Psychological Acculturation of Turkish Migrants in the Netherlands

Tilburg University

Psychological Acculturation of Turkish Migrants in the Netherlands

Arends-Tóth, J.V.

Publication date:

2003

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Arends-Tóth, J. V. (2003). Psychological Acculturation of Turkish Migrants in the Netherlands. Dutch University Press.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

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.

PsychologicalAcculturation

R 1 S ., . « ' .., " _ . 1

Psychological Acculturation

of Turkish Migrants in the Netherlands

Issues

in

_Theory

and

Assessment

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging vandegraad van doctor aande UniversiteitvanTilburg

op gezag van rectormagnificus, prof.dr. F.A. van der DuynSchouten,

in hetopenbaar teverdedigen ten overstaan van

een door_{het collegevoor promotiesaangewezencommissie}

in de aula vandeUniversiteitopvrijdag 6 juni 2003 Om I4·I5 uur

door

3UDITVERONIKAARENDS-TOTH

Prof.dr. A.I.R. van de Vilver

© I.V. Arends-Tdth, 2003

Graphic design &cover:Puntspatie,Amsterdam

DTP: OffsetdrukkerijHavekabv,Alblasserdam

Allrightsreserved. Saveexceptions stated by the law, no part ofthispublication may be reproduced,stored ina_{retrieval system of any} nature,or_{transmitted in any form or by any} means,electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recordingor otherwise,includeda_{complete or} partialtranscription. withoutthepriorwritten permission ofthepublishers, application for whichshouldbeaddressed to thepublishers:

DUTCH UNIVERSITYPRESS

Rozengracht I•76A

IoI6 NK Amsterdam,TheNetherlands

Phone: + 31 Co) 20 625 5429

Fax: + 3I Co) 2062030 95

E·mail:_info@dup.Ill

Dutch UniversityPressinassociation with Purdue UniversityPress,West L«fayette, Ind. U.S.A 86Rozenberg Publishers. The Netherlands

ISBN 90 36I9 29I 9

Preface and Acknowledgements

JANUARY, 2003 JUDITARENDS-T6TH

Afterfouryears working on mythesis on acculturation, I can say now that I solved some questions in this field with my research but I cannot say that I am finished

with this topic. I am still interested in the unsolved questions and themes in

acculturation research, not only froma _{scientific, but also from} a_{personal point of}

view. I hope thatmy findingsinacculturationwithTurkish-Dutch, that you can read

in this thesis, can give you an idea about how to go on in this field, and that my

modestcontribution to this field continuestostimulate interestandongoingdebate

regarding acculturationmeasures.

I would liketothanksome peoplefor their support,encouragementand assistance

during myPhD student time.

First and foremost, I am very grateful to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Fons van de

Vijver, for always being helpful to answer my questions and requests. It was a

privilege to work with him. My appreciation also goes to Prof. Dr. Ype H. Poortinga who providedadvicecounselat_{several stages inmyproject.}

Thanks, too, tomycolleagues andfriends, Annetje,Dianne, Eduarda, Erika, Esther, Gerda,Helen, Martha, Maya,Michelle,Otmane, Saskia, Seger, and Tina,for listening

to my ideas_{and stories,} reading mypapers, and for giving advice on how to go on. Also thanksto Margot Eysink, Monique Coppens, and Dandu Acanwho helped me not onlywithcollecting data but also withdiscussingtheresults.

The study would not have been possible without the contribution of many

Turkish-Dutch people. Thanks to all the Turkish-Dutch participants who kindly

volunteeredto_{participate in my project.}

I thank myparents,mysister, andmy parents-in-lawfor their abundantpersonal

support andfor their interest inmyproject ('study').

This bookis dedicated to Ton,Thomas, and Mayka, who weresopatient with me all the time, andwhoenduredmy_{absence (and sometimes also} mypresence)while

Contents

Chapter1 Chapter 5

Introduction _{9 Relationships} betweenAcculturation Attitudesand Self-Reported

Chapter2 Behaviors among Turkish-Dutch 95

Multiculturalism and

Accultura-tion: Views of Dutchand _{Chapter 6}

Turkish-Dutch ₂₃ Discussion_{and Conclusions 125}

Chapter₃ Summary i39

Dimensions andDomains inModels

of Acculturation: ImplicitTheories Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) 143 of Turkish-Dutch 47

Chapter 4

AssessmentofAcculturation:

Conceptualand Methodological

Chapter i

Introduction

Thecurrent research projectexplores theoretical and

meth-odological issues in the studyofacculturation, a _{generic name}

for changes in cultural orientation.The centraltopic of this

project, the psychologicalacculturation ofTurkish-Dutch in

the Netherlands, wasinvestigated in a seriesofstudies carried

out _amongfirst-_{and second-generation Turkish-Dutch adults}

and youngsters. Thisgroupwas chosen because it forms one ofthelargest migrant groups inthe Netherlands and becauseTurkish-Dutch areoften seen bynative Dutch as the prototypical migrant group' (Pettigrew, 1998).

This introductorychapter provides atheoretical framework for the studyofacculturation bydescribing the main theoretical and methodological issues in thisfield. Thechapteris divided

intothree parts: Thefirst part focuses on conceptualization

and modelsofacculturation and discusses some _{problems in}

acculturation research, the second centers on the effects of

immigration inthe Netherlands, and thethird provides an over-view of four empirical studies carried out for this research project. Each of the chapters in this book can be _{read independently.}

The nextfourchaptersare based on articles that have been

submitted for publication. The last chaptergives anoverview of the main _{findings of}the_empirical studies anddiscusses

their implications.

INTERCULTURAL CONTACTS

Interculturalcontacts have increased as more andmorepeople travel,study, work, or

within

aculturallydiverse society, andthose thattake placebetween societies when people travel toanother society withtheintention

of

stayingtemporarily in the new

society.

Interculturalcontactswithin societieshaveincreased due toalargestream

ofmi-grantsand refugees, changing manysocieties from monoculturaltomulticultural.

Migrants includethose individualswhovoluntarilyrelocatefor long-term

resettle-ment.The_majority

of

_migrants aremotivated_byeconomicfactorsand_{usually move}

from poorertoricher countries.Asmallnumberchooseto_migratefor_political,

reli-gious orcultural reasons. Migrants aregenerally 'pulled' toward the newcountry whereas refugeesareunwillinglydisplacedfromtheirhomecountriesand'pushed' into anewenvironment(Ward, Bochner, &Furnham, 200I).

