University of Groningen
Clashrooms
Hooijsma, Marianne
DOI:
10.33612/diss.113048057
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Hooijsma, M. (2020). Clashrooms: Interethnic peer relationships in schools. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.113048057
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Clashrooms
Interethnic peer relationships in schools
Marianne Hooijsma
Printed by Ridderprint | www.ridderprint.nl ISBN (print) 978-94-034-2088-2 ISBN (digital) 978-94-034-2087-5 © Marianne Hooijsma
Clashrooms
Interethnic peer relationships in schools
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. C. Wijmenga en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties. De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op donderdag 13 februari 2020 om 16.15 uur
door
Marianne Hooijsma
geboren op 29 maart 1992 te Assen
Promotores
Prof. dr. R. Veenstra Prof. dr. A. FlacheCopromotores
Dr. G.E. Huitsing Dr. J.K. DijkstraBeoordelingscommissie
Prof. dr. T.A.B. Snijders Prof. dr. M. Verkuyten Prof. dr. M. van ZalkCONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 Introduction 8 CHAPTER 2 Being friends with or rejected by classmates: Aggression toward same- and cross-ethnic peers 18 Appendix Chapter 2 38 CHAPTER 3 Multidimensional similarity in multiplex networks: Friendships between same- and cross-gender bullies and same- and cross-gender victims 44 Appendix Chapter 3 64 CHAPTER 4 Crossing ethnic boundaries? A social network investigation of defending relationships in schools 78 Appendix Chapter 4 94 CHAPTER 5 Two sides of integration: Effects of exposure and friendships on second- and third-generation immigrant and majority youth’s intergroup attitudes 104 CHAPTER 6 General conclusion and discussion 124 Nederlandse samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) 136 References 142 Dankwoord (Acknowledgements) 154 About the author 158 ICS dissertation series 162
Ch
apter
1
Introduction
9 CHAPTER 1
CLASHROOMS
INTERETHNIC PEER RELATIONSHIPS IN SCHOOLS
With increasing migration, ethnic diversity is on the rise in many societies. In the Netherlands, the number of inhabitants with a migration background, both first- and second-generation, has increased from 3,4 million in 2010 to almost 4 million in 2018, equal to around 23% of the total population (Statistics Netherlands, 2018b). A bit more than half of these inhabitants has a non-western background. Ethnic diversity brings challenges to society, such as discrimination and prejudice, possibly leading to growing tensions between ethnic groups. With increasing ethnic diversity in society, the ethnic composition of school populations increases as well. In 2019, 27% of the total Dutch population under the age of 15 had a migration background (Statistics Netherlands, 2019b). Research has shown that youth’s interethnic relationships, prejudice and attitudes are important predictors of their interethnic perceptions later in life (Emerson, Kimbro, & Yancey, 2002). This calls for the question whether growing ethnic diversity may be reflected in tensions in schools as well, that is, may give rise to the possibility that ethnically diverse classrooms become clashrooms.
Positive interethnic contact is seen as a key factor for improving intergroup
relations and attitudes in ethnically diverse contexts (Allport, 1954; Coser, 1956; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Despite the benefits of interethnic contact among youth (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), research consistently finds that youth have a preference for associating with same-ethnic over cross-ethnic peers. This preference has been found across countries (e.g., America, England, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Sweden), age groups (elementary and secondary schools), and contexts (classrooms, grades, and schools; Boda & Néray, 2015; Currarini, Jackson, & Pin, 2010; Fortuin, Van Geel, Ziberna, & Vedder, 2014; Leszczensky & Pink, 2015; Smith, Maas, & Van Tubergen, 2014b; Stark & Flache, 2012). Most studies on interethnic contact focus on (the lack of) positive relationships, such as friendships and liking, but research on the effects of ethnic diversity on negative relationships, such as bullying or disliking, is relatively rare. As youth’s decisions in their positive and negative peer relations are mutually influencing each other, it is important to consider both positive and negative interethnic peer relationships in studying whether growing ethnic diversity may lead to tensions between ethnic groups in schools. Youth’s peer relationships in schools are embedded in the larger peer network in which multiple processes influence the development of these relationships. For example, youth’s involvement in bullying has an effect on who defends whom: bullies who target the same victims and victims targeted by the same bullies tend to support and defend each other (Huitsing & Monks, 2018; Huitsing, Snijders, Van Duijn, & Veenstra, 2014). Similarly, social processes within the larger peer network in school may influence the role of ethnicity in youth’s relationships. For example, youth may be more likely to become friends with a cross-ethnic peer if another friend already established a relationship with
1
INTRODUCTION 10
this peer (Echols & Graham, 2018). Yet, most studies investigated interethnic peer relationships in isolation. So far, only few studies have considered how interethnic peer relationships are affected by other social mechanisms in the broader peer network in schools (Echols & Graham, 2018; Wittek, Kroneberg, & Lämmermann, 2019).
In this dissertation, I aim to expand our knowledge on interethnic peer relationships by investigating both positive and negative relationships in the context of the broader peer network in schools. I aim to contribute to the literature in three ways. First, I aim to provide a more comprehensive perspective on interethnic peer relationships by examining the role of the broader peer network in which interethnic peer relationships occur. Second, I approach interethnic peer relationships from a social network perspective, investigating who is related to whom. An advantage of this approach is that it enables the investigation of the peer network as a whole. So far, there has been a lack of social network studies into interethnic peer relationships. Third, by differentiating between multiple ethnic groups, I aim to respond to the call to acknowledge the heterogeneity in migrant groups instead of ignoring differences between minority groups by treating them as a homogeneous group. This call has recently been formulated as one of the important challenges in addressing new trends in migration in the Netherlands and beyond both for policy and research (Jennissen, Engbersen, Bokhorst, & Bovens, 2018).
1.1 INTERETHNIC PEER RELATIONSHIPS
Homophily, the “principle that a contact between similar peers occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar peers” (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001, p. 416), is a strong regularity in social life. Homophily occurs on several dimensions, including ethnicity (Echols & Graham, 2018; Fortuin et al., 2014; Jugert, Leszczensky, & Pink, 2018; Rivas-Drake, Umaña-Taylor, Schaefer, & Medina, 2017; Wittek et al., 2019), gender (Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2007; Mehta & Strough, 2009), and academic achievement (Flashman, 2012; Gremmen, Dijkstra, Steglich, & Veenstra, 2017; Kretschmer, Leszczensky, & Pink, 2018). Homophily is partially imposed by social structures as similar peers are more likely to meet and have therefore more chances to form peer relationships than dissimilar peers (Feld, 1982). Another important source of homophily is the preference to affiliate with similar peers (Kandel, 1978; Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954; McPherson et al., 2001). In general, individuals prefer similar peers because similarity is assumed to facilitate agreement and understanding (McPherson et al., 2001). Similarity also simplifies relationships through increasing the predictability of other people’s behavior (Hamm, 2000; Ibarra, 1992). Consequently, similarity in relationships leads to balance, whereas dissimilarity leads to tensions and imbalance, as has prominently been suggested by classic sociological and psychological theories (Cartwright & Harary, 1956; Heider, 1946). With regard to ethnicity, same-ethnic peers are likely to have a more similar cultural background than cross-ethnic peers which relates to more similar norms and values that are important to establish and maintain relationships. Consequently, the costs of establishing and maintaining positive peer relationships with similar peers are11 CHAPTER 1
lower than for relationships with dissimilar peers (Felmlee, Sprecher, & Bassin, 1990).
