Moderating Effect of In-group Identification on the Link between Perceived Discrimination and Self-Esteem: A study on Turkish Veiled and Unveiled Women in the Netherlands
Research Master Psychology Internship Başak Kelleci
10620796
Supervisor: Bertjan Doosje
Graduate School of Psychology University of Amsterdam Contact:basakkelleci@gmail.com
Abstract
Discrimination against ethnic minority groups could be considered a serious concern for various countries such as the Netherlands. With the rise of anti-Islamist discourse in recent years, it is of primary interest to study veiled Muslim women’s well-being, because they are even more vulnerable to such discourse than other Muslim people. For this reason, in current study we investigated the relationship between perceived discrimination and self-esteem with Turkish Muslim women as our sample. As a new aspect to the literature, we considered the moderating effect of in-group identification on the link between perceived discrimination and self-esteem by comparing veiled and unveiled Turkish women. First, we expected veiled women to perceive higher levels of discrimination and in-group identification than unveiled women. Second, we hypothesized that, even though veiled women are expected to experience more discrimination than unveiled women, high in-group identification is expected to serve as a buffer, such that they do not suffer from low personal self-esteem. However, results failed to
provide confirmation to our predictions. For this reason, we attempt to offer some possible explanations.
The Netherlands is an ethnically and culturally diverse country including a multitude of minority groups. More specifically, there are four main minority groups: Turks, Moroccans, people from Suriname, and people from the Dutch Antilles which consist approximately 10% of the population (Peters, 2010). Minority groups are usually perceived as disadvantaged. Most of the time, their daily life experiences are different than those of the majority groups. They usually cannot find the chance to disentangle themselves from their ethnic or religious identity due to experience of discrimination from other people as one of the minority groups living in Netherlands. Especially after 9/11 (2001), Muslim people became targets of rising Islamophobia in Europe (Allen & Nielsen, 2002). Similarly, they experience high levels of discrimination in the Netherlands, especially during the last decade (Kloek , Peters & Sijtsma, 2013). According to the 2014 report of “Social and Cultural Planbureau”, 54% of Muslim people experience discrimination because of their ethnicity, while 46% of them experience it because of their religion. In 2001 and 2002, there were dramatic political changes in the Netherlands involving the rise of anti-Islamist politician Pim Fortuyn and his discourse against Muslim people. He called Islam a “backwards culture” and wanted to close the borders for Muslim immigrants (Margry, 2003). There are almost a million Muslim people living in the Netherlands and the majority of them (378.000) are Turkish (“De Multiculturele Samenleving,” 2011). Hence, it is not surprising to see the direct effect of Fortuyn’s political campaign against Turkish Muslim people and their interaction with the Dutch society.
Presumably, while Turkish people were struggling against the greatest threat to their in-group identity during the last decade, veiled Turkish women would struggle even more than Turkish men or Turkish unveiled women because their veil can easily turn them into main targets of the anti-Islamist discourse. To give a contemporary instance, Geer Wilders who is the leader of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), a right-wing Dutch political party,
demanded a tax on wearing a veil in 2009 and he called it “kop-vodden-taks” which means “head-rag-tax” in English. The name of the tax indicates that veiled Muslim women do not have a human head, but an animal head (kop) and they do not wear normal clothes but rags (vodden) (Winter, 2012). With this idea, he was aiming to discourage Muslim women wearing a veil by making them pay a tax on the wearing of headscarves. This specific example clarifies how Muslim women can easily be targets of anti-Islamist instances of discourse. For this reason, it is important to investigate Muslim women’s well-being. Therefore, in this study, we examined the role of perceived discrimination on Turkish veiled and unveiled women’s self-esteem.
Perceived discrimination has a negative effect on psychological well-being of minority groups. Perceiving oneself as a target of discrimination by majority group members creates some psychological dysfunctions such as increased anxiety, depression, apathy, feelings of marginality and alienation, and heightened psychosomatic symptoms among immigrants (Jasinskaja, Liebkind, Jaakkola, & Reuter, 2006). Moreover, perceived discrimination was related to more reported aggression, sadness, anxiety, and egotism (Dion & Earn, 1975). More specifically, perceived discrimination negatively affects personal self-esteem. For example, “the looking-glass” approach of self suggests minority group members who perceive others’ negative perception of their group membership are expected to internalize that negative evaluation and have lower self-esteem (Cooley, 1956; Mead, 2009). According to the Rumbaut’s study (1995), that took place in southern California and south Florida, among a sample of more than 5,000 immigrant children, perceived discrimination elevated depressive symptoms, while anticipated discrimination was significantly associated with decreased self-esteem. The study with young Turkish and Moroccan adolescents has also shown that perceived personal discrimination had a direct negative effect on personal
self-esteem (Verkuyten, 1998). Although perceived discrimination has negative effects on minority group members’ psychological well-being and self-esteem, not every person is equally affected by that.
In-group identification is an important moderator of people’s psychological well-being and self-esteem. A study conducted in Kansas with the sample of 139 African Americans, investigated the relationship between African Americans’ attributions to prejudice and their levels of psychological well-being (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999). The results showed that perceiving oneself as a victim of racial prejudice negatively affects this person’s psychological well-being. However, minority group identification (as a mediator) serves as a buffer on the link between perceived prejudice and psychological well-being. As a result, negative consequences of perceived prejudice alleviated by minority group identification. In other words, prejudice perception did not have any negative effect on people’s psychological well-being, when they identified themselves with their minority groups.