The incidenceofintra-societyinterculturalcontactshasbecomemore frequent in

recent years and is nowa_subject

of

severalresearchstudiesofwhichthis_{project is one.}

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF IMMIGRATION: CONCEPTUALIZING ACCULTURATION

When culturallydisparate people comeinto continuous contact witheachother, the

differencesbetween them tendto becomesalient, andcanresult

in

changes in the original cultural_{patterns (Bochner, I982). Although}immigrationhas consequences

forbothmigrantsandmembers ofthereceivingsociety,theformergroup isusually moreaffected.Because of itsincreasing importance inthe everyday world as well as

in social scientific theories and measurement, the acculturation experience of migrantshasfrequentlybeenresearched in the last threedecades,althoughthefield's

origins are much older

From a historical perspective, most research on acculturation has been

an-thropologicalinnature andhasfocused ontheacculturationofThird-Worldnations

to_industrial,Western_{societies (Olmedo, I979). The term}acculturationwas

intro-ducedbyAmerican anthropologists,asearly as the 188os, to describe theprocess of

culturechangeoccurring whentwodifferent cultural groups comeintocontact with

eachother (Jasinskaja-Lathi, _{2000). Numerous definitions ofacculturation have been}

presented inthe literature, most ofthem adaptations of thedefinition_{proposed by}

Redfield,Linton, and Herskovits (1936):

Acculturationcomprehendsthosephenomena which result when groups_{Ofindividuals having di#2rent} cultures comeinto continuous first-hand contact,withsubsequent changes intheoriginal culture

patterns Ofeither orbothgroups... (p. 149)·

It is important to note that,whilechanges in both ethnic groupsareimplied in the

definition, in factmost changesoccur inthenon-dominantgroup asaresult

of

INTRODUCITON 11

Whileacculturationwas_{originallyproposed as}a_{group-level phenomenon, it is}

now commontoincludeimportantindividual-level phenomena, underthe category psychologicalacculturation_{(Graves, I967).At}theindividuallevel,acculturationrefers to changes that anindividualexperiences asaresultofcoming intocontactwith other culturesandparticipating intheprocess ofacculturation thatone'scultural or ethnic groupisundergoing.

Frameworksofacculturation: Researchtraditionsand strategies

Althoughthetopicof(psychological)acculturationhasreceivedattentioninsocial and behavioralsciences,the_{field has been characterized by a lack}oftheoreticalcoherence. Earlytheories andresearchonacculturationwere strongly influencedbymedicine

and psychiatryand emphasized the symptoms

of

cultureshock and thepathological

nature oftheprocess. Morerecent approaches haveframed acculturation inquite

different terms and have placed emphasis on cognitive, affective, and behavioral componentsofacculturation.

Theoretical frameworks

of

acculturation havebeenborrowedfrommainstream

psychology. Majorinfluence have beendrawn from_(I)literatureonstressand coping,

(2) research on sociallearning and skills, and (3) social cognition and intergroup

perceptions _{(Ward, ,996, I999).}

Adaptinga stressandcoping approach,researchers (e.g.,Berry, I992, I99'7) have fo-cused_{mainly on}the influence of life changes,coping mechanisms, cognitive ap-praisal

ofthe

change,personalitycharacteristics, and social supporton physical and mental health.

The social learning approachisderived fromsocial andexperimentalpsychology.

This approach emphasizes the role

of

learning intheacquisition

of

culturally

appro-priatenewskills.Variablesthat promotelearning ofnewsocialskills and that facil-itate adaptation to the new cultureare_{frequently studied,includinggeneral} know-ledge about the newculture, culturaldistance,length

of

residence in the new country, andamountofcontact withhostnationals (e.g., Ward, I996, I999; Ward & Kennedy,

I994)

In socialcognition approach toacculturation, cognitive elements suchas

expecta-tions,attitudestowardmembersofthenewculture, culturalidentity, perception,

attn-butions,and changesinvalues as part of theacculturationprocess have been invest-igated(e.g.,Wong-Rieger, _I984)·

Three acculturationresearch strategies canbedistinguished. namely generation and group-comparativeresearch, longitudinalresearch, andresearch onindividual

differences _{(Phalet& Verkuyten, 200I) Generation}andgroup-comparativeresearch

compares acculturationprocesses indifferentagegroupsandgenerations. Longit-udinalresearch studies the changeinacculturation that individualsexperiencewithin

a_{particular interval.} Research onindividualdifferenceswithin_{acculturatinggroups}

AcculturationVariables

Variables inacculturationresearch canbebroadlydividedintothree groups: _(I)

accul-turationconditionsorantecedents, (2) acculturation attitudes, and(3)acculturation

outcomesor_{consequences.}

Acculturationconditionsrefer tothelimits anddemands oftheacculturation

pro-cess. Onthepopulation or grouplevel, variablesinvolve the type

of

migration (e.g., temporaryandvoluntary), characteristics ofthemigrant group (e.g.,social attach-ment), characteristics of the host society (e.g., cultural homogeneity andcultural

openness ordiscrimination), and inter-group relations (e.g., social inequality and

social_{distance). On}theindividuallevel, conditionscanrefertochanges over time

(e.g., age, length

of

_{settlement, and generational differences),} to position in the

society,topersonality characteristics(e.g., socialnormsandcopingstrategies), and to

situational or social context_(e.g.,social_supportand_{stressful situations).}

Acculturation attitudes structurethe acculturationprocess byrelating conditions to

outcomes._Theyrefer to waysin which migrants deal with the culturesinvolved. It

has beenestablishedthatacculturation attitudesarecritical to understanding the

acculturationprocessof immigrants (e.g.,Berry, I997; Ward et al., 200I). Inaddition, acculturation_{attitudes present}a_{potential locus for and}auseful precursor to

psycho-logicalassessmentandinterventions.

Acculturationoutcomesrefer to thedegree

of

success oftheacculturationprocess. Various indices

of

acculturation havebeen examined, such as_{psychological}distress,

moodstates,feelingsofacceptanceand satisfaction, the nature and extent ofinterac-tion with hosts, the acquisition

of

culturally appropriate behaviors and skills,

academic performance, and job performances. Ward and Kennedy (I994) have

argued that adaptive outcomes

ofthe

acculturative process canbedividedinto psycho-logical (emotional/affective) well-beingandsocio-cultural _{(behavioral) competence.} They found that psychological and socio-cultural adjustmentwereinterrelated but

that they were generallypredictedbydifferenttypesofvariablesand showeddifferent

patternsof variation over time.

Acculturationmodels

Despite the hugenumber

of

empiricalstudies on_{acculturation, only a}fewtheoretical

models have been developed toexplainthe complex processofacculturation (Negy &

Woods,_I992) Acculturation refers tothequestion howamigrantdeals with the

cul-tureoforigin_{(culturalmaintenance) and}thecultureofthecountryofsettlement_(cultural

adaptation). The relationships between culturalmaintenance andadaptation have been describedinthreeways, resulting inthreetheoreticalmodelsofacculturation.