A theory which can specifically be applied to explain individual’s preference for
same-ethnic affiliations is social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This theory argues that individuals are intrinsically motivated to achieve a positive social identity, defined as “that part of the individual’s self-concept which derives from their knowledge of their membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance of that membership” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). Group membership is thus an important element in the process of achieving a positive social identity. Aiming to achieve a positive social identity, individuals categorize their environment into groups and, specifically, compare their own group to other groups. In this process of differentiating the in-group from out-groups, individuals can develop in-group favoritism, referring to the preference individuals give to others whom they perceive to belong to their in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Consequently, individuals are likely to prefer same-ethnic over cross-ethnic peers. In contrast to ethnic homophily in positive relationships, it has been proposed that negative relationships, such as rejection, aggression, or bullying, are more likely between cross-ethnic than same-ethnic peers (Boda & Néray, 2015; Kisfalusi, Pál, & Boda, 2018; Wittek et al., 2019), suggesting tensions between ethnic groups in school. In achieving a positive social identity, individuals compare their in-group to out-groups in ways to find a clear distinction from and devaluation of out-groups (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Moreover, categorizing groups along ethnic boundaries signals differences between groups, for example in terms of cultural norms and practices (Strohmeier, Spiel, & Gradinger, 2008). Consequently, categorizing and comparing groups may lead to more negative evaluations of and negative behavior toward out-group members (Schütz & Six, 1996). Furthermore, negative peer relationships are argued to be more likely between cross-ethnic peers because of the potential feelings of threat between ethnic groups (Blalock, 1967; Bobo & Hutchings, 1996; Horowitz, 1985). These feelings of threat can result from perceived or real competition between ethnic groups over scarce resources, such as social status in the classroom, and may result in negative attitudes and behaviors toward cross-ethnic peers.
It has also been argued that there is no simple relationship between in-group
favoritism and negative out-group contact (Brewer, 1999; Phinney, Jacoby, & Silva, 2007; Tajfel, 1982). In-group favoritism and social competition could just as well result in the absence of relationships, both positive and negative, between ethnic groups. Moreover, it has been found that violence is more likely between same-ethnic peers than cross-ethnic peers (Wittek et al., 2019). Whereas there is strong theoretical and empirical support for the principle of ethnic homophily in individuals’ positive peer relationships, the role of ethnicity in negative peer relationships is less straightforward. In fact, most studies on interethnic relationships focus on (the lack of) positive relationships, such as friendships, but research on the effects of ethnic diversity on actual negative peer relationships is relatively rare (Boda & Néray, 2015; Kisfalusi et al., 2018; Wittek et al., 2019).
1
INTRODUCTION 12
1.2 INTERETHNIC PEER RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BROADER PEER
NETWORK
The idea that relationships are embedded in a larger context originates from work on individuals’ position in social space, examining individuals’ involvement in multiple dimensions in social life (McPherson, 1983; Simmel, 1950). That is, individuals are affected by multiple social processes, such as ethnic and sex homophily, and opportunity structures. In order to understand both theoretically and empirically how the broader peer network in school affects youth’s interethnic peer relationships, I investigate the effects of two processes in this dissertation: 1) how youth’s interethnic peer relationships are affected by and related to their involvement in other peer relationships by examining the interplay between (positive and negative) peer relationships and 2) how (dis)similarity in multiple dimensions, that is, multidimensional similarity, affects the role of ethnic homophily in youth’s peer relationships.
A classical theory that is well suited to understand the interplay between peer
relationships is structural balance theory (Cartwright & Harary, 1956; Heider, 1946). Balance theory describes how people’s relations to persons, events, or attributes influence their relationship to another person. Specifically, structural balance theory argues that imbalance in such triadic relationships (referring to relationships between two people and a third person, event, or attribute) cause tension. Relationships are perceived as imbalanced when they involve contradictions. Consider, for example, friends of the same third peer who dislike each other. Individuals are triggered to form relationships which create a balanced state. In the example, the peers who disliked each other might be triggered to change the relationship into a positive tie or to break up the dislike relationship. In this way, individuals’ relationship choices depend on the relationships they already have as well as on other’s relationships in their network. For example, individuals’ tend to become friends with friends of their friends (called transitivity, Feld & Elmore, 1982; Veenstra & Steglich, 2012) and have the tendency to reciprocate positive relationships. Moreover, the formation of positive relationships may depend on the existence of negative relationships and vice versa. For example, individuals have the tendency to dislike those peers whom their friends dislike as well, resulting in a balanced triadic relationship (Berger & Dijkstra, 2013; Fujimoto, Snijders, & Valente, 2017; Pál, Stadtfeld, Grow, & Takács, 2016; Rambaran, Dijkstra, Munniksma, & Cillessen, 2015). Furthermore, individuals create balanced relationships by forming positive ties to peers with whom they share a negative connection, an ‘enemy’. For example, bullies who target the same victims are likely to befriend each other (Rambaran, Dijkstra, & Veenstra, 2019). Similarly, youth’s peer relationships are likely to influence the choices they make in their interethnic peer relationships. Whether youth form relationships with their cross-ethnic peers may depend, for example, on whether they bully or are bullied by the same classmates. Such structural embeddedness may allow youth to overcome the hurdle to cross-ethnic avoidance.
13 CHAPTER 1
Multidimensional similarity entails that individuals can be similar to their peers on several dimensions, such as individual characteristics, attitudes, or behaviors. Similarity in multiple dimensions matters for the formation of peer relationships because being similar in more than one dimension creates more meeting opportunities, shared experiences, and interests, resulting in an increased likelihood of forming and maintaining relationships (Block & Grund, 2014). Research on multidimensional similarity found that the likelihood of becoming affiliated increases with the number of dimensions on which peers are similar (Block & Grund, 2014; Kupersmidt, DeRosier, & Patterson, 1995; Schaefer, 2010). Another way of interpreting the influence of multidimensional similarity is that being similar in one dimension might make dissimilarity in another dimension less salient (Block & Grund, 2014). This interpretation is important if we look at interethnic peer relationships because it provides insights in how ethnic boundaries can be crossed. Although homophily is assumed to be the main driver of social segregation in peer relationships in contexts such as schools (McPherson et al., 2001), multidimensional similarity enables the formation of cross-group relationships due to similarity in other dimensions. Considering how multidimensional similarity affects youth’s interethnic peer relationships therefore provides insights in ways in which the potentially negative effect of dissimilarity in ethnicity on peer relationships can be diminished.