Also, according to Integrated Threat Theory (ITT; Stephan & Stephan, 2000), conditions that lead to perceptions of threat, have an impact on attitudes and behavior. As a general definition, intergroup threat occurs when one group's actions, beliefs, or characteristics challenge the goal attainment or well-being of another group (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). According to Gijsberts (2005), the majority of Dutch people consider particular practices of Islam as morally wrong and 50% of them believe the European and Muslim lifestyles are opposites that do not go together. Regarding these facts, we can conclude that Dutch people see Muslims as a threat to their in-group; moreover, seeing them as a threat might as well be the case for Muslim people. In 2002, Turkish participants faced the greatest threat to the value of their in-group identity in the Netherlands (Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005). The negative relationship between two groups predicts higher levels of
perceived threat towards one’s group, hence, high in-group identification and inter-group conflict. (Corenblum & Stephan, 2001; Stephan et al., 2000). Perceived threat enhances perception of in-group efficacy which includes identification with the group, seeing the group as superior, unified and homogenous; thus, making group members feel stronger. Since veiled Turkish Muslim women are expected to perceive greater threats to their in-group than unveiled ones as one of the main targets of anti-Islamist discourse, we expect them to have more united and well-defined in-group definitions, so the support of the in-group is going to make them more resilient towards the intergroup threat. Hence, they are expected to experience higher levels of self-esteem as members of this unified in-group. Self-esteem of unveiled women, on the other hand, is not going to be affected because they are not directly subjected to the threat of anti-Islamist discourse as veiled women are. So, presumably their in-group is not going to be as united and well-defined as veiled women.
Another theory that is parallel with ITT is Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). SIT suggests that a person’s social category provides a definition of who this person is based on the defining characteristics of the social category (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). One of the two underlying socio-cognitive processes that relate to SIT is categorization which considers intergroup boundaries sharper and more visible by producing a distinctive and positive perception of the in-group. Second one is self-enhancement which can be achieved in groups by comparing group and out-group in a way that favors in-group. This comparison enhances people’s self definition (Hogg & Abrams, 1993). In other words, because people tend to favor their in-group as a result of categorization, they will try to restore a positive and distinguishing group identity. Thus, they will be more motivated to evaluate their in-group positively and this will lead to more enhanced self-esteem. We argue that veiled women are going to have more in-group favoritism and more enhanced self-esteem
than unveiled women because wearing a veil will make their in-group and out-group distinction more salient. Since unveiled women do not have such a common shared experience as veiled women do, their in-group definition will be unclear. Based on these insights, in our study we explore the possible buffering effect of in-group identification on negative impact of discrimination on self-esteem.
Our study focuses on Turkish Muslim women living in Netherlands. It is hypothesized that the veil will have two effects: 1) veiled women perceive higher levels of discrimination than unveiled women; 2) in-group identification will serve as a buffer on the link between discrimination and self-esteem. We argue that because Turkish veiled women are more prone to be labeled as the “other”, they experience more discrimination than unveiled women. While perceived discrimination, its negative outcomes on self-esteem, and the influence of in-group identification on this link have been investigated in the literature, the effect of this link on veiled and unveiled women has not been examined yet. Therefore, our main research question focuses on the potential moderating effect of in-group identification between perceived discrimination among Turkish veiled women and their personal self-esteem. We hypothesized that, although Turkish veiled women perceive higher levels of discrimination, it will have a negative effect on self-esteem only when they have lower levels of in-group identification. In other words, when a veiled woman who is subjected to discrimination has high in-group identification with other veiled women, this will serve as a buffer and not affect their self-esteem in a negative way; whereas, this is not the case for Turkish unveiled women. As we explained above, the veil as a symbol of their Muslim identity directly creates a disadvantaged situation for veiled women because they become the main target of hostile anti-Islamist discourse and attitudes. Since unveiled women do not wear it, they are not directly affected by these hostile discourse and attitudes. Hence, we expect them to perceive
lower levels of discrimination than veiled women; as a result, they will not identify themselves with the in-group to the extent as veiled women will.
With our study, we aim to fill a few gaps in the literature. First, although perceived discrimination has been investigated in previous research, the effect of wearing a veil on it has not been studied. If we consider that there are 80.000 women wearing a veil in the Netherlands (“De Multiculturele Samenleving,” 2011), it is hard to ignore the importance and relevance of conducting research on this topic. In addition to that, previous research has mainly focused on perception of majority groups towards ethnic-minority groups; however, our study is going to focus on the perception of ethnic minority groups towards majority groups.
Based on our main research question, first of all, we want to see if veiled women perceive higher levels of discrimination and in-group identification than unveiled women. Secondly, we will examine whether high in-group identification is going to serve as a buffer to have lower levels of self-esteem for veiled women than unveiled women when they perceive higher levels of discrimination. For the low levels of in-group identification we do not expect any significant difference between veiled and unveiled women’s self-esteem (see Figure 1). Hence, our hypotheses are;
1) Veiled women perceive higher levels of discrimination than unveiled women. 2) Veiled women have higher levels of in-group identification than unveiled women. 3) a) In the condition of high levels of perceived discrimination, veiled women are
going to have higher levels of self-esteem than unveiled women because of the expected buffering effect of in-group identification.
b) In the condition of low levels of perceived discrimination, both veiled and unveiled women are expected to have relatively higher self-esteem.
Current Studies
The study was run in two phases. In phase one, we conducted the pilot study and aimed not to miss any relevant issue in veiled/unveiled Turkish women’s daily life experiences. So, in the light of the pilot study we have added a few items that were not covered by our measures. We recruited four Turkish Muslim women (2 veiled, 2 unveiled) for the pilot study. In phase two, as indicated in the introduction part, we aimed to test our proposed hypotheses. We recruited 40 women (20 veiled, 20 unveiled) for the study. In the next section we are going to elucidate both the pilot study and the main study in detail.
Pilot Study Participants
For the pilot study, we had four participants, specifically, two veiled and two unveiled Turkish Muslim women from “Hogeschool van Amsterdam” who were living in the Netherlands. The 1st veiled woman was 21, both the 1st and the 2nd unveiled women were 24, and the 2nd veiled woman was 25 years old (M=23.5). We guaranteed complete confidentiality, so we kept all the answers anonymous. To encourage women to participate in the interviews, we rewarded them with € 8.
Method
First, we conducted a pilot study that includes interviews with two veiled and two unveiled Turkish women, in order to examine their experiences of discrimination in the Netherlands. Interviews took 30 to 40 minutes on average. We used open ended questions that we generated (see Appendix 1). Presumably, it was not adequate for the interview to be in English because we wanted them to feel comfortable with the language that they use; therefore questions were translated to Turkish, also the language of interviews was Turkish.