The first,the unidimensionalmodel,conceptualizes the twomainaspects

of

accul-turationaspolaropposites _(seeFigure I).This modelassumesaprocessofculturechange

alonga single dimension, ashiftfrom culturalmaintenancetoadaptation, whereby

INTRODUCITON 13

,

Cultural maintenance Cultural adaptation

Figure i. Theunidimensional acculturation model

The second, thebidimensionalmodel,treats culturalmaintenanceand adaptation as twoindependent dimensions. Increasing identification with one culture does not requiredecreasingidentification withtheotherculture (e.g.,Hutnik, 1986; Lasry & Sayegh,_{I992). The}mostwidely applied bidimensional model is that

of

Berry (I992). In this model, cultural maintenanceandadaptationarecombined,constituting four acculturation_{strategies: integration, assimilation,}separation, andmarginalization. Integrationrefers toadesiretomaintaintheoriginalculturewhilesimultaneously adopting the new culture. Assimilation reflects a loss ofthe original culture and

completeabsorption in thenewculture.Separation refers toadesire tomaintain key

features ofthe original culture while rejecting the new culture. Marginalization

reflectsthe rejectionofbothcultures (seeFigure 2).

Finally, in _{the fusion model, the two} main aspects

of

acculturation are mixed, creating a new'integrated culture',whichcontainsacombinationof'the best of the

two cultures' or uniqueaspects thatareatypical ofbothcultures(e.g., _{Coleman, I995)·}

This model implies that acculturation is not onlyachoice betweencharacteristics of two cultures, but alsoamixture

of

thesecharacteristics(see Figure 3).

Cultural adaptation

New culture

low high

- 7 2

_{3 9}

hugh Separation Integration

E g C CD 3 4 A E 5 E 3

-

Marginalization Assimilation 2 '4 4 3 ' V Cultural adaptation

Some problems inacculturation research

Althoughinrecent yearssome excellent studies

of

immigrationandacculturation

have been_{published,many areas of}thefield rernain _{under-explored.There is a gap}

between the hugenumberof_empirical studies onacculturationand_{developments in}

acculturation theoryandmethodology. In the area

of

conceptualization and meas-urement, important work remains to be done. For instance, much acculturation

research does not makeacleardistinctionbetweendifferent_aspectsofacculturation

suchascognition (knowledge), values,attitudes_{and behaviors; these}areoftenmixed in questionnaires. Withoutaconsistentdistinctionbetweenacculturation_{aspects, it}

is not possible toassessthe extenttowhichtheseexplain variations in acculturation,

becausemoderators and outcomesare_{possibly mixed. The general context and}

condi-tionsofacculturation _(i.e.,historyof immigration, immigrationpolicy. andattitudes and behaviors

of

members of the_{majorityculture)}have_rarelybeenconsidered in acculturationresearch. Part oftheproblemofacculturationresearch is also due to the

differences in conceptualization and measurement

of

acculturation, which

contributes totheconflictingfindings thatareoften reportedbetweenacculturation

and various psychological measures (e.g., _{Rogler, Cortes,}&Malgady, 199I). Itwould

seem thatthefieldofacculturationistroubled byatleastthefollowing fourproblems:

I. Acculturation isaninteractionprocessinvolvingmembers of both theminority

group andthemajoritygroup. However, veryfewstudies have systematically

invest-igatedandcomparedthe majorityandminority group member's attitudes toward acculturation. Becauseattitudes andbehaviors ofthe_{majority group may play a}

rel-evant role intheacculturation process andoutcome, it isimportant to know what majoritygroup members consider the ideal form

of

acculturation and the ways in whichtheyshapetheacculturationorientation

of

migrants. Usingaslightlyadapted

version of the migrant's acculturation model. theattitudes

of

members of the host

society to acculturation can be _{measured (Bourhis, Moise, Perreault,} & Senacal, I997)

2. Acculturation models generallyassume thatacculturation is atemporally and

cross-situationally consistent trait. However, even in plural societies, not all

accul-turationoptionsare available toindividualsatevery time andineverydomain. For example, one may prefer to adoptan integrative strategy in all domains of life. However,achieving this preferenceisdifficultwhen integration is onlyanoption in

certain domains andin others oneisforcedtoassimilate(e.g., language and educa-tion) or evento separate (e.g.,social contact). Multipleacculturationoptions may also operate simultaneously in different domains and in different situations

of

accul-turation. Somedomains

of

_{culture may}bealteredwithout_{comparable changes in}

others._{Thus, acculturation may be} anuneven _{process, not affecting all cultural and}

INTRODUCITON 15

of migrantsontheir own acculturationprocesscanvalidatetheoreticalacculturation

models and evaluate_{domain specificity}

of

acculturation.

3. Relatively little attention has been devoted to a systematic comparison of the

validityofacculturationmeasurementmethods. The lackofconsensus onthe

concep-tualization o

f

acculturation mayhave contributed totheoften poor convergence of

findings in the field (Rogler et al.,

_I99I)

There is a clear need to integrate and

compare thedifferent acculturationmeasurementmethods.

4. Therelationship between acculturation attitudesandbehaviors isnotgenerally

explicitly measured. Berry _(I992) defined acculturationas follows: 'Attitudes and

actual behavior together constitutean individual's acculturationstrategy.' However,

desired and actual behavior may notcoincide. In research by _{Martens (I995), for} example, _{almost 75% of}theTurkish migrants founditimportant to havea Dutch

friend, butinpractice only 24% of themhadDutchfriends.

Finally,acculturationfocuses onwhathappenswhen members

of

distinctcultures come into prolonged contact withone another, the processin which cultures and

peoplemay change asafunctionofculture_{contact. To have a goodunderstanding of}

acculturation, itisnecessary to have someunderstanding oftheconceptofculture

and its role in human behavior. _Although no consensus exists _{among social and} behavioral scientists about the content

of

culture,thereisagreement thatthecultural

context affectshuman_{beings, creating}moresimilaritieswithinandvariationbetween

cultures,andinfluencingthe psychological characteristics of the representatives of

thesecultures (Berry, Poortinga, Segall,_{& Dasen, I992). It is probably impossible to}

formulateadefinitionthatcaptures theessenceofthenotion ofculture in a way that will satisfymost researchersz (e.g., Segall, I986). The concept

of

culture used by the

researcherreflects his or her_{strategy and generalorientation. Empirically oriented,} quantitative, and quasi-experimental studies tend tobe based onan _{abstract (and} static) conceptualizationofculture,whereas ethnographic descriptive studies more often start from definitions which _{emphasize symbols} and semantic networks