1.3 SOCIAL NETWORK PERSPECTIVE
In this dissertation, I approach interethnic relationships in schools from a social network perspective. This means that I study peer relationships by investigating who is related to whom. In line with the idea that multiple mechanisms in the broader peer network influence the development of peer relationships at the same time, a social network perspective perceives individuals and their relationships in a network as interdependent (Steglich, Snijders, & Pearson, 2010).
There are several benefits of using a social network perspective to investigate youth’s interethnic peer relationships (Kalter, 2016; Wölfer & Hewstone, 2017). By focusing on ties between individuals as the smallest analytical level, social network data provide more detailed information than data focusing only on the individual. For example, research has shown that youth do not differ much in the extent to which they are victimized or involved in bullying behavior by their ethnic background (Vervoort, Scholte, & Overbeek, 2010; Vitoroulis & Vaillancourt, 2015, 2018). In these studies, it is suggested that “the assessment of ethnicity as a descriptive variable is not sufficient to account for group differences” (Vitoroulis & Vaillancourt, 2018, p. 752). Looking only at the prevalence of bullying or victimization among ethnic groups, however, does not give information on whom individuals bully or by whom they are targeted. Are youth mainly bullied by their in- or out-group peers? Does cross-group bullying happen primarily between minority and majority peers, or also among peers from different minority groups? Moreover, by whom are victims defended in bullying situations? Using detailed
1
INTRODUCTION 14
social network information to examine interethnic peer relationships will help to unravel the complexity of these relationships.
Moreover, longitudinal analyses to investigate social network data, such as stochastic actor-based models (Snijders, Van de Bunt, & Steglich, 2010), allow to control for multiple social mechanisms which influence the formation of such ties. For example, it enables to control for the tendency to reciprocate relationships. Also, modern methods of social network analysis model factors that shape the likelihood for existence or formation of ties between individuals, taking into account the chances that such ties can occur at all in a given context. As Blau (1987, p. 79) said ‘one cannot marry an eskimo, if no eskimo is around’. Methods of social network analysis resolves the problem to disentangle preferences (not wanting to marry an eskimo), from the opportunity structure (not having an eskimo around). Furthermore, social network data measure more precisely the actual interpersonal contact than questions measuring degree of self-reported interethnic contact. Respondents are not asked about their own or their peers’ ethnicity in relation to the peer nomination questions. Consequently, respondents’ answers regarding their relationships may be less subject to social desirability.
Despite these benefits, there is a lack of the use of social network data in studies into interethnic peer relationships (Kalter, 2016; Wölfer et al., 2017; Wölfer, Schmid, Hewstone, & Van Zalk, 2016). Most studies have focused primarily on self-reported peer relationships without taking into account the influence of the broader network. Studies using social network data have found, for example, that cross-ethnic peers were more likely to become friends if they have a mutual friend (Echols & Graham, 2018), that ethnic segregation in youth’s friendship networks is related to more cross-ethnic disliking (Wittek et al., 2019), and that ethnic homophily in friendships is related to youth’s identification with their ethnic group (Jugert et al., 2018; Leszczensky, Jugert, & Pink, 2019; Leszczensky, Stark, Flache, & Munniksma, 2016).
In this dissertation, I employ the social network perspective in two ways. First, in all chapters, the data on youth’s peer relationships that I use is collected using social network questions. Second, I use advanced longitudinal social network analyses to analyze these data in two chapters. Using a social network perspective in this dissertation enables to take into account the complex network dependencies as a whole which deepens our understanding of interethnic peer relationships.
1.4 GROUP DIFFERENCES
Research into interethnic peer relationships calls for a differentiation between different ethnic groups, specifically ethnic minority groups. So far, most studies treat ethnic minority groups as a homogeneous group, ignoring differences between ethnic minorities (Jennissen et al., 2018). Especially in a context such as the Netherlands, with a long and complex history of immigration from multiple countries, youth’s interethnic peer relationships may vary between ethnic groups. This dissertation adds to the existing knowledge by paying attention to differences between ethnic groups.
15 CHAPTER 1
Differences between ethnic minority groups may be explained by the concept of
cultural distance (Beiser, Puente-Duran, & Hou, 2015; Berry, 2003; Lundborg, 2013; Schiefer, Möllering, & Daniel, 2012; Sortheix & Lönnqvist, 2015). Cultural distance entails the distance between ethnic groups’ cultural backgrounds in terms of, among others, religion, language, and norms and values. Cultural distance is often used to explain why different groups of ethnic minorities differ in their relationships to the societal majority. Perceived cultural closeness or similarity between groups is associated with more positive attitudes between these groups (Berry, 2003). In contrast, groups who are culturally more distant experience more discrimination from each other (Beiser et al., 2015) and have more difficulties to integrate (Lundborg, 2013; Schiefer et al., 2012; Sortheix & Lönnqvist, 2015). Hence, in examining youth’s interethnic peer relationships, it is important to consider cultural differences between groups.
In this dissertation I focus on the Dutch context in which there are multiple
minority ethnic groups. Although the society’s ethnic composition is changing, with immigrants from more diverse ethnic backgrounds coming to the Netherlands, there are three groups which remain to be the largest minority groups: Turkish, Moroccans, and Surinamese (Statistics Netherlands, 2018b). Immigrants from Suriname, a former colony of the Netherlands, are culturally the closest to the societal majority: most of them speak Dutch and share similar religious beliefs as most Dutch majority. Turkish and Moroccan immigrants are more distant from the Dutch culture in terms of language, religion, and cultural traditions. Consequently, it can be expected that Surinamese adolescents have less difficulties with integration than Turkish and Moroccan adolescents. Surinamese adolescents may therefore also be more likely to have interethnic peer relationships with their Dutch societal majority peers than Turkish or Moroccan adolescents, and vice versa. In line with the idea of cultural distance, research on ethnic hierarchies in the Netherlands has shown that Dutch majority adolescents prefer northern European immigrants and members of ex-colonial groups, such as Surinamese, over immigrants from Islamic countries, such as Morocco and Turkey (Verkuyten, Hagendoorn, & Masson, 1996; Verkuyten & Kinket, 2000).
1.5 OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATION
In this dissertation I aimed to investigate how the broader peer network in school affects youth’s interethnic peer relationships (see Table 1.1 for an overview). Specifically, I investigated how the interplay between multiple peer relationships (Chapters 2, 3, and 4) and multidimensional similarity (Chapter 4) influence and relate to the role of ethnicity in peer relationships. Furthermore, I used insights into youth’s interethnic peer relationships to examine its relation to intergroup attitudes (Chapter 5). Throughout the dissertation, I considered a social network perspective and the heterogeneity of ethnic minority groups.