In the pilot study, we based our questions on the constructs we wanted to test in our hypotheses. So, questions built on women’s background, experiences of wearing/not wearing a veil, perception of discrimination with concrete examples, definition of in-group and the way they relate to this specific in-group, and perceived personal self-esteem. We used open ended questions that were generated by us except one question that we took from Verkuyten’s study (1998). The questions were based on their daily life experiences (e.g., “Can you give an example of discrimination? In which context/place have you experienced it?”) [see Appendix 1]. Because we assume that their experiences are different as a result of wearing/not wearing a veil, some of the questions had different versions for unveiled women (e.g., “When did you start wearing a veil? Was it your choice?” [veiled women] vs. “Have you ever considered wearing a veil? Can you tell me the reasons behind this?” [unveiled women]). We analyzed the results qualitatively.
Results
Two out of four women (the 1st veiled and the 2nd unveiled) were born in Netherlands, while other two (the 1st unveiled and the 2nd veiled) were born in Turkey. The age distribution was 21, 24, 24, and 25. Two of them were studying “Human Resources Management”; while one of them is studying “Nursery”, and the other was “Commerce and Trade.” In addition to
their studies, all of them were working part-time. Only the 2nd veiled woman was married (also the youngest one), while the others were single and living with their parents. They all had at least 2 siblings.
The 1st veiled woman was living in a small city (Heerhugowaard) and she started to wear a veil when she was 13. The 2nd veiled woman, who were living in Amsterdam, started to wear it at the age of 9; it was because of her religious school. After school she would take it off right away because she did not want people to see her with the veil. Similar to the 1st veiled woman, she was not eager to wear a veil and she officially started to wear it at the age of 13. There are other similarities between their answers, such as they had been taught everything about their religion by their parents; however, they had not been forced to wear a veil. So, they both reported that they had tolerant parents and their mothers wore a veil as well. They stated that they were wearing it not because they felt pressure from their parents, but they wanted to wear it themselves. The 1st veiled woman told that, although her parents never forced her to wear a veil, their neighbors and relatives were putting a pressure on her and her parents at the same time. On the other hand, the 2nd veiled woman did not report pressure of neighbors or relatives. So, it can be the case that living in a small city might be related to wearing a veil, because of the pressure of people out of the family.
The unveiled women’s answers were similar to each other, as well. They were taught about their religion at an early age. Even though both have religious families, they did not force unveiled women to wear a veil. It was their choice to not to wear it and they have not preferred it until now because of their school/work. They wanted to fulfill the requirements of their religion and they both wanted to wear it in the future when they feel ready.
The answers of the two veiled women were different in their perception of change after wearing a veil. Because the 2nd veiled woman was living in Amsterdam, she indicated
that she did not notice a change after wearing a veil as long as she stayed in Amsterdam. She gave only one example; namely, when she was in Den Helder, she felt strange gazes from people because of her veil. On the other hand, the 1st veiled woman emphasized that she felt the change immediately. She was not feeling comfortable when she was at a party or a bar with friends because she perceived her veil as inappropriate for such places. In time, she got used to the idea of wearing it, also she accepted herself as she was. She talked about change-related issues mostly with her mother and she said that after talking to her mother, she learned how to be okay with herself. The 2nd veiled woman did not specify any significant change in her life; hence, she did not feel the necessity of talking about it with someone.
Although they both stated that they do not talk about the veil in their daily lives, the 2nd unveiled woman said that her father sometimes talked with her about it and implied it was the time to wear it, however, she preferred to keep silent and not to respond to him at all. Apart from this example, they did not construe the veil as a barrier between their family and friends. So, they did not feel the necessity of talking with other people about it.
If we consider the answers of veiled and unveiled women on discrimination, we can see a remarkable difference between their perceptions of discrimination and daily life experiences. The 1st unveiled woman said that she did not experience any discrimination until she was 18 and then she perceived it subtly from other people’s questions about her ethnic or religious identity. The 2nd unveiled woman reported similar experiences and she added that she does not perceive such questions as discrimination. So, unveiled women perceived discrimination only subtly and sometimes, they did not even recognize it as discrimination. In contrast, veiled women told that they perceive discrimination in their daily lives, public spaces (supermarket, street etc.), or other occasions such as job applications. The 1st veiled woman could not get an internship position because of her veil. The 2nd veiled woman also
reported that she did not give herself a chance for job applications for the same reason. Moreover, because the 1st veiled woman was living in a small village, she said that she was not allowed to enter a supermarket because of her veil and the 2nd veiled woman said that sales people at supermarkets treated her in a colder and more distant way. As a conclusion, veiled women perceive discrimination, while unveiled women do not even experience it explicitly.
While two of them claimed that their friends (they have not specified if they are veiled or not) experience discrimination, the 2nd veiled and unveiled woman said they did not hear such stories from their friends. The 1st unveiled woman’s male friends perceived more discrimination compared to female friends (veiled and unveiled) for job applications. Additionally, the 1st veiled woman only reported that her friends experienced discrimination especially for the job applications and places where Dutch people were the majority.
All of them except the 2nd unveiled woman agreed that Turkish Muslim people were discriminated against in the media or social media in the Netherlands. The 2nd unveiled woman thought that Moroccan people took place in the media or social media more often than Turkish people and also she did not think they exaggerate the news about Turkish or Moroccans on purpose in the media. On the other hand, the 1st veiled woman said “If a Muslim kills someone, that would be overstated in the media and the person would be represented as if s/he is a terrorist. There is always a negative bias towards both Turkish and Muslim people in media.” Other women’s interpretations and examples were also in line with that idea. In addition to examples of Turkish people, they gave the case of Moroccan women who opened a bar and took place in the headline of a Dutch newspaper “Metro” and the newspaper claimed that Moroccan woman was in danger of being killed, however, in reality nobody was trying to kill her. Besides, she added if the news was about a Turkish or Muslim
person, it was always exaggerated. Although the question was only about Turkish Muslim people, their answers consisted of Moroccan women’s experience. From this, we might conclude that Turkish women identified themselves with Moroccan women as well.