(Padilla, 1995)·

Culture canbe_{conceptualized as}an_{objective concept (e.g.,country}characteristics and demographics), asasocial consensus, (e.g.,norms,values, and attitudes) or as a

moresubjective concept (e.g., implicitideasaboutculturesandtheir_{differences). In}

thisbook, cultureisprimarily seen asapsychological phenomenon; itrefersto the

shared beliefs. values, and attitudesofagroup, inthepresentcontextreferring mainly

to amigrantgroup. Thefourpreviously mentioned concernsare addressed in this

research projectinordertoprovideadeeperinsight intothe process

of

acculturation intheNetherlands,acountrywhichprovidesausefulsubjectforresearchon

|MMIGRANTS IN THE NETHERLANDS

In theNetherlands as in much ofWestern _{Europe,migration}has become an im-portantissue. Thelatestestimate is that I8% ofthepopulation inthe Netherlands is

of

foreignorigin _{(seeTable I). This figure includes those who}areforeign born and those born in theNetherlands withatleastonenon-nativeparent. Mostimmigrants

live in thefour_{largest cities:}Amsterdam, Rotterdam,The _{Hague, and}Utrecht. It is

estimatedthataround the year20Io_{almost 50%}ofthepopulationofAmsterdam will

consistoffirst-and second-generationimmigrants.These_{immigrants originate from}

different countries and canbebroadly divided into threegroups. First,alargegroup originates fromthe formerDutchcolonies

of

Indonesia, Surinam, and the Nether-lands Antilles. A second largegroup comes fromthe Islamic countries, Turkey and

Morocco, andfromSouthern Europe (Spain, Italy, Greece, andPortugal); they were

recruited to work inthe Netherlandsduring the _{I96os. Third,} there isagroup of

refugeesfromvarious countries such as Iran, Iraq, theformerYugoslavia, Somalia, andAfghanistan.Theseethnic groups and the growing numbers

of

refugees have

resulted inanenormous increasein interculturalcontacts in the Netherlands, but

also some problems. Housingproblems, unemployment, criminality, and lack of

education are some of the problems more prevalent among ethnicminorities and

refugeesthan amongnatives (Van den Berg&_{Bleichrodt, I994)·}For example,

unem-ployment among ethnicminorities is fourtimeshigherthan among native Dutch

CCBS, 200I). In addition, intolerance and discrimination in the Netherlands are

becoming more and more serious problems.

Tablei.Number of natives and migrants. by origin (x 1,000) between 1990 and 2001

1990 1995 2001

Dutchnatives I2.668 12.852 I3.II7

Populationofforeign origin 2.225 2.572 2.870

Turks 206 ₂₆₄ 320

Moroccans I68 2I9 273

Southern-European I05 44 I63

Surinamese 237 278 309

Antilleans 81 93 II,7

Non-Westerncountries I7I 284 464

Total_population I4.893 I5'424 I5.987

Source: CBS, Population Statistics

Turkish migrants in the Netherlands

Turkishmigrants form one ofthelargest groupsof immigrants inthe Netherlands.

Thefirst Turkish migrants arrived inthe Netherlands in thebeginning of_{the 1960s}

whenthe Dutcheconomy hadashortage_{of workers. In I964}theDutch government

INTRODUCITON 17

whichthenumberofTurkishworkers intheNetherlandsincreased rapidly.Although laborrecruitmentwasbrought to an end in I_974,Turkish immigration tothe

Nether-landscontinuedthrough family reunification,asylum request, and informal chan-nels. At the present, the Netherlandsofficiallyhas_320,000 inhabitantsofTurkish

origin (CBS, 200I).

Most oftheTurkish migrants didnotintendalong-term stay inthe Netherlands.

The aim

of

theiremigration was toearnenough moneyas'guest-workers' tobuild a better life

in

Turkey.Inorder to save asmuch moneyaspossible, they didnotinvest

in their life inthe Netherlands; theymostly ledsober lives, had relatively poor

accom-modations, acquiredlittle orno_{knowledge of}theDutch_language,workedovertime in low-qualified jobs,andoften encountereddiscriminationand_prejudice.Their life

circumstancesandworkingconditions inthe Netherlandsweregenerally mediocre orpoor. Duringthe _I97os,however,itbecameclear thatmost

ofthe

labormigrants would stay intheNetherlands foralonger periodthaninitiallyintended orevensettle

permanently. The decisiontosettle in the Netherlandswasoften based on the fact

that they were not able to saveconsiderable amounts

of

money. Despitehavestayed

intheNetherlands, many Turkish migrantsstill maintainastrong bondwithTurkey andtheir_{families there (Backer, 2000).}

The orientation and background

of

Turkish migrants was not conducive for acquiring agood socialposition inthe Netherlands. The educationallevel,income

and jobposition ofthe

first

_generationTurkish _{migrants are,} on _{average, weak in}

comparison with the Dutch population.The second_{generation, representing more}

thanathird

ofthe

_{Turkish-Dutch, has} abetter position;theireducationalposition is remarkably better than that

of

theirparents. However,unemploymentisstillhigher among Turkish migrants than amongnativeDutch(seeTable 2).

Table 2.Labor market participation of Turkish migrants and Dutch natives betweeniggi and 2000

Labormarket participation (%)

Netto labormarket _Registered

Turkish _{participation unemployed}

I99I 3I 33 I995 30 3I 36 2000 44 9 Dutch I99I 58 4 I995 59 6 I998 64 4 2000 67 3

Dutch immigrantpolicy

The Netherlands was one of the

first

countriesinWestern Europetoadopt a long-term policyfor immigrants. This policywasimplemented in thebeginning of the

I980s whenitbecameapparentthat immigrationwascontinuing andthe Nether-lands had become _culturallydiverse. In _general, immigrants have attained more rightsandbetter socialpositions asaresultofDutch_{immigrantpolicy.}

Dutch immigrant policy has haddifferentnames over the course of time. The majorgoalsof'targetgroupminoritypolicy' (from I979 to I983) weretoprevent the formationof_{segregatedgroups with a lowsocio-economic position, and to encourage}

equalparticipationinlabor,_{education, and housing.}This_policyalsoaimedat_creating

a'multicultural'_societyin which distinctions basedon ethnic_{originwould be}

pro-hibited and in which cultural _{diversity would} be _{accepted and seen} as _enriching

Dutchsociety. In the I99OS, however, littleprogress was made inthelabor market; unemployment among ethnicminorities remained high. Itwasassumed that the poorlabormarket position and the high unemploymentofethnic minoritymembers

were, atleastpartly, theresult

of

directand indirectdiscrimination. Therefore, in I994 a lawwas passed to'stimulate proportionallabormarket opportunitiesofethnic

minorities' _{('WetBevorderingEvenredigeArbeidskansen Allochtonen');} it_provided

sanctionsforactivetransgressions. This led manycompanies to boycott the law, and

within

three_yearsafter itsintroduction, a newact_{(withoutanysanctions) was}

in-troduced (Vermeulen & Penninx, 2000).

Educationwasviewed asanecessarycondition for future participation inthelabor

market. Greaterstress wasplacedon masteringoftheDutchlanguage andpromoting contactbetween schools and _parents

of

ethnic_minoritychildren. Primaryschools

with a _{large proportion}

of

children from ethnic minorities were _granted extra

resourcestorealizethis objective. Itisstilltoo earlytodetermine howsuccessful this policy has been.