The study in Chapter 2 was set up to investigate how adolescents’ aggressive
1
INTRODUCTION 16
friendship and rejection by same- and cross-ethnic classmates. Data from the first wave of the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey in Four European Countries (CILS4EU; Kalter et al., 2016) were used. The CILS4EU project was designed to analyze the intergenerational integration of children of immigrants in the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and England. Using social network data on aggression, friendship, and rejection by same- and cross-ethnic classmates, I aimed to provide a first grasp of interethnic peer relationships in the context of multiple peer relationships and behaviors. Furthermore, I accounted for differences between ethnic groups by doing analyses separately for Turkish, Moroccan, and Surinamese adolescents.
In Chapter 3 I follow up on Chapter 2 by using social network analysis (stochastic
actor-based models; Snijders et al., 2010) to examine the interplay between multiple peer relationships. Given the complexity and innovativeness of the analytical strategy needed to address interethnic peer relationships, I decided to first look at same- and cross-sex relationships which are based on a simplified, dichotomous variable, instead of immediately looking at interethnic relationships which are based on a more complex categorical variable. This allowed me to develop the methodological basis for tackling interethnic peer relationships in this dissertation. Specifically, I investigated in Chapter 3 how children’s similarity in their position in the bullying network influences their same- and cross-sex friendship choices. In this chapter I used longitudinal social network data on both the school- and classroom-level from the Dutch KiVa anti-bullying program.
In Chapter 4, I examined how multidimensional similarity affects children’s
interethnic defending relationships. Building on the analytical approach in Chapter 3, I investigated how similarity in network position regarding bullying or victimization, sex, and being in the same classroom affected children’s same- and cross-ethnic defending relationships. Given the potential benefit of multidimensionality on children’s peer relationships, I examined whether similarity in these factors fostered children to form cross-ethnic defending relationships. Similar to Chapter 3, I used longitudinal social network data on both the school- and classroom-level from the Dutch KiVa anti-bullying program.
Chapter 5 was set up to examine how the broader peer network relates to
adolescents’ intergroup attitudes. I examined how exposure to, and friendships with out-group peers related to adolescents’ out-group attitudes. Adding to previous research on the benefits of interethnic exposure and contact (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), I specifically tested group differences in the relation between out-group exposure, friendships and attitudes. I did not only differentiate between societal majority and immigrant adolescents, but also between immigrants from different cultural backgrounds. Moreover, I focused on an understudied group of immigrants: second- and third-generation adolescents. Similar to Chapter 2, I used data from the first wave of the CILS4EU data project.
17 CHAPTER 1 Ta bl e 1.1. O ve rv ie w of th e di ss ert at ion Da ta sour ce (y ear o f d at a col lec tion ) Nu m be r o f s tu de nts , cl as sr oom s an d sc hool s Stu de nt sa m pl e by e thn ic g ro up Av er ag e a ge An al yt ic al st ra te gy M ai n var iab le s Ch apt er 2 CI LS 4E U w av e 1 (2 01 0/ 20 11 ) M ai n an al ys es : 1, 04 2 st ud en ts in 8 5 cl as se s in 5 6 sc ho ol s Addi tio na l an al ys es : 1, 70 5 stu de nts in 12 4 cl as se s i n 71 sc hool s M ai n an al ys es : 91 7 Dut ch 12 5 T ur ki sh Addi tio na l an al ys es : 1, 46 7 Du tc h 11 7 M or oc can 12 1 Su ri nam es e 3 rd g rad e of se con da ry sc ho ol ; 14. 9 ye ar s o ld M ult ile ve l Poi ss on an d neg at iv e bi no m ia l re gr essio n m od el s • Fr ie nd sh ip : “ W ho a re y ou r b es t f ri en ds ?” • Rej ec tio n: “W ho w ou ld y ou n ot w an t t o si t b y? ” • Aggr es si on : “ W ho is so m et im es m ea n to you?” Ch apt er 3 Ki Va w av e 1 to 3 (2 01 2-20 13 ), con tr ol sc hool s 2, 13 0 st ud en ts in 1 7 sc hool s - 2 nd to 6 th g ra de of p ri m ary sc ho ol ; 10. 0 ye ar s o ld St oc ha st ic ac tor -ba se d m od el s (R Si en a) • Fr ie nd sh ip : “ W ho a re y ou r b es t f ri en ds ?” • Bu lly in g ( cl as sr oo m le ve l): “W ho st ar ts w he n yo u ar e vi ct im iz ed ?” • Bu lly in g ( sc ho ol le ve l): “ By w hi ch st ud en ts ar e yo u vic tim iz ed ?” Ch apt er 4 Ki Va w av e 1 to 3 (2 01 2-20 13 ) 1, 32 5 st ud en ts in 8 sc hool s 61 2 Dut ch 98 T ur ki sh 17 6 M or oc can 12 0 Su ri nam es e 20 D ut ch An til le an 11 6 W es te rn 14 8 Non -w es te rn 2 nd to 6 th g ra de of p ri m ary sc ho ol ; 10. 0 ye ar s o ld St oc ha st ic ac tor -ba se d m od el s (R Si en a) • Def en di ng (c la ss ro om le ve l): “Wh ic h cl as sm at es d ef en d y ou w he n y ou a re vic tim iz ed ?” • Def en di ng (s ch oo l l ev el ): “Wh ic h ch ild ren fr om ot her cl as sr oom s d ef en d you w he n you ar e vi ct im iz ed ?” • Bu lly in g ( cl as sr oo m le ve l): “W ho st ar ts w he n yo u ar e vi ct im iz ed ?” • Bu lly in g ( sc ho ol le ve l): “By w hi ch st ud en ts ar e yo u vic tim iz ed ?” Ch apt er 5 CI LS 4E U w av e 1 (2 01 0/ 20 11 ) 2, 68 0 st ud en ts in 16 9 cl as sr oo m s i n 92 sc hool s 2, 14 1 Du tc h 18 7 T ur ki sh 18 8 M or oc can 16 4 Su ri nam es e 3 rd g rad e of se con da ry sc ho ol ; 14. 8 ye ar s o ld M ul ti-gr oup st ruc tur al eq ua tio n m od elli ng • Fr ie nd sh ip : “ W ho a re y ou r b es t f ri en ds ?” • Atti tu de s: “ H ow d o y ou fe el a bo ut [D ut ch , T ur ki sh , M or oc ca n, Su rin am ese ]? ” ( 0 ne ga tiv e – 10 0 po sit iv e)
Ch
apter
2
Being friends with or rejected by
classmates
Aggression toward same- and cross-ethnic
peers
THIS CHAPTER IS BASED ON Hooijsma, M., Huitsing, G., Dijkstra, J.K., Flache, A., & Veenstra, R. (in press). Being friends with or rejected by classmates: Aggression toward same- and cross-ethnic peers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01173-119 CHAPTER 2
Whereas previous research suggests that adolescents’ aggressive behavior in itself does not highlight ethnic boundaries, it remains unclear whether classmates’ responses to same- and cross-ethnic aggression strengthen ethnic boundaries. This study examined how adolescents’ aggression toward same- and cross-ethnic peers relates to the positive (friendship) and negative (rejection) relationship nominations they receive from same- and cross-ethnic classmates. Cross-sectional peer nomination data on 917 Dutch and 125 Turkish adolescents in 56 secondary schools were analyzed (mean age = 14.9 year; 51.4% boys). Adolescents received more friendship nominations from same-ethnic than from cross-ethnic classmates, but were not more rejected by cross-ethnic than same-ethnic classmates. Multilevel Poisson and negative binomial regression models showed that, irrespective of aggressor’s ethnic background, adolescents’ aggressive behavior was related to rejection by classmates from the ethnic group that was the target of aggression and to being befriended by classmates from the ethnic group that was not the target of aggression. Specifically, both Dutch and Turkish adolescents who were aggressive toward Dutch peers were rejected by Dutch classmates and befriended by Turkish classmates and vice versa. These findings suggest that classmates’ positive and negative responses to adolescents are related to adolescents’ aggressive behavior based on the ethnic background of the victim, not on the ethnic background of the aggressor. This suggests that integration between ethnic groups in schools relates to reducing aggression in general, not only cross-ethnic aggression.