When we asked them to give an example of discrimination, we received different answers from veiled and unveiled women. Unveiled women were giving instances of judgmental questions/comments from other people on their lifestyles; while, veiled women were explaining how people treat them differently because of their veil. If we compare the example of being judged because she was not drinking alcohol with not being accepted for a job, it can be concluded that experience of discrimination is more salient for unveiled women compared to veiled women. Overall, veiled women reported more explicit examples of discrimination.
Furthermore, to understand veiled women’s in-group identification level, we asked if they perceive discrimination directly towards themselves or all Turkish Muslim people as a group. Neither of the veiled women took this discrimination personally. While, the 1st veiled woman interpreted it as something more towards Muslim people, the 2nd veiled woman reported that it could happen to any veiled women. We can conclude that they emphasized their Muslim and female identity, rather than focusing on Turkish identity in their answers.
Three women reported that they felt the support of their families and Turkish friends more than their Dutch friends. The reason was sharing the same language and traditions with them. However, the 1st veiled woman gave an account for Turkish Muslim people’s discrimination against Turkish women. She claimed “Instead of supporting the successful women, they stigmatize them and try relating their success to something intolerable such as having an affair with the boss.” This is an interesting answer that we might want to focus on. In addition to that, the 2nd veiled woman addedthe support of Moroccan Muslim women was
important for her and she described Moroccan women group as a group that she could always rely on. She said “If such a thing happens, Moroccan women initiate the demonstrations and Turkish and other veiled women will follow them.”
When we asked which group describes them best, 2 women claimed they define themselves as Turkish; while the 1st unveiled woman and the 2nd veiled woman identified themselves with other groups. The 1st unveiled woman said she felt more Dutch than Turkish. The 2nd veiled woman said that although she wanted to fulfill all the requirements of her religion, she defined the group as “the group that includes people like me, in which everybody sees each other as equal.”
Both veiled and unveiled women reported high levels of self-esteem. They have rated their satisfaction and the 1st unveiled woman and the 2nd veiled woman rated 8-9, while the other two rated 7 out of 10. Although there is a clear discrepancy between veiled and unveiled women on their perceived discrimination level and experiences; there was not a clear discrepancy between their self –esteem levels.
Their last remarks were different from each other. The 1st unveiled woman said that she knew a lot of people who were not accepted for a job just because of the veil or their Turkish identity. Therefore, we can confirm that veiled women experience significant levels of discrimination in the Netherlands. Second, the 2nd unveiled woman claimed Turkish people who live in the Netherlands, created a good mixture of Turkish and Dutch culture. They were in between two cultures, they could not completely live a Dutch lifestyle, and on the other hand, they also could not live in a very traditional Turkish way. So, they lived in between two cultures. Third, the 1st veiled woman emphasized that she was more relaxed spending time with Dutch people than Turkish people and she said “Dutch people are more comfortable with the veil, I had only Dutch friends until I was 18 and I have never thought of stopping to wear
it.” Lastly, the 2nd veiled woman expressed that although people were open-minded in the Netherlands, Turkish veiled women did not really appreciate the opportunities they had as they were supposed to do.
Discussion
After interviewing two veiled and two unveiled women, we had some initial support for some of our hypotheses and also some new topics that extend the scope of our research. First of all, answers to fourth question (see Appendix 1) that directly asks about women’s perception of discrimination in the Netherlands, shows that there is a clear distinction between veiled and unveiled women. While veiled women gave more concrete and diverse examples such as not being accepted for a job application; unveiled women reported more subtle experiences like being exposed to other people’s offensive questions about their ethnic or religious identity. In other words, our first hypothesis which is “Veiled women have higher levels of in-group identification than unveiled women” was qualitatively supported. However, for second and third hypotheses, we do not have a clear evidence that we can relate to other questions because the answers were either very different from each other and do not follow a pattern; or very similar to each other both for veiled and unveiled women.
Furthermore, based on the pilot study, we decided to add more items to our questionnaire. One of them asks whether or not they live in Amsterdam, because it directly affects women’s experiences of discrimination. More specifically, women who live outside of Amsterdam experience more discrimination compared to women who live in Amsterdam. Therefore, we have recruited as many as women living in Amsterdam to control for a possible effect of city that they live in. In addition, we have included their identification with Moroccan women as well as with Turkish women to have a better understanding of their in-group categorizations.
Main Study Participants
A total of 40 women, 20 veiled (M=26.65, SD=7.17) and 20 unveiled (M=20.6, SD=4.12) participated in the main study (age is significantly different between groups see Results section for details). Veiled women’s age ranged from 18-39, while unveiled women’s age ranged from 18-33. In addition, 88% of our participants were born in the Netherlands. Also, more than 70% of the veiled women were living in Amsterdam, while only 35% of the unveiled women lived there. Thus, we checked if city has a confounding effect on our results. Based on our analysis, there is a significant association between the city that women live and the condition of wearing a veil, χ2 (1, N=40)= 4.91, p= .02. In other words, wearing a veil is dependent on the city they live in, so we should take the effect of the city into account in our in the interpretation of results as well. As we did in the pilot study, we guaranteed complete confidentiality, so we kept all the answers anonymous. They received € 3 as a monetary reward after they filled in the questionnaire.
Method
After analyzing the qualitative data and confirming that all relevant issues about Turkish veiled/unveiled women’s discrimination related experiences were covered, we proceeded with the main study that was based on a questionnaire that takes about 5-7 minutes.
Since we wanted to compare two groups having different experiences as a function of wearing or not wearing a veil, we created two different versions of questionnaires. Items for veiled women were questioning their experiences with wearing a veil, whereas, items for unveiled women were investigating their experiences about not wearing a veil. Therefore, we worded first six questions differently (e.g., “It was my own decision to wear a veil” [veiled women version], “It was my own decision to not to wear a veil” [unveiled women version]).
As we assumed for the interviews, we also assumed that participants of the main study would rather prefer to take the questionnaire in Turkish. Thus, questionnaires were also distributed in Turkish. In order to have a representative and random sample, we recruited our participants from many different locations of Amsterdam, such as cafes, restaurants, supermarkets and hairdressers located in Turkish neighborhoods, University of Amsterdam, Free University of Amsterdam, the public library, and Central station.