In_{summary, immigrants have had profound implications}forDutch_{society and}

economy. Noareaofthecountryisunaffected_{byimmigrants.}The_permanent multi-culturalcharacter

of

Dutch society makesitnecessary to haveabetterinsight into

acculturationprocesses. Fromapractical point of view, itis relevanttodifferentiate

acculturationfordifferent individuals and for different domains

of

behavior. From a theoreticalpoint of view, it is

of

greatimportance to have newinsight intothe nature and processofacculturation, as _importantaspectsofacculturationare stilllargely

unexplored intheNetherlands.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

The main aim ofthepresent research project istostudytheacculturationprocess

INTRODUCITON 19

Chapter2 deals withthe viewsonmulticulturalismandacculturation

of

Dutch

majorityandTurkish-Dutchminorityadults. Immigration isaseries

of

processes that

confrontsnations andtheircitizenswithfundamentalissues such as how to deal with

culturaldiversity. Berry_(I997) argues thatacountry'simmigrationpolicy and the way

in whichmembers of thereceivingsocietyrespondtomigrants influence the

accul-turativeexperience

of

migrants. Althoughthe outcomesoftheacculturationprocess and the_{intergroup relations dependsubstantially on mutualexpectations} and inter-actions between the members ofthe majority and the migrant groups, very few

studies havesystematicallycomparedtheir mutualviews.Thecentralresearch

ques-tion ofthis study is to whatextenttheviews onmulticulturalismandacculturation

differbetweenDutch_majorityandTurkish-Dutchminoritygroup members. Chapter₃ addresses

implicit

theories ofTurkishmigrantsonacculturation. The studyinvestigates the extent towhichexperiences andimplicittheories

of

migrants

onacculturation match current theoreticalmodels.

Chapter 4 focuses on measurementmethods inacculturation research. In a set of

four studies, three measurement _{methods ('one-item', 'two-item', and} 'four-item'

methods) were examined andcomparedinsamplesofTurkish-Dutch.

Chapter ₅ focuses onthe relationship betweenacculturation attitudes and self-reportedacculturationbehaviors.Psychological researchersconsider acculturation to

be a processwherebytheattitudes and behaviors ofaperson fromoneculture are modified as aresult

of

contact withadifferentculture (Moyerham&_{Forman, I992).}

However, no systematic research has been done on the relationship

of

these two

aspects

of

acculturation.

Finally, Chapter6consists ofa_{general discussion and}conclusionofthe_empirical

studies presented inthisresearch project. Thensome issuesintheory and

assess-ment thathaveemerged fromthestudiesarepresented.

Notes

I. In this book,the termsmigrants, im- _personalityandbehavioral characteristics.

migrants, minorities,andnon-dominant Culturerefers todesiredphenomena group members refertopeople withalower _amongpeoplewithshared beliefs, customs,

numericalandpolitical power inthe society, _{folkways, and behaviors (Suzuki,}

whilethe terms natives,majorities, main- Ponterotto,&Meller,2OOI) Culture is a

streamers,dominant groupmembers,host _{highlypotent variable;}it_{provides people}

society members,membersofthesocietyof withameansofcommunication,asense of

settlementandmembersofthe_{receiving belonging,meaningfulsystems}ofbeliefs,

societyrefertopeople withahigher power viewsofselvesand others,means of

inthesociety. commerce,among many othervastly

2. Sinceculture isaconcept thatisdifficultto _{important influences on}theessentials of

define,hundredsofdefinitions have been livingandprocreation (Cu6llar, 2000)

proposed. Kroeber andKluckhohn_(I952) Different culturesareconceivedaslargely

collectedI67different definitionsofculture shared,unchangingandinternalised sets of fromtheliterature, all of themplausible. It _{beliefs, values and practices,}which are

is, however, verydifficulttoassessthe transmittedacrossgenerations, andwhich

behavior-in-context(Sch6npflug. 200I) Poortinga tial behavior. Itisimportant to note that a

(1990) contendedthat culturebecomes cultural environment does not impact on

manifestinsharedconstrainsthatlimitthe individualsuniformly_{(Padilla. I995)·}

behaviorrepertoireavailable to itsmembers Culturesarecommonlyperceived to be

in a_waydifferent from individuals from dynamicand evolvingrather thanstatic. othercultural_groups.Cultural environment Therefore.theculture ofthe migrant is not affectsthe rangeof stimuliand experiences identical tothe sedentarycounterparts as it

References

Berry, J· W._{(I992) Acculturation}and adapta- _{Gordon, M. M. (I964).}AssimilationinAmerican tion in a new society.International_Migra- lije. New York: Oxford University Press.

tion,30,69-86. Graves, T (I967) Psychologicalacculturation

Berry, J.W._{(I997)· Immigration, acculturation,} in atri-ethnic community.South-Western and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An Inter- Journal ofAnthropology. 23,337-350

national Review, 46.5-68 Hutnik, N. (I986) Patternsofethnicminority

Berry, I.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M. H.,& identification andmodelsofsocial adapta-Dasen, P. R. (Eds.).(I992) Cross-cultural tion. Ethnicand Racial_{Studies, 8 I50-I67·} psychology: Research andapplications. Jasinskala-Lathi, I.(2000) Psychological

accul-Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. turation and adaptation among

Russian-Bochner, S. (Ed.). (I982). Cultures incontact: _{speakingimmigrant}adolescentsinFinland. Studies in cross-culturalinteraction. Oxford: _{Unpublished doctoral dissertation.}

PergarnonPress. Helsinki:_{Social Psychological Studies.}

Bourhis,R.Y.,Moise, L.C., Pen·eault, S.,& Kroeber, A. L.,& Kluckhohn, C. (I952). Culture:

Sentcal, S. (I997) Towards an interactive Acriticalreviewofconcepts and *#nitions.

acculturationmodel: A social psychological (PapersofthePeabodyMuseum ofArchae-approach._{International Journal}ofPsychology, ology and Ethnology. Vol. 47· No. I) 32,369-386. Cambridge,MA:PeabodyMuseum. B6cker, A.(2000) Paving the way toabetter Lasry. J;&Sayegh, L. _(I992) Developing an

future: Turks intheNetherlands. In H.Ver- acculturationscale:Abidimensionalmodel.

meulen &R.Penninx_{(Eds.), Immigrant} In N. Grizenko,L. _{Sayegh, &}P._Migneault

integration:The Dutch case (pp. I53-I77)· (Eds.),Transculturalissuesinchild psychiatry

Amsterdam:_{Het Spinhuis.} (pp.₆₇₈₆₎ Montreal: EditionsDouglas.

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek(ZOOI). Martens, E. P. (I995)· Minderheden in beeld.

Bevolkingsstatistieken [Population Statistics] Kerncufers 1995 [Minorities in figures]. Voorburg/Heerlen:CBS. Rotterdam: ISEO-EUR.