2
BEING FRIENDS WITH OR REJECTED BY CLASSMATES 20BEING FRIENDS WITH OR REJECTED BY CLASSMATES
AGGRESSION TOWARD SAME- AND CROSS-ETHNIC PEERS
In the context of ethnically diverse classrooms, interethnic aggression may be perceived as behavior that reinforces ethnic boundaries. Previous research has shown that although ethnic groups might slightly differ in the extent to which they behave aggressively, same- and cross-ethnic aggression was equally common (Tolsma, Van Deurzen, Stark, & Veenstra, 2013; Vitoroulis & Vaillancourt, 2018). Whereas this suggests that adolescents’ aggressive behavior in itself may not highlight ethnic boundaries, it remains unclear how classmates respond to adolescents’ same- and cross-ethnic aggression and, consequently, whether aggressive behavior might indirectly affect ethnic boundaries in classrooms. In this study, it is questioned how adolescents’ aggressive behavior toward same- and cross-ethnic peers relates to the positive (friendship) and negative (rejection) relationship nominations they receive from their classmates. Do these responses to adolescents relate to their aggressive behavior in ways that reflect or emphasize ethnic boundaries in the classroom?2.1 THEORY
THE ROLE OF ETHNICITY IN FRIENDSHIP AND REJECTIONIn the context of ethnic heterogeneity, social identity theory proposes that through identification with the in-group (i.e., same-ethnic peers), individuals have the tendency to evaluate the in-group positively (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Aiming to achieve a positive social identity, individuals categorize their environment into groups and, specifically, compare their own group to other groups (i.e., cross-ethnic peers). In this process of differentiating the in-group from out-groups, individuals develop in-group favoritism, referring to individuals’ preference to affiliate with others whom they perceive to belong to their in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Consequently, individuals are more likely to feel connected to in-group members than to out-group members. Positive peer relationships, such as friendships, are more likely between same-ethnic peers (Rivera, Soderstrom, & Uzzi, 2010). Similarity in, for example, ethnicity, enhances both agreement and understanding and makes the other’s behavior predictable (Hamm, 2000; Ibarra, 1992). Same-ethnic peers have a similar cultural background which relates to more similar norms and values compared to cross-ethnic peers. This similarity facilitates the initiation and maintenance of positive peer relationships. As ethnicity is an important characteristic in categorizing groups in adolescence (Boda & Néray, 2015; Leszczensky & Pink, 2015), adolescents are expected to favor their same-ethnic peers over their cross-ethnic peers.
Whereas several studies have found evidence for ethnic boundaries and segregation in adolescents’ positive peer relationships (Boda & Néray, 2015; Leszczensky & Pink, 2015; Stark & Flache, 2012), less is known about the role of ethnicity in adolescents’ negative peer relationships. In line with social identity theory (Tajfel &
21 CHAPTER 2
Turner, 1979), group categorization and comparison of the in-group to out-groups may lead to more negative evaluations of out-group members. Categorizing groups along ethnic boundaries signals differences between groups, for example in terms of cultural norms and practices (Strohmeier et al., 2008). Consequently, negative peer relationships can be expected to be more likely between adolescents of different ethnic groups. AGGRESSION TOWARD PEERS OF DIFFERENT ETHNC GROUPS Aggressive behavior toward peers is a powerful means to gain status in the classroom (Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, & Salmivalli, 2009). Moreover, when used strategically, aggressive behavior poses a minimum risk for loss of connectedness by significant peers, for instance by selecting victims, both same- and cross-ethnic, who are rejected by the aggressor’s significant others (Veenstra, Lindenberg, Munniksma, & Dijkstra, 2010). Victims of aggression are, however, at risk of losing both status and connectedness as they are likely to be avoided and less accepted by classmates (Van der Ploeg, Steglich, Salmivalli, & Veenstra, 2015). Classmates may not want to affiliate with victims as this puts them at risk of being victimized as well (Sentse, Dijkstra, Salmivalli, & Cillessen, 2013). Given the assumption that individuals act as a response to the awareness of factors that foster or threaten their goal pursuit by liking the former and disliking the latter (Lindenberg, 2001), aggressors are likely to be rejected by their victims because they threaten their victim’s goal pursuit.
Moreover, as victims’ in-group members may feel threatened by the aggressor as
well, aggressive behavior is also likely to relate to rejection by victims’ in-group peers. Among early adolescents it has been found that victims’ same-sex peers rejected the victims’ bullies (Veenstra et al., 2010). As peers who do not belong to the victim’s in-group are less likely to be threatened by the behavior of the aggressor, aggressors were not rejected by their victims’ cross-sex peers (Veenstra et al., 2010). Similarly, it may be expected that aggression toward members of a specific ethnic group in the classroom is only related to rejection by classmates from that specific ethnic group, and not to rejection by classmates from other groups.
Although it can be expected that adolescents would generally tend to evaluate
aggression toward same-ethnic peers negatively, it can also be argued that this relation is stronger if the aggressor is same-ethnic than if the aggressor is cross-ethnic. In the context of differentiating and comparing of the in-group to out-groups, the most common pattern would be that aggression by cross-ethnic peers may be perceived as norm-conforming behavior. Aggression to same-ethnic peers, however, is likely to be perceived as norm-deviating behavior. Specifically, aggression by an in-group member toward one’s in-group can be seen as a form of betrayal of the in-group. Adolescents who feel betrayed by their significant peers distrust and avoid interactions with these peers. In an experimental setting, it was indeed found that individuals negatively evaluate in-group members who are disloyal to their group (Travaglino, Abrams, Randsley de Moura, Marques, & Pinto, 2014).
