en aarzel niet om opheldering te vragen over deze tekst, mocht deze niet duidelijk zijn. De
onderzoeker zal eventuele vragen graag beantwoorden.
Doel van het onderzoek en gang van zaken tijdens het onderzoek
Nederlands heeft de afgelopen paar jaar een grote instroom van voornamelijk Syrische vluchtelingen gehad. In dit onderzoek zijn we daarom benieuwd naar het beeld van
Nederlanders over Syrische vluchtelingen. Voorwaarde om mee te doen aan het onderzoek is een leeftijd van 18 jaar of ouder. We gaan u een aantal vragen stellen over het beeld dat u heeft van Syrische vluchtelingen. Het onderzoek duurt in totaal ongeveer 10-15 minuten. Vertrouwelijkheid van gegevens
Alle onderzoeksgegevens blijven volstrekt vertrouwelijk en worden anoniem verwerkt. De onderzoeksgegevens worden niet ter beschikking gesteld aan derden zonder uw
uitdrukkelijke toestemming en alleen in anonieme gecodeerde vorm. De sleutel voor deze gegevens is in het bezit van de onderzoekers en zal niet uit handen worden gegeven. Vrijwilligheid
Als u nu besluit af te zien van deelname aan deze vragenlijst, zal dit op geen enkele wijze gevolgen voor u hebben. Als u tijdens het onderzoek zelf besluit uw medewerking te staken, zal dat eveneens op geen enkele wijze gevolg voor u hebben. Tevens kunt u 24 uur na dit onderzoek alsnog uw toestemming om gebruik te maken van uw gegevens intrekken. U doet dit door een email te sturen naar de onderzoeker. U kunt uw medewerking dus te allen tijde staken zonder opgave van redenen. Mocht u uw medewerking staken, of achteraf, zij het binnen 24 uur, uw toestemming intrekken, dan zullen uw gegevens worden verwijderd uit onze bestanden en vernietigd.
Verzekering
Omdat dit onderzoek geen risico’s voor uw gezondheid of veiligheid met zich meebrengt, gelden de voorwaarden van de reguliere aansprakelijkheidsverzekering van de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Nadere inlichtingen
Mocht u vragen hebben over dit onderzoek, vooraf of achteraf, dan kunt u zich wenden tot de verantwoordelijke onderzoekers C.G.M. Ruijter, email chantal.ruijter@student.uva.nl of Dr. A. R. Feddes, tel. (020) 525 6890, email a.r.feddes@uva.nl, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129, 1018 WT, Amsterdam. Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kunt u zich wenden tot het lid van de Commissie Ethiek, Dr. M. Rotteveel, tel. (020) 525 6713, email m.rotteveel@uva.nl, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129, 1018 WT, Amsterdam.
42 Door middel van uw handtekening verklaart u dat u de ‘Informatie brochure voor deelnemers’ hebt gelezen en begrepen. Verder geef t u door middel van uw handtekening te kennen dat u akkoord gaat met de gang van zaken zoals daarin staat beschreven.
____________________ Handtekening deelnemer
_____________________________________________________________________
Hartelijk dank dat u wilt deelnemen aan dit onderzoek. U zult eerst een aantal vragen worden gesteld over de mate waarin u contact heeft met vluchtelingen.
Hoeveel van uw vrienden of kennissen zijn Syrische vluchtelingen?
o Geen
o 1 tot 2
o 3 tot 5
o 6 tot 10
o Meer dan 10
Hoeveel van uw vrienden of kennissen hebben vrienden of kennissen die Syrische vluchtelingen zijn?
o Geen
o 1 tot 2
o 3 tot 5
o 6 tot 10
o Meer dan 10
Hoe vaak komt u Syrische vluchtelingen tegen (bijvoorbeeld op straat of in de supermarkt), zonder verder contact te hebben?
o Nooit
o Dagelijks
o Wekelijks
o Maandelijks
Hoe vaak komt u in de buurt van een vluchtelingencentrum (bijvoorbeeld door langs te lopen)?