For the main study, we employed different scales for each construct. In order to check their motivation to wear a veil (for veiled women) and their potential motivation to wear a veil in the future (for unveiled women), we generated our own measure that includes 6 items (e.g., “My parents discuss the topic of wearing a veil/not wearing a veil with me”) on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree) where higher scores indicated more extrinsic motivation to wear a veil/not to wear a veil (see Appendix 2 and 3).
Hierarchical Multi-component Model of In-group Identification Scale (Leach, van Zomeren, Zebel, Vliek, Pennekamp, Doosje, & Spears, 2008) was used to measure in-group identification. It is a 14 item scale that includes 5 components; solidarity, satisfaction, centrality, individual self stereotyping, and in-group homogeneity. After computing scale scores for each component, Leach et al. concluded that the scales were reliable, and their reliability did not differ much across group identities or across studies. In our study Cronbach’s alpha was found to be .91, which indicates our measure was highly reliable. Moreover, their construct, discriminant and predictive validity are ensured. Items (e.g., “I feel solidarity with my in-group.”) were presented with a 7-point Likert-type response scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 7= Strongly Agree). Because we wanted our scale to be understood easily, we used a 5-point Likert-type response scale instead of using 7-point. Higher scores on the scale indicated higher levels of in-group identification. In addition, we included 1 more item
about their identification with Moroccan women (e.g., “I feel strongly bonded to Moroccan women.”) that we generated (see Appendix 2 and 3).
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) (Rosenberg, 1965) is a reliable and valid scale that consists of 5 positively (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.”) and 5 negatively (e.g., “At times, I feel I am no good at all.”) worded items to assess personal self-esteem. According to the literature, alpha reliabilities for the RSE range from .72 to .88 (Gray-Little et al., 1997). However, a more recent study (Robins et al., 2001) assessed higher reliabilities ranged from .88 to .90. Although the 4-point scale has been used in the original version, the version by Robins et al. has a 5-point Likert-type response scale (1= Not Very True, 5= Very True) with higher alpha reliabilities. Hence, we used the recent version of RSE and the alpha was .79 for this scale. Higher scores on the scale reflected higher levels of self-esteem after reverse-coding 5 negatively worded items. (see Appendix 2 and 3).
The Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams et al., 1997) was used in order to measure perceived discrimination. It includes 9 items (e.g., “How often have you been treated with less courtesy than others?”) with the alpha=.88 (Banks, Kohn-Wood, & Spencer, 2006) and rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Never, 5=Very Often). Reliability analysis showed that the alpha of self-esteem scale for our sample was .79. The items are based on the encounters of discrimination on people’s day-to-day life. We considered higher scores on the Everyday Discrimination Scale as higher levels of perceived discrimination. Moreover, we included one item (e.g., “To what extent are you personally as a Turk discriminated against?”) from Verkuyten’s study on perceived discrimination among young Turkish and Moroccan adolescents (1998). Normally this scale has 3 items; however, the other two were not relevant to our study. Lastly, we created one item (e.g., “How much discrimination do you experience
outside of Amsterdam in comparison to inside of Amsterdam?”) for measuring the effect of the city that they live in on their perception of discrimination (see Appendix 2 and 3).
As the final part of the questionnaire, we asked 4 demographic questions (e.g., “Where were you born?”), however, we included one additional question for veiled women’s version (e.g., “At what age have you started to wear a veil?”). The reason we have added this question was to have an idea about their motivation behind wearing a veil. Unveiled women did not receive this item (see Appendix 2 and 3).
Results
In Table.1, the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all measures can be found. Likewise, in Table.2 we provided the information about means, standard deviations and t-test results based on the groups. Independent samples t-test results revealed that there was a significant difference between ages of unveiled and veiled women (see Table.2), t(38)=-3.27, p=.002 ; however, age was not a significant predictor of any of the variables, specifically, perceived discrimination [β=-.24, t=-1.48, p=.15 one –tailed], R2 = .06; in-group identification [β=-.15, t=-.912, p=.37 one –tailed], R2 = .02; and self-esteem [β=.20, t=1.28, p=.21 one –tailed]. R2 = .04.
The first six items of the questionnaire were created in order to have a general idea about veiled and unveiled women’s experiences in relation to wearing or not wearing a veil. The frequency analysis showed that 80% of the women said it was their decision to wear/ not to wear a veil. Almost half of the women (47.5%) reported that they did not feel any pressure or expectations of their relatives/parents on their decisions of wearing/or not wearing a veil and
they were happy with their choice wearing/not wearing the veil. Only fifth and sixth items revealed significant results and we are going to report them further in this section.
There were three main scales in our questionnaire. In order to analyze the data, first we have created the subscales in SPSS. After this process, we have replaced the missing values with the mean of each item and reverse coded five items (2, 5, 6, 8, 9) in the self-esteem scale. Reliability analysis conducted for each measure separately. (see Methods section for more information).
Perceived discrimination. Before conducting the main analysis, for the first hypothesis we wanted to see if veiled women perceive significantly higher levels of discrimination than unveiled women. The condition of wearing a veil or not was the independent variable in the study. In order to test the first hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was performed in order to compare veiled and unveiled women’s scores on perceived discrimination. Unexpectedly, the results revealed that there was not a significant difference between veiled and unveiled women in terms of their perceived discrimination, t(38) = -.295, p=.77 (see Table.2). Therefore, our first hypothesis was not supported.
In-group identification. For the second hypothesis, another independent samples t-test was performed in order to understand whether or not wearing a veil had a significant effect on in-group identification. Similarly, the results revealed that there was not a significant difference between veiled and unveiled women on their in-group identification levels as well,
t(38) = .239, p=.81. Veiled women were expected to have significantly higher scores than unveiled women both for perceived discrimination and in-group identification; however, the results showed that difference was not significant (see Table.2). As a result, our second hypothesis was not confirmed as well.
Self-esteem. Although the difference between the self-esteem levels of the two groups was not included in our hypothesis, it was the only significant result that we obtained from t-tests. There was a significant difference between veiled and unveiled women’s self-esteem levels, t(38) = -2.34, p=.03 (see Table.2). Veiled women’s self-esteem level was significantly higher than unveiled women’s self-esteem level.