2
BEING FRIENDS WITH OR REJECTED BY CLASSMATES 22 Whereas cross-ethnic aggression is expected to be related to rejection by the cross-ethnic group as the target of aggression, it can be argued that cross-ethnic aggression is also related to positive evaluations by same-ethnic peers. Next to social needs, such as achieving status and being connected, adolescents have individual psychological needs, such as developing a positive social identity. In order to achieve a positive social identity, individuals tend to differentiate the in-group from and compare the in-group to out-groups in ways to devaluate out-out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Aggressive behavior toward out-group peers is an example of a way to devaluate the out-group. Aggressive behavior toward out-groups may highlight differences between groups and consequently benefit in-group members’ development of a positive social identity. Given that individuals tend to like characteristics that foster their goal pursuit (Lindenberg, 2001), such as achieving a positive social identity, it can be expected that cross-ethnic aggression would be related to positive evaluations of same-ethnic classmates of the aggressor. CURRENT STUDY As previous research has shown that cross-ethnic aggression was not more likely than same-ethnic aggression (Tolsma et al., 2013), aggressive behavior in itself may not highlight ethnic boundaries. It is unclear, however, whether classmates’ responses to adolescents’ same- and cross-ethnic aggression emphasize ethnic boundaries in the classroom. In the current study, it is first examined how the positive and negative relationship nominations adolescents receive from same- and cross-ethnic classmates differ by their ethnic background. In the process of differentiating the in-group from out-groups to achieve a positive social identity, individuals tend to develop a preference for affiliating with in-group members over out-group members. Moreover, similarity between peers enhances agreement, understanding, and predictability in relationships. Consequently, it is hypothesized (H1) that adolescents would receive relatively more friendship nominations from same-ethnic classmates than cross-ethnic classmates. Furthermore, comparing the in-group to out-groups may lead to more negative evaluations of out-group members. Therefore, it is hypothesized (H2) that adolescents would be rejected by relatively more cross-ethnic classmates than same-ethnic classmates.Second, the current study examined how adolescents’ same- and cross-ethnic
aggressive behavior relates to the positive and negative relationship nominations they receive from their same- and cross-ethnic classmates. As adolescents’ aggressive behavior threatens the goal pursuit of their victims and their victims’ in-group classmates, but not that of the victims’ out-group classmates, it is hypothesized (H3) that aggressive adolescents would be rejected by classmates from the ethnic group to whom the victim belongs, but not by classmates from other ethnic groups in the classroom. Aggression toward same-ethnic classmates may be perceived as norm-deviating behavior and betrayal. Consequently, it is hypothesized (H4) that adolescents’ aggression toward same-ethnic peers would relate more to rejection by same-ethnic classmates than aggression
23 CHAPTER 2
toward cross-ethnic peers. Finally, aggression toward cross-ethnic peers may be a way to devaluate the out-group, benefiting the development of same-ethnic peers’ positive social identity. Therefore, it is hypothesized (H5) that adolescents who are aggressive toward cross-ethnic peers would receive more friendship nominations from same-ethnic classmates than cross-ethnic adolescents who are aggressive toward this cross-ethnic group.
This study examined classmates’ response to adolescents’ aggressive behavior
toward same- and cross-ethnic peers in secondary school classrooms in the Netherlands. Specifically, this study examined these relationships among Dutch and Turkish adolescents. As part of labor migration, the first Turkish immigrants came to the Netherlands in the 1960s. Although the Dutch society’s ethnic composition is changing, with immigrants from more diverse ethnic backgrounds coming to the Netherlands, immigrants with a Turkish background remain to form the largest ethnic minority group in the Netherlands and in Dutch secondary schools (Statistics Netherlands, 2018b). The extent to which adolescents are aggressive toward, as well as befriended or rejected by, Dutch or Turkish classmates depends partially on the opportunity structure, i.e., whether adolescents have Dutch or Turkish classmates. Similarly, the extent to which adolescents are befriended or rejected by classmates may differ between boys and girls. Previous research has, for example, shown that boys are more aggressive toward and more rejected by classmates (Veenstra et al., 2010). In examining adolescents’ aggressive behavior and the relationship nominations they receive from classmates, this study therefore controls for the number of Dutch and Turkish classmates as well as adolescents’ sex.
2.2 METHOD
PROCEDURE Data was collected in the Netherlands for the first wave (2010/2011) of the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey in Four European Countries (CILS4EU; Kalter et al., 2016). The CILS4EU project focuses on the intergenerational integration of children of immigrants. Early adolescent immigrants and their majority peers around the age of 14 to 15 (3rd grade of secondary school) were the target population. A three-stage sampling method was used. First, secondary schools were selected based on a probability proportional to size as well as the proportion of students with an immigrant background (referring to students who were themselves, or had at least one parent who was, born in a non-Western country). Schools were excluded from the school sample when the total number of students was less than 2% of the total target population and the target classroom size was smaller than one quarter of the average classroom size, or when it were special schools for students with cognitive, emotional, or physical disabilities. 34.9% of the 109 originally targeted schools participated. To increase the number of participating schools, a replacement strategy was implemented in which replacement schools were selected2
BEING FRIENDS WITH OR REJECTED BY CLASSMATES 24
which matched the non-participating schools based on proportion of students with an immigrant background and school type. After this replacement strategy was implemented, 100 schools participated. Second, in most schools, two classrooms were selected. In schools with more than 60% immigrant students, as many classrooms as possible were selected to increase the number of participating immigrants. Of the selected classrooms, 94.5% (222 classrooms) participated in the study. Third, only students not being able to respond to the questionnaire in the language of the host country were excluded from the sample. Exclusions within schools were negligible. In total, 91.1% (4,363 students) of the selected students participated in the study.
The CILS4EU survey was administered using paper-and-pencil questionnaires. Extensively trained student assistants were selected to administer the survey. In order to ensure privacy, questionnaires were identified with a unique ID number, which was linked to the specific student on a separate class list.
SAMPLE
This study investigated the relation between aggression toward and being befriended and rejected by classmates specifically for the two largest ethnic groups in the Dutch CILS4EU data, namely non-immigrant Dutch adolescents and adolescents with an immigrant background from Turkish origin. Of these adolescents, those who had at least one Dutch and one Turkish classmate were selected. This resulted in a sample of 1,042 adolescents (917 Dutch and 125 Turkish adolescents) in 85 classes in 56 schools. Adolescents in the sample were on average 14.9 years old (SD = 6.8 months) and there were about as many boys (51.4%) as girls. On average, Dutch adolescents’ socio-economic background was higher than that of Turkish adolescents (based on the international socio-economic index of occupational status, ISEI, ranging from 0 to 100; Ganzeboom, De Graaf, Treiman, & De Leeuw, 1992; average ISEI for Dutch adolescents = 51.8, average ISEI for Turkish adolescents = 35.6). Only one participant in the sample had a missing value on one of the study variables. For this Turkish adolescent, information on sex was missing. As the exclusion of this participant will not likely influence the results, it was decided to exclude the participant from the analyses.