Church, A. T._{(I982). Sojourner adjustment.} Moyerham, D. R.,&_{Forman, B. D. (1992)}

PsychologicalBulletin,91,540-572. Acculturationandadjustment: A

meta-Coleman, H. L. K. (1995) Strategiesfor coping analytic study. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral

with cultural_{diversity. The Counseling Sciences, 14, I63-200.}

Psychologist, 23,722-740 Negy, C.._{& Woods, D. J· (I992). The}

im-Cu6llar, I._{(2000). Acculturation as}amoderator _portanceofacculturationin understanding

of personality and psychological assessment. research_{with Hispanic-Americans.}

In R. H. Dana_{(Ed.), Handbook of}cross- Hispanicjournal of Behavioral Sciences, 14,

cultural and multicultural personalityassess- _224-247

psycho-metric_{perspective. American}Psychologist, Jossey-Bass.

34·IoGI1070 Van den Berg, R. H.,& Bleichrodt, N. (I994)·

Padilla. A. M. (Ed.), (I995)· Hispanic Psychology: Personal values and acculturation. In H. Criticalissues in theory and research.Thou- Grad, A. Blanco, &I Georgas (Eds.), Key

sand Oaks, CA:Sage. issuesincross-culturalpsychology:Selected

Pettigrew, T. F. (I998). Reactions towardthe papers»m the Twe(#h International Congress

new minoritiesofWestern Europe.Annual ofthe InternationalAssociationforCross.

Review_{ofSociology, 24,77103} CulturalPsychology (pp._240-250) Lisse:

Phalet, K.,& Verkuyten, M. (200I) Accul- Swets_{& Zeitlinger.}

turatiemetingen [Acculturation measures]. Vermeulen, H.,&Penninx, R.(Eds.).12000) In N. Bleichrodt & F. J. R. VandeVijver Immigrantintegration:TheDutch case.

(Eds.), Diagnostiek bijallochtonen: Mogelijk- Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.

heden en beperkingen van psychologischetests Ward, C. (1996) Acculturation. InD.Landis &

[Diagnosisofmigrants: Possiblities and R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbookofintercultural

restirctionsofpsychological tests}(pp._I77- training(pp._I24-Iz17) Thousand Oaks. CA:

I98).Lisse: Swets& Zeitlingen Sage.

Poortinga, Y H. _(I990) Towardsaconceptual- Ward, C.(I999) Models andmeasurements of

isation of culture forpsychology.Cross- acculturation. In W J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel,

Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 242-Io. _{D.K. Forgays, &}S. _{Hayes(Eds.),Merging}

Redfield,R.,Linton, R.,& Herskovits, M.H. past, present andfiture: Selected papershom

(I936). Memorandum on the study ofaccul- the FourteenthInternationalCongress of the turation. American_{Anthropologist, 38.I49}-I52 International Associationfor Cross-Cultural Rogler, L.H.,Cortes, D. E.,&Malgady, R.G. Psychology(pp 22I-229) Lisse:Swets &

(I99I). Acculturationandmentalhealth Zeitlingen

status_{amongHispanics: Convergence and} Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (200I)

new directionsforresearch.American The psychology_ofcultureshock.London:

Psychologist, 46, 585-597· Routledge.

Schanpflug, U. (2OOI).Perspectives oncultural Ward, C.,&Kennedy. A.(I994)· Acculturation

transmission: Introduction. Journal ofCross. strategies, psychological adjustment, and

CulturalPsychology, 32,I3I-I34· socioculturalcompetenceduring

cross-Segall. M. M. _{(I986). Culture}andbehavior: cultural transitions. International Journal of

Psychologyinglobal perspective.Annual Intercultural Relations, 18,329-343

Review of Psychology,_{37· 523-564} Wong-Rieger, D. (I984). Testing a model of

Suzuki, L. A.,Ponterotto, I. G; & Meller. P.J emotionalandcopingresponses to

prob-(Eds.).(2OOI).Handbookgfmulticultural lemsinadaptation:Foreignstudents at a assessment: Clinical, psychological,andeduca- Canadianuniversity. International Journal of

Chapter 2

Multiculturalism and Acculturation:

Views of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch*

ABSTRACT

The psychological componentofimmigration in the

Netherlandswas studied bycomparingviews on

multicultural-ism and_{acculturation orientation ofTurkish migrants} between Dutch majority (N= 1565) andTurkish-Dutch minority (N =

185) members. Multiculturalism was measured with an

adaptation ofthe Multicultural _Ideology Scale _(Berry& Kalin, 1995); acculturation orientation was investigated in different

domains of life. The results revealed that Dutch on average had a neutral attitudetoward multiculturalism in the

NetherlandswhileTurkish-Dutch showed a _{more positive} atti-tude. Regarding the acculturation strategies, Dutch adults pre-ferred assimilation_{above integration ofTurkish migrants in all}

lifedomains.Turkish-Dutch adults made a _{distinction in}

pub-lic and private domains: Integrationwas _preferred in _public

domains, and _separation in _privatedomains. In _public

domains both cultural groups agreedthatTurkish migrants

should adapt tothe Dutch culture. In privatedomainsthere was noagreement at all in the views ofDutch and Turkish-Dutch. These results suggest that the views on acculturation

and multiculturalism differ_{substantially} for_{majority and}

minority group members. Implicationsare discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Due to increasedinternationalmigration during thelastdecades,thepopulation of

several_{Western European societies,including}the Netherlands,hasbecome

cultur-allydiverse. Interest inthepossibilities andconcerns_{of immigration,}especially its

effects onimmigrants and itsimplications forthereceivingsociety, hasstimulated

research in the socialsciences.Twocomplementary domainsinpsychologyexplicitly

addressthis field: acculturation andintergroup relations(Berry,_{200I). Acculturation} researchin_{cross-cultural psychology}hasfocused_{mainlyon changes and}continuities

inculturalorientation_{of immigrants' followingmigration,}whileresearchon inter-grouprelationsinsocialpsychology has beenlargely concernedwithstudying the

atti-tudesofmajoritypeopletowardmigrantgroups.Althoughthe outcomesofthe

accul-turation process and the intergroup relations depend substantially on mutual

expectations andinteractionsbetweenthemembers ofthemajority andthemigrant

groups, very few studies havesystematically comparedtheirmutualviews thus far

(Berry,200I; Bourhis, Moise, Perreault,& SenUcal,I997;Taylor_{& Lambert, I996;}

Ward, Bochner, & _{Furnham, 2001). The present study} addresses this issue by

comparing the views

of

native Dutch and Turkish-Dutch in the Netherlands* on

multiculturalismandacculturationattitudes.The central researchquestion is to what

extent the views on thesetopicsdifferbetween DutchmajorityandTurkish-Dutch minoritygroupmembers.

A FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING IMMIGRATION

The frameworkfor studyingimmigrationdeveloped by Berry_(200I) enables compar-isons between views_ofmigrantand_{majoritygroup}members.Thisframework

illus-trates the different components involved in the study

of

immigration, including

contextual, psychological, andpolicy components.Thepsychologicalcomponent of immigration addresses two central attitudes: the acculturation attitudes held by

immigrants andthemulticultural _{ideology of}the_{majoritygroup.}

Acculturation attitudes

Thetermacculturation has beencoined todescribethe process of all changes that

take placewhen individuals

of

different ethnoculturalgroups comeintoprolonged

contact with one another(Berry, _I992).Although acculturationprocessesinvolve both the migrant andthedominant population, thechanges are mostconsequential for the migrant group members. Therefore, acculturation research has investigated mainlythe experiences andattitudesofimmigrants.

Acculturationattitudes, according to Berry(I997),refer to twofundamentalissues

facingimmigrants:Oneinvolves the decisiontomaintainone'sculture

of

origin and the otherrefers tothe extenttowhichtheimmigrantwishes tohavecontacts with and

parti-cipation inthemainstreamculture. Bourhis and hisassociates_(I997) proposed a

MULTICULTURALISM ANDACCULTURATION 25

social. These authors state that the twounderlying fundamental attitudes refer then toculturalmaintenance (theimportanceofmaintainingkey aspectsoftheethnic_culture)

and tocultural_{adaptation (theimportance}of_{adapting tokey aspects}ofthemajority group) Various models have been developedtomeasuretherelationshipsbetween the two

acculturation attitudes. The theoretical conceptualizationhas shifted froma

unidi-mensional assimilation model to the recognition that acculturation is a complex,

multifacetedprocess (Berry, I997; forreviewssee Flannery,Reise, & Yu, 200I, and

Ryder,Alden,&_{Paulhus, 2000; Ward, I996).}Twoofthesemodels playanimportant role inthe presentstudy.The unidimensionalmodelimpliesaprocess

of

change along

asingledimension,ashiftfromcultural maintenance tofulladaptation totheculture ofthe_{majority (Gordon, I964)· In}the bidimensionalmodel,cultural maintenance and

cultural adaptation constitute relatively independent dimensions: Increasing

identi-fication withoneculture doesnot_{necessarilyrequiredecreasing}identification with

theother culture (Berry,_I997;Hutnik, I986; LaFromboise, Coleman,&Gerton, I993;

Moghaddam, _I988; Sanchez&Fernandez, I993;Szapocznik,Kurtines,&Fernandez,

I980). Empirical studiescomparing acculturation modelshave supported the bidi-mensionalnatureofacculturation(e.g.,Flannery et al., 200I; Ryder et al., 2000).

Currently, themostpopularandwidelyusedbidimensional model is that

of

Berry

(I992, I997). Inthis model, combinationsofthetwodimensions yieldthefollowing fouracculturation_{strategies:integration, assimilation, separation,}and marginaliza-tion _(seeFigure I).Theintegration strategy reflectsadesire tomaintainkey features

ofthemigrant culture whilealsoadoptingkey features ofthe majoritygroup.

Assim-ilationoccurswhenmaintenance ofthe_migrantculture is seenasundesirable while adaptation tothe culture ofthemajoritygroupis highly important.The separation

strategy reflects apreferencetomaintain features ofthe migrant culturewhile

re-jectingthecultureofthe majoritygroup. Finally, marginalizationrefers toarejection of boththemigrant andthemajorityculture.

Yes

Separation Integration

Maintain heritage

cultureandidentity? No

Marginalization Assimilation

No Yes

Seek contact with and participate in the host society at large? (Berry, 1992)

Adapt to culture of the majority? (Bourhis et al., 1997)

In _{measuring acculturation strategies}

of

_immigrants, a number

of

relevant life

domainsare selectedforwhich culturalchoices can be made. Two methods have been

commonly_{applied. One uses two statements for}aparticularlife_{domain, one for each}

of the twounderlying dimensions (e.g., importance

of

having ethnic friends and importance

of

havingfriends fromthemajoritygroup), andthen converts the two dimensionscores intoscores for the fourstrategies. Theother usesfourstatements

for thelifedomains, one for each of thefour strategies(e.g.,importanceofhaving

ethnicand_{majoritygroup friends as anintegration item). Recently,}the lattermethod

has beencriticized onanumber

of

_{conceptual and methodologicalgrounds (e.g.,}

Donh & Berry_{I994; Rudmin & Ahmadzadeh, 2OOI). The}formermethodin which

the twodimensionsareaddressedindependently, is proposed as amoreeffective way

of

_{measuring acculturation attitudes.}

Results using both methodsshowed that therewas usuallyanoverall coherent preference for one _{particular acculturation strategy:} The _{majority of migrants} preferred integration, followed eitherbyassimilationorseparation,while

marginal-izationtended to be theleast_{preferred acculturationstrategy(e.g.,Berry, Kim,Power,} Young,_{& Bulaki, I989;} Berry & Sam, _I997; Lasry& Sayegh, 1992; Vande Vijver,

Helms-Lorenz, & Feltzer, I999;Van Oudenhoven,Willemsma, & Prins, I996). Some

studies, however,reported variation

of

strategies acrosslifedomains. Developments

in onedomain neednot always follow the same course as developments

in

other domains.There is amaindistinctionbetween_{private (at home)} and_{public(outside}

home) domains. In private domains, immigrants preferred cultural maintenance

more thaninpublicdomains

oflife

(Phalet, VanLotringen, &Entzinger, 2000;Taylor

& Lambert, _I996;Vermeulen&_{Penninx, 2000).}

Multicultural _ideologies

Multicultural_{ideologies of the dominant group of}the _societyconstitute a

funda-mental elementinintergrouprelations; the ideologies

will

underliepolicyoptions for managing cultural diversity

within

asocietyanddefine the constraints ofthe

accul-turationprocessfor migrants (Berry,_200I).Multiculturalideology refers to the overall

evaluation ofthemajority groupaddressing the degree towhichtheypossesspositive

attitudes toward _immigrants and cultural _{diversity. A positive overall evaluation} impliesacombination ofa_{positive view on}culturalmaintenance

of

_{ethnic groups}

and an appreciation of the need to accommodatediversity inanequitable way. This

ideology,which attempts to strike a balancebetween unity anddiversity within a

society, isaprecondition formulticulturalism (Citrin, _Sears, Muste, & Wong, 2001).

The termmulticulturalismwasintroducedinCanada asapolicy goal, inrejection

of the idea

of

cultural assimilation in which newcitizenswereexpected to give up

theiroriginal ethnic identityinfavor oftheadoption of a new identity.