Although we did not find any significant results for the t-tests, there were some items that yielded significantly different results between veiled women and unveiled women. Veiled women (M=2, SD=1.5) was thinking they had less chances than other people to be selected a job/or internship interview t(38)= -2.02, p=.05 compared to unveiled women (M=2.8, SD=.91) which shows that veiled women perceived more discrimination for finding a job. The pilot study also revealed that veiled women experience more discrimination considering job/internship interviews. Another important point was veiled women (M=4.5, SD=1.10) were significantly happier than unveiled women (M=3.29, SD=1.12) about their choice of wearing
a veil, t(38)=3.6, p=.001. In the same vein, veiled women (M=1.05 SD=.22) reported that it was less likely for them to stop wearing a veil than unveiled women (M=3.35 SD=1.26) to start wearing it, t(38)=8.00, p=.00. Hence, veiled women were happier with their choices of wearing a veil than unveiled women’s preference of not wearing it and it was unlikely for them to stop wearing it in the future.
Perceived discrimination and in-group identification. None of the above analyses generated any confirmatory results. While testing the difference between groups on their perceived discrimination and in-group identification levels, we analyzed the third hypotheses (3a & 3b) with multiple regression. First, we have aggregated both perceived discrimination and in-group identification’s scores to their mean. As a second step, we subtracted these variables from their aggregated means in order to find the centered variable. After creating the centered scores for both variables, we generated the interaction term of these two variables by multiplying their centered scores and we expected it to have a significant effect on self-esteem to confirm our hypothesis in-group identification has a moderating effect on the link between perceived discrimination and self-esteem. Therefore, using a multiple regression with interaction term of perceived discrimination and in-group identification, we wanted to see the interaction effect of “Perceived Discrimination*In-group Identification” on self-esteem. However, the interaction term was not a significant predictor of self-esteem [β=.02, t=.13, p=.90 one –tailed], R2=.06. Hence, our third hypothesis (3a & 3b) was not confirmed by the results.
General Discussion
Despite the accumulative research on perceived discrimination and its negative effects on minority groups during the past decades, research on the moderating role of in-group identification as a buffer between these two variables has not been conducted apart from
Branscombe et al. (1999). With our proposed research, we wanted to contribute to the literature, namely, by examining a possible buffering effect of in-group identification on the relation between perceived discrimination and self esteem.
Based on our assumptions, we generated three hypotheses. First of all, we anticipated veiled women to perceive higher levels of discrimination than unveiled women. Secondly, we predicted higher levels of in-group identification for veiled women than unveiled women. Finally, in the condition of high levels of perceived discrimination, we expected veiled women to have higher levels of self-esteem than unveiled women because of the expected buffering effect of in-group identification and in the condition of low levels of perceived discrimination, both veiled and unveiled women to have relatively higher self-esteem levels. Although these were the expected results of our study, none of our hypotheses has been supported by the results that we obtained. Only in the content of job applications did veiled women report experiencing more discrimination than unveiled women.
Since none of the results successfully supported our predictions, we set out to investigate the possible reasons that may have accounted for this outcome. In this attempt, we consider paying closer attention to our sample characteristics as well as to the theoretical background of our hypotheses. We will discuss these considerations in the context of the relationships that did not prove to be significant.
A possible reason for not being able to find significant discrepancy between veiled and unveiled women’s perceptions of discrimination could be the city they live in. Chi-square test confirmed that there is a significant association between the city that people live in and the condition of wearing/not wearing a veil (see Main Study). Amsterdam is a diverse city and it is more acceptable and common for people to see veiled women in public places, however there are less open minded people living in smaller cities. According to the pilot study, the
answers of two veiled women were different in their perception of change after they started wearing the veil. Because the 2nd veiled woman was living in Amsterdam, she has reported that she has not perceived a change after wearing the veil as long as she stayed in Amsterdam. Once she went out of Amsterdam, she started to perceive people’s negative attitude towards her. Although the Netherlands is a very diverse and liberal country, cities that people live in shape their daily life experiences. There can be essential differences in their experiences depending on the city. For example, the 1st veiled woman who lives in Heerhugowaard (a small city in the Netherlands), said that she is not allowed to enter some public places like supermarkets because of her veil. In our main study, more than 70% of the veiled women were living in Amsterdam. Presumably, this could have led to less discrepancy between veiled and unveiled women’s perceptions of discrimination.
Secondly, according to Tóth & Vijver (2003), Turkish-Dutch migrants believe that they should integrate the public domains, whereas they should separate themselves from Dutch culture in private domains. In other words, they do not want to be assimilated in their private lives, but they are willing to be assimilated in public domains. Since perceived discrimination is more related to the public domains, their openness to be integrated to the culture could be another reason for perceiving less discrimination than we expected.
As the second veiled women phrased, one of the other reasons for experiencing discrimination is language; most of the Turkish children who live in small villages do not know the Dutch language that well. Hence, they feel more like an outsider and as a consequence Dutch people do not prefer to engage in a conversation with them. She added that even teachers discriminate against children who do not speak fluent Dutch. Since we recruited students who were studying in Dutch, we could conclude that language did not create any discrimination related issues for them. Therefore, being able to speak fluent Dutch
could be another explanation of not observing significant difference between two groups in terms of their perceived discrimination levels.
Although veiled and unveiled women were expected to be significantly different in terms of their in-group identification levels, results did not confirm the hypothesis. One of the explanations for this insignificant result could be our definition of in-group. In Hierarchical Multi-component Model of In-group Identification Scale (Leach et al., 2008) we have introduced group as Turkish Muslim, however, this might not reflect our participants’ in-group definition. They might perceive themselves more as a Turkish person than as a Muslim person or vice versa. Combining these two identities could be the reason of our insignificant results. Since almost all of them were born in the Netherlands, maybe their Turkish identity has become less salient than their Muslim identity after so many years. It could have been a better idea to have Muslim identity as the in-group, and then we could perhaps expect to have a clear difference between groups.