MEASURES
Immigrant background. Immigrant background was assessed using information on
students’, their parents’, and their grandparents’ country of birth and country of origin as provided by the student as well as their parents. Students who themselves, their parents, and grandparents were born in the Netherlands, were classified as ‘Dutch’. Students who themselves, their parents or grandparents were born outside of the Netherlands were classified as having an immigrant background. A bottom-up approach was used to define immigrant adolescents’ ethnic origin in which information at the grandparent level was used first, followed by information about the parents and the adolescent. For the grandparent and parent levels, two decision rules were applied to define adolescents’
25 CHAPTER 2
ethnic origin. First, the majority rule indicated that if the majority of (grand)parents was born in a certain country, this information was used to define adolescent’s ethnic origin. Second, the priority rule indicated that if there was no majority, priority was given to the country of birth of the (maternal grand)mother (for details on the definition of adolescents’ ethnic origin: Dollmann, Jacob, & Kalter, 2014).
Friendship. Participants responded to the question: “Who are your best friends?”.
They received a list of names and random identification numbers of all of their classmates (also non-participating classmates) and were asked to nominate up to five classmates as their best friends. To measure the extent to which students were befriended by their Dutch and Turkish classmates, the number of nominations for best friends they received from each of the groups was calculated. Furthermore, the proportion of nominations for best friends students received from each of the groups compared to the total number of nominations they could have received from these groups was calculated.
Rejection. Participants were also asked to nominate classmates they did not want
to sit close to (“Who would you not want to sit by?”), which is taken as a proxy for rejection. Participants could nominate up to five classmates. To measure how often students were rejected by their Dutch and Turkish classmates, the number and proportion of rejection nominations students received from each of these groups were calculated.
Aggression. Participants were asked to nominate an unlimited number of
classmates they perceived as being mean to them (“Who is sometimes mean to you?”). To measure students’ aggression toward their Dutch and Turkish classmates, the number and proportion of nominations students received from each of these groups were calculated.
Control variables. Self-reported sex was included to control for possible sex
differences in being befriended or rejected by classmates (girls were coded as 0 and boys were coded as 1). In addition, to control for the availability of same- and cross-ethnic classmates, the number of Dutch and Turkish classmates adolescents have were included in the analyses.
ANALYTICAL STRATEGY
To account for the availability of Dutch and Turkish classmates, proportions of nominations are discussed in the descriptive statistics. In the confirmatory analyses, the absolute number of nominations is used while accounting for the number of Dutch and Turkish classmates. Main analyses. Poisson regression models in Stata version 15.1 (StataCorp, 2017) were used to examine the relation between aggression, friendship, and rejection because of the non-negative count characteristic of the dependent variables (Cameron & Trivedi, 2013). Given that adolescents are more likely to be befriended or rejected by Dutch or Turkish classmates in classrooms with, respectively, more Dutch or Turkish students, the number of Dutch or Turkish classmates was used as an exposure variable, indicating the
2
BEING FRIENDS WITH OR REJECTED BY CLASSMATES 26
number of nominations an adolescent could have received. That is, the number of Dutch or Turkish classmates was used as on offset to account for opportunity differences see Long & Freese, 2006). Furthermore, robust standard errors for the parameter estimates were examined to control for mild violation of underlying assumptions (Cameron & Trivedi, 2009).
Before conducting the regression models, it was checked whether the dependent variables’ variance exceeded the mean, i.e., whether there was an issue of overdispersion. This was checked by comparing the full regression model using a regular Poisson distribution to a model using a negative binomial distribution, which accounts for overdispersion. The difference between the model was tested using a likelihood ratio test of the overdispersion parameter alpha. For being befriended by Dutch or Turkish
classmates, overdispersion was not found to be an issue (C2 = 0.94, p = .17; negative
binomial models could not be estimated for being befriended by Turkish classmates due to convergence problems). For being rejected by Dutch or Turkish classmates, however,
overdispersion was found (C2 = 363.37, p < .001; C2 = 8.75, p = .002). Therefore, Poisson
regression models were used to examine the extent to which adolescents were befriended by Dutch and Turkish classmates, whereas for their rejection by Dutch and Turkish classmates negative binomial regression models were used.
Students were nested in classrooms which were nested in schools. Given the low number of selected classrooms in each school, school-level variation was comparable to classroom-level variation. The intraclass correlation at the classroom-level was high for being befriended (.34 and .27) and rejected by classmates (.13 and .27) and the design effect was larger than 2 indicating the importance of accounting for the two-level structure in our data (Muthén & Satorra, 1995). Moreover, likelihood ratio tests comparing the full regression model using a single-level model to a two-level model showed that the two-level Poisson regression model was more appropriate to examine the extent to which adolescents received friendship nominations from Dutch and Turkish
classmates (C2 = 28.66, p < .001; C2 = 4.67, p = .02) and the two-level negative binomial
models were more appropriate to examine adolescents’ rejection by Dutch and Turkish
classmates (C2 = 15.15, p < .001; C2 = 11.58, p < .001). To account for the two-level
structure, multilevel Poisson and negative binomial regression models were used.
The regression analyses were conducted separately for being befriended by and
rejected by either Dutch or Turkish classmates as the dependent variables. Each regression analysis consisted of three models. In Model 1, we added a dummy indicating adolescents’ ethnic background to examine whether being befriended by (hypothesis 1) or rejected by (hypothesis 2) classmates differed between cross- and same-ethnic peers. In Model 2, we added aggression toward Dutch and Turkish peers as independent variables to examine the association between aggression toward each of these groups and being befriended or rejected by (hypothesis 3) classmates from each of these groups. In Model 3, we added interactions between adolescents’ ethnic background and their aggression toward Dutch and Turkish peers to examine whether the relation between
27 CHAPTER 2
aggression toward each ethnic group and being rejected (hypothesis 4) or befriended by (hypothesis 5) classmates differed between cross- and same-ethnic peers. All models controlled for adolescents’ sex and availability of Dutch or Turkish classmates. All continuous independent variables were grand-mean centered.
Additional analyses. In addition to the analyses among Dutch and Turkish adolescents, analyses were conducted for two other immigrant groups: Dutch and Moroccan (810 Dutch and 117 Moroccan adolescents in 75 classes), and Dutch and Surinamese (1,099 Dutch and 121 Surinamese adolescents in 91 classes) adolescents. The measures and analytical strategy for these additional analyses are similar to the analyses for Dutch and Turkish adolescents. Results of the additional analyses can be found in the appendix.