Furthermore, our participants were mostly students and they spent a large amount of their time in a school environment. Compared to other public places such as cafes, restaurants, or supermarkets, we expect more tolerant people in the school environment. Bobo and Licari (1989) found a strong positive effect of education on the target group tolerance. In other words, the effects of education on tolerance are strong although. We can expect the majority of the people in a school environment to be educated, hence to be more tolerant towards differences between groups than random people that they come across in public places. Because they interact with more Dutch people in the school context, their definition of in-group can be less salient than a housewife whose social environment consists of only Turkish people. Therefore, the study should have been conducted with a more diverse and representative sample. There is also a gap between our target population and their parents. As
Crul and Doomernik (2003) have stated in their paper, the majority of Moroccan or Turkish parents did not have the opportunity to go to school. Since they were not educated, it was difficult for them to interact with people from different backgrounds; hence, they have stayed within their small kinship groups and spent their time with them. In other words, older generations probably would have a more salient Turkish-Muslim in-group identity than younger generations. The proposed study did not give an account of older generations’ perceptions. It could be interesting to investigate the difference between younger and older generations in terms of their in-group identification levels.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the present study did not confirm the possible buffering effect of in-group identification between perceived discrimination and self-esteem; we still believe it could be in the center of further research in the future. Because veiled women are more prone to be discriminated against, their psychological well-being is more likely to be negatively affected. With this study, we aimed at suggesting a way to reduce the negative outcomes of perceived discrimination on psychological well-being, specifically, self-esteem. It is relevant because anti-Islamist discourse have been very visible throughout the public and political arenas as a result of several events like the terrorist attacks in the USA, Madrid, and London in the last decade (Savelkoul, Scheepers, Tolsma, & Hagendoorn, 2011). Beer (2007) has predicted that the number of non-Western migrants living in the Netherlands will increase from 1.7 million to 2.7 million in 2050. Considering almost a million Muslim people living in the Netherlands (more than half of the non-Western migrants) and the rising anti-Islamist attitudes of politicians and society, (“De Multiculturele Samenleving,” 2011) it is essential to study the psychological well-being of these people.
References
Allen, C., & Nielsen, J. S. (2002). Summary Report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001. EUMC. Retrieved from
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/199-Synthesis-report_en.pdf
Andriessen, I., Fernee, H., & Wittebrood, K. (2014). Ervaren discriminatie in Nederland. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau
Arends‐Tóth, J., & Van De Vijver, F. J. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish–Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(2), 249-266. Banks, K. H., Kohn-Wood, L. P., & Spencer, M. (2006). An examination of the African
American experience of everyday discrimination and symptoms of psychological distress. Community Mental Health Journal, 42(6), 555-570.
Beer, J. A.A. de. (2007). Nederlandse moslims blijven in de minderheid (Dutch Muslims remain a minority). DEMOS Bulletin over Bevolking en Samenleving, 23(9): 1–5. Bobo, L., & Licari, F. C. (1989). Education and political tolerance testing the effects of
cognitive sophistication and target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(3), 285-308.
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135.
Cooley, C. H. (1956). Social organization. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Corenblum, B., & Stephan, W. G. (2001). White fears and native apprehensions: An integrated threat theory approach to intergroup attitudes. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 33(4), 251.
Crul, M., & Doomernik, J. (2003). The Turkish and Moroccan Second Generation in the Netherlands: Divergent Trends between and Polarization within the Two Groups. International Migration Review, 37(4), 1039-1064.
De multiculturele samenleving in Cijfers en Feiten (2011).
De Winter, M. (2012). Evil as a Problem of Upbringing and Socialization. Socialization and Civil Society, 69-93. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Dion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1975). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 944-950.
Gijsberts, M. (2005). Opvattingen van autochtonen en allochtonen over de multi-etnische samenleving. Jaarrapport integratie 2005, 189-205.
Gray-Little, B., Williams, V.S.L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 443-451.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In M.A. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 173–190). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 255-269.
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Jaakkola, M., & Reuter, A. (2006). Perceived discrimination, social support networks, and psychological well-being among three immigrant groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 293-311.
Kloek, M. E., Peters, K., & Sijtsma, M. (2013). How Muslim Women in The Netherlands Negotiate Discrimination During Leisure Activities. Leisure Sciences, 35(5), 405-421.
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., ... & Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144-65.
Margry, P. J. (2003). The Murder of Pim Fortuyn and Collective Emotions Hype, Hysteria and Holiness in The Netherlands?. Etnofoor, 106-131.
Mead, G. H. (2009). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (Vol. 1). London: University of Chicago press.
Peters, K. (2010). Being together in urban parks: Connecting public space, leisure, and diversity. Leisure Sciences, 32(5), 418-433.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336-353. Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem:
Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151-161
Rumbaut, R. G. (1995). The crucible within: Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 28, 795-820.
Savelkoul, M., Scheepers, P., Tolsma, J., & Hagendoorn, L. (2011). Anti-Muslim attitudes in the Netherlands: Tests of contradictory hypotheses derived from ethnic competition theory and intergroup contact theory. European Sociological Review, 27(6), 741-758. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S.
Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Verkuyten, M. (1998). Perceived discrimination and self-esteem among ethnic minority adolescents. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(4), 479-493.
Verkuyten, M., & Zaremba, K. (2005). Interethnic relations in a changing political context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(4), 375-386.
Williams, D.R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J.S., and Anderson, N.B. (1997). “Racial Differences in Physical and Mental Health: Socioeconomic Status, Stress, and Discrimination.” Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3):335-351.
Appendix 1
(Questions of the Pilot Study)
1. Can you give me some information about yourself? (name, family, country of origin, age, educational background)
2. a)When did you start wearing veil? Was it your choice? (veil)
b) Have you ever considered wearing a veil? Can you tell me the reasons behind this? (veil)
3. a) Have you perceived any changes after wearing veil? Can you give me an example of change? If so, do you prefer to talk about it with your friends (or significant others) or not? (discrimination)
b) Do you discuss whether or not wearing veil with friends (or significant others e.g. father)? (veil)
4. To what extent are you as a Turkish Muslim discriminated against? (Verkuyten, 1998) Also, what extent do you think your friends (or significant others) discriminated against? To what extent do you think Turkish Muslim people are discriminated in the media or social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.)? (discrimination)
5. Can you give me an example of discrimination? In which context/place have you experienced it? (discrimination)
6. Do you think this discrimination is directly to you or all Turkish Muslim people as a group? (personal vs. group-directed discrimination)
7. We wanted to have your ideas about to what extent do Turkish Muslim people perceive discrimination in the Netherlands. Do you feel the support of other Turkish Muslim people when you encounter discrimination? (perceived support of in-group) 8. If I ask you to tell me the group that describes you best what would be your first
choice? (in-group identification)
9. How satisfied do you think you are with yourself? How good do you feel about yourself? (Personal self-esteem)
10. What else can you tell me about the experiences of Turkish Muslim people in the Netherlands?
Appendix 2
(Unveiled Women Version) Dear Participant,
This survey will be conducted as part of a Psychology research project of the University of Amsterdam. It is about experiences of Turkish Muslim people living in the Netherlands. This is not a test, so there are no wrong answers. Just choose the answer that describes your experiences best. The survey is going to take about 10 minutes and you will receive 2 Euro at the end. Your participation is anonymous, so you do not have to give your name. Please note that your answers are really important for our project.
If you have any further questions about the project, you can send an e-mail to me (basakkelleci@gmail .com), or to my supervisor Prof. Dr. B. Doosje (Doosje@uva.nl). Thank you for your time.
PART-I
Please choose the option that describes your experience best. You can do this by indicating how much you agree with each statement below.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongl
y Agree 1. It was my own decision to not to
wear a veil.
2. I have decided to not to wear a veil due to my own motivation. 3. My parents discuss the topic of not wearing a veil with me.
4. I feel the expectations of my parents/relatives on my decision of not wearing a veil.
5. I am happy with the fact that I have chosen to not to wear a veil. 6. I think in the future I might start wearing a veil.
7. I feel a bond with Turkish Muslim people.
8. I feel solidarity with Turkish Muslim people.
9. I feel committed to Turkish Muslim people.
10. I am glad to be a Turkish Muslim person.
11. I think that Turkish Muslim people have a lot to be proud of. 12. It is pleasant to be a Turkish Muslim person.
13. Being a Turkish Muslim person gives me a good feeling.
14. I often think about the fact that I am a Turkish Muslim person.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongl
y Agree 15. The fact that I am a Turkish
Muslim person is an important part of my identity.
16. Being a Turkish Muslim person is an important part of how I see myself.
17. I have a lot in common with the average a Turkish Muslim person. 18. I am similar to the average a Turkish Muslim person.
19. Turkish Muslim people have a lot in common with each other. 20. Turkish Muslim person people are very similar to each other. 21. I feel strongly bonded to Moroccan women.
PART-II Please choose the option that describes you best.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree 1. On the whole, I am satisfied with
myself.
2. At times, I think I am no good at all.
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I certainly feel useless at times. 7. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
PART-III
In your day-to-day life, how often do any of the following things happen to you?
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very
Often 1. I am treated with less courtesy than
other people are
2. I am treated with less respect than other people are.
3. I receive poorer service than other people at restaurants or stores.
4. People act as if they think I am not smart.
5. People act as if they are afraid of me. 6. People act as if they think I am dishonest.
7. People act as if they’re better than I am. 8. I am called names or insulted.
9. I am threatened or harassed.
10. I receive poorer service than other people at clubs and bars.
11. I feel other people have more chances to be selected for a job/or internship interview. 12. I feel Turkish Muslim people are discriminated in Dutch media.
13. I feel Turkish Muslim people are discriminated in social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.)
14. I personally as a Turkish Muslim am discriminated against in Netherlands.
15. I experience more discrimination outside of Amsterdam than in Amsterdam.
16. I feel I am discriminated in public areas. 17. Turkish Muslim people are discriminated against in Netherlands.
PART-IV What is your age? ...
Where were you born? ... Do you live in Amsterdam?
Yes. Which part of the city? ... No. I live in...
For how many years are you living in Netherlands? ...
This is the end of the questionnaire. If you have any comments, please write them below. Comments (optional): ………... ...……… ………..……… ……… ……..……… …….……… …….……… …….……… ………
Appendix 3 (Veiled Women Version) Dear Participant,
This survey will be conducted as part of a Psychology research project of the University of Amsterdam. It is about experiences of Turkish Muslim people living in the Netherlands. This is not a test, so there are no wrong answers. Just choose the answer that describes your experiences best. The survey is going to take about 10 minutes and you will receive 2 Euro at the end. Your participation is anonymous, so you do not have to give your name. Please note that your answers are really important for our project.
If you have any further questions about the project, you can send an e-mail to me (basakkelleci@gmail .com), or to my supervisor Prof. Dr. B. Doosje (Doosje@uva.nl). Thank you for your time.
PART-I
Please choose the option that describes your experience best. You can do this by indicating how much you agree with each statement below.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongl
y Agree 1. It was my own decision to wear a
veil.
2. I have decided to wear a veil due to my own motivation.
3. My parents discuss the topic of wearing a veil with me.
4. I feel the expectations of my parents/relatives on my decision of wearing a veil.
5. I am happy with the fact that I have chosen to wear a veil.
6. I think in the future I might stop wearing a veil.
7. I feel a bond with Turkish Muslim people.
8. I feel solidarity with Turkish Muslim people.
9. I feel committed to Turkish Muslim people.
10. I am glad to be a Turkish Muslim person.
11. I think that Turkish Muslim people have a lot to be proud of. 12. It is pleasant to be a Turkish Muslim person.
13. Being a Turkish Muslim person gives me a good feeling.
14. I often think about the fact that I am a Turkish Muslim person.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongl
y Agree 15. The fact that I am a Turkish
Muslim person is an important part of my identity.
16. Being a Turkish Muslim person is an important part of how I see myself.
17. I have a lot in common with the average a Turkish Muslim person. 18. I am similar to the average a Turkish Muslim person.
19. Turkish Muslim people have a lot in common with each other. 20. Turkish Muslim person people are very similar to each other. 21. I feel strongly bonded to Moroccan women.
PART-II Please choose the option that describes you best.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree 1. On the whole, I am satisfied with
myself.
2. At times, I think I am no good at all.
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I certainly feel useless at times. 7. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