2.3 RESULTS
DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS Table 2.1 shows that overall, Dutch and Turkish adolescents did not differ much in theirgeneral aggression toward (MDutch = .02, MTurkish = .04), being befriended (MDutch = .16,
MTurkish = .15), and rejected (MDutch = .10, MTurkish = .12) by Dutch and Turkish classmates. Moreover, adolescents were not more aggressive toward same- or cross-ethnic peers (Dutch toward Dutch: M = .03; Dutch toward Turkish: M = .02; Turkish toward Dutch: M = .05; Turkish toward Turkish: M = .04), and did not receive more proportions of nominations for rejection by cross-ethnic than same-ethnic classmates (Dutch by Dutch: M = .11; Dutch by Turkish: M = .10; Turkish by Dutch: M = .13; Turkish by Turkish: M = .08). For friendships, adolescents received higher proportions of nominations from same-ethnic classmates than from cross-ethnic classmates (Dutch to Dutch: M = .17; Dutch to Turkish: M = .12; Turkish to Dutch: M = .09; Turkish to Turkish: M = .33). Table 2.2 presents correlations between aggression toward and being befriended and rejected by the two ethnic groups. The table shows that adolescents who were aggressive toward one of the groups were also more likely to be aggressive toward peers
Table 2.1. Descriptive statistics on being aggressive toward, connected to, and avoided by Dutch and Turkish peers for Dutch and Turkish adolescents
Aggression toward … Befriended by … Rejected by …
M (SD) of nominations M (SD) Max. number of nominations M (SD) Max. number of nominations Max. number
Dutch adolescent .02 (.05) 10 .16 (.10) 11 .10 (.14) 18 … Dutch classmates .03 (.07) 5 .17 (.13) 10 .11 (.15) 16 … Turkish classmates .02 (.13) 2 .12 (.31) 3 .10 (.29) 5 Turkish adolescent .04 (.06) 6 .15 (.12) 7 .12 (.13) 17 … Dutch classmates .05 (.13) 5 .09 (.19) 4 .13 (.24) 9 … Turkish classmates .04 (.16) 2 .33 (.37) 4 .08 (.20) 2 Notes. Means and standard deviations are based on proportion of nominations. Minimum number of nominations is 0 in all cases.
2
BEING FRIENDS WITH OR REJECTED BY CLASSMATES 28 Table 2.2. Correlations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Aggression toward 1. Dutch 2. Turkish .16** Befriended by 3. Dutch -.04 .07* 4. Turkish .15** .05 -.03 Rejected by 5. Dutch .40** .06 -.16** .03 6. Turkish .02 .20** -.04 -.10* .25** Note. Correlations are calculated using proportion of nominations. * p < .05; ** p < .001 from the other ethnic group (r = .16, p < .001). Similarly, adolescents who were rejected by classmates from one group were also likely to be rejected by classmates from the other group (r = .25, p < .001). No association was found between being befriended by the two groups (r = -.03, p = .28). Descriptively it was found that aggression toward one of the groups was positivelyrelated to rejection by classmates from this specific group (rDutch = .40, p < .001; rTurkish =
.20, p < .001) but not to rejection by classmates from the other group. Also, although with smaller correlations, aggression toward one group related positively to being befriended by classmates from the other group: aggression toward Dutch related positively to being befriended by Turkish classmates (r = .15, p < .001) and aggression toward Turkish related positively to being befriended by Dutch classmates (r = .07, p = .04).
THE ROLE OF ETHNICITY IN FRIENDSHIP AND REJECTION
In line with hypothesis 1 (adolescents would receive relatively more friendship nominations from same-ethnic classmates than cross-ethnic classmates), it was found in the multilevel Poisson regression models that Dutch adolescents were befriended by more Dutch classmates (PE = 0.77, p < .001) and befriended by fewer Turkish classmates (PE = -1.02, p < .001) than Turkish adolescents, see Model 1 in Table 2.3 (left panel for being befriended by Dutch classmates, right panel for being befriended by Turkish
classmates).
Similarly, Models 1 in Table 2.4 were used to test hypothesis 2 that adolescents would be rejected by relatively more cross-ethnic classmates than same-ethnic classmates. In contrast to the hypothesis, no evidence was found that Dutch adolescents were rejected by fewer Dutch classmates than Turkish adolescents (PE = -0.24, p = .20). In line with the hypothesis, however, Dutch adolescents were rejected by slightly more Turkish classmates than Turkish adolescents (PE = 0.67, p = .05). Thus, partial support was found for hypothesis 2.
29 CHAPTER 2 Ta bl e 2. 3. R es ult s of m ult iple m ult ile ve l P oi ss on re gre ss ion m od els for fr ie nd sh ip Be fr ie nd ed b y Du tc h Be fr ie nd ed b y Tu rk ish M od el 1 M od el 2 M od el 3 M od el 1 M od el 2 M od el 3 Par am et er PE SE p PE SE p PE SE p PE SE p PE SE p PE SE p Co ns ta nt -2 .5 8 0. 13 -2. 59 0 .1 3 -2 .5 9 0. 14 -1. 17 0 .1 8 -1. 18 0 .1 7 -1. 20 0 .1 8 Et hn ic b ac kg roun d (D ut ch = 1) 0. 77 0. 13 < .0 01 0. 78 0. 14 < .0 01 0. 78 0. 14 < .0 01 -1 .0 2 0. 19 < .0 01 -1 .0 1 0. 19 < .0 01 -0 .9 8 0. 20 < .0 01 Ag gr es si on to w ar d Dut ch -0. 04 0 .0 3 .1 8 -0 .1 0 0. 08 .1 9 0 .2 4 0. 07 .001 0. 30 0. 09 .001 * E thn ic b ac kg ro un d (D ut ch = 1) 0. 06 0. 08 .4 2 -0. 07 0 .1 4 .5 9 Tu rk ish 0 .2 5 0. 11 .0 2 0. 26 0. 26 .3 2 0 .0 4 0. 20 .8 4 0 .2 0 0. 21 .3 4 * E thn ic b ac kg ro un d (D ut ch = 1) -0 .0 2 0. 28 .9 5 -0. 63 0 .5 7 .2 8 Se x ( bo y = 1 ) 0. 05 0. 06 .3 9 0 .0 5 0. 06 .3 9 0. 05 0. 06 .3 9 -0. 09 0 .1 6 .5 9 -0. 12 0 .1 6 .4 6 -0. 12 0 .1 6 .4 6 Num be r o f D ut ch cl as sma te s Ex p. Ex p. Ex p. -0. 01 0 .0 2 .6 5 -0. 01 0 .0 2 .4 6 -0. 01 0 .0 2 .4 3 Num be r o f T ur ki sh cl as sma te s -0 .0 2 0. 03 0. 41 -0 .0 3 0. 03 .3 0 -0 .0 3 0. 03 .3 0 Ex p. Ex p. Ex p. Va ria nc e cl assr oo m 0. 05 0. 03 0 .0 5 0. 03 0. 05 0. 03 0 .1 1 0. 06 0 .1 0 0. 06 0 .0 9 0. 05 Lo g lik el ihoo d -1 69 8. 40 -1 69 6. 21 -1 69 6. 13 -5 86 .7 0 -5 82 .8 0 -5 81 .9 1 No te . T he n um be r of D ut ch or T ur ki sh cl as sm at es w as us ed a s a n ex pos ur e va ria bl e to ac coun t f or op por tun ity d iff er en ce s.