Multicultural-ism refers toanattitude toaculturally pluralsociety;morespecifically,itrefers to the

MULTICULTURALISM AND_{ACCULTURATION 27}

equal chancesand opportunities. Thismeansthatcultural diversity is not only recognized as a demographic characteristic ofthe society but alsoevaluated by its citizens as

important forthefunctioning ofthe society asawhole (Berry, _I984;Berry& Kalin,

I995)

Despite thegrowing prominenceof multiculturalisminWesterngovernment poli-cies, multiculturalism has_{got scant}attentionin_empiricalresearch. Studies on

multi-culturalism indicatethatmajority groupmembersgenerally do nothavepositive feel-ings about immigrants _{(Simon &} Lynch, I999). Ho (I₉₉₀₎ found only moderate support formulticulturalism in Australia. Taylor andLambert _(I996) showed that cultural diversity wasingeneral not valued by themajority

of

EuropeanAmericans: In their opinion minority groups should maintain their culture only

in

private domains of life and in more publicdomains of live theyshouldadapt to the customs

and culture ofthe EuropeanAmericans. Zick, Wagner, Van Dick, and_{PetZel (200I)}

concluded that the idea

of

multiculturalism is not prominent in German society. Taken together, the ideology

of

multiculturalism seems to be more endorsed in

government policies invariouscountriesthan couldbeexpected on thebasisofpublic

opinionsurveys

of

majority_{group members (Citrin et al., 200I)}

Mutual views

of

_minority and _{majority group members}

The outcomes ofthe acculturation process and the intergroup relations depend

substantially onmutualexpectations andinteractions betweenthemembers of the majority andthemigrantgroups. Recent researchin immigrationissueshasfocused more on reciprocal views, involving individualsofbothgroupsincontact (Berry, I997; Bourhis et al., I997;Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker,& Obdrzalek, 2000).

Accu/turation attitudes.Thefouracculturation_{strategies can}be assessedboth_among migrantandmajority group members. Intheformercase,_{migrantgroup members} are askedtoindicatetheirpreferred acculturationstrategies,while inthe latter case

majority groupmembersareaskedto indicatewhich acculturationstrategy theythink

migrants should use. Depending on the combination

of

_preferred and expected choices

of

acculturationstrategies bybothgroups,their social relationship can be con-sensual, problematic,or conflictual _{(Bourhis et al.,I997;} Montreuil&_{Bourhis, 2OOI).}

When both_{migrants andmajoritygroup members}sharea_{preference for either}

in-tegration orassimilation, aconsensual_{relationshipis expected,characterized by} posi-tiveandeffective communication and low intergroup tension. Problematic

relation-ship may emergewhen migrants andthemajority group members only partlyagree on thedesirable acculturation orientation (e.g., migrant group members favor in-tegration butmajority_{group members prefer that migrants assimilate).} Conflictual

relationships can_{emergewhen majoritygroup members endorse segregation or when}

Onlyfewrecent_{empirical studiescomparedacculturationstrategies}

_of

_migrants andmajority group members (e.g., _{Phalet et al.,2000; Piontkowski et al., 2000; Van}

Oudenhoven, Prins, &_{Buunk, I 998;} Verkuytenen

Thijs, I999).

The conclusions emerging from these studies were that members

of

migrant groups supported

cultural maintenance more than did majority_{groups members, and that}cultural

adaptation was more favored by _{natives than} by migrants. In the studies of Van Oudenhoven and his associates, _{and Verkuijten}and _Thijs, Dutch _{majoritygroup} members_{expressed most support for}anassimilation_{strategy bymigrants}whereas

migrants preferred integration.

Multicultural_{ideologies. National surveys in Canada addressed multicultural}

ideo-logies of both minorityandmajoritygroups with the sameinstrument. Berry and

Kalin (I995) employedamulticulturalideologyscale,whichassessedsupport for having

a_{culturallydiverse society}in_Canada, inwhich_{ethnocultural groups maintain and}

sharetheircultureswith_{others, and all groupsparticipate in the life ofthe largersociety.}

Multicultural_{ideology has been}assessed_usinga_bipolarunidimensionalscale with

positive evaluation

of

cultural diversityand_support

of

_{multiculturalism at one pole,}

and negativeevaluation

of

diversity, segregation, assimilation, and exclusion at the

other (Berry, I984)· The results revealed that both theminority andthemajoritygroups supportmulticulturalism inCanada,thoughthesupportbyminorities isstronger. Intergroupattitudes. Theories of intergroup attitudes provide a framework for under-standing differencesinattitudestoward acculturationstrategies andmulticulturalism

by migrantsandmajoritygroup members. Peoplederive many

of

their

self-concep-tions and positive feelings about themselves byreferringtotheir membership of

emotionally significantsocial categories or groups(theingroups). Inexamining inter-groupattitudes, social_{comparison forms}an _{importantaspect. One of the most}

con-sistentfindings is that members

of

socialgroups attempt to achieve positive dis-tinctivenessfor their group (i.e..a favorableevaluation of theingroup overrelevant outgroups). Furthermore, positive affect towardingroup andthe absence

of

these positive feelings towardoutgroups lead to biasandprejudice(Tajfel,_I978). Research has shownthat although ingroup favoritismandoutgroup derogation (in the form of prejudice or discrimination)areuniversalandserve_{similar psychological functions,}

these features varyacrossindividuals_{and groups (Brewer}& Brown, I998).There is

evidence_{that group} statusand social _{position play}an_{importantmoderating role in}

this process: The greater one's social status. thegreaterone'stendency todisplay ingroup favoritism_(Sidanius&Pratto, _I999) Furthermore,studies in this area have shown that members ofboth high-and low-status groups tend to favor the high-status

groupon status-relevantdimensions and accept the system

of

hierarchy itself when

the statusdistinctionbetween groupsis believed tobelegitimate _{(deserved) (Levin,}

MULTICULTURALISM AND ACCULTURATION 29

Group-based statusdistinctions are,however, notonly formedandmaintained as a function

of

ingroup favoritism, but also asa desire that the own ingroup be

dom-inant orhavecontrolover_{other outgroups (Sidanius,} Pratto,&_{Rabinowitz, I994)·} High-statusmajoritygroup members may wanttomaintainorextendtheirculture

and comparativelysuperiorstatus andpower inthe society bydemandingimmigrants

to adapt to themainstreamdominantculture, orbyendorsingsegregationor

exclu-sion

of

immigrants. Montreuiland Bourhis _(200I) showedthatacculturation atti-tudes ofthemajoritygroup towardimmigrantgroupsdepend also on the perceived statusand _{cultural similarity of}the _{migrantgroup.} Intheir _{study,integration was}

more endorsed_{for groups with}a_{higher status (with more cultural similarity and less}

social distance) whereasassimilation,_segregation,andexclusion were _{more strongly} endorsedfor_groupswithlower status_{(alsocharacterized by}lesscultural_similarity

andmore_{social distance).}

Outgroups arealsoassumed to hinder ingroupgoals. A perceivedthreat to the security ofone'sethnicidentityand social power can alsoinfluencetheevaluation of outgroups.Majoritymembers oftenseeminorities (especially. when theyare cultur-allyvery_different) andtheirdesire tomaintaintheirheritage culture asathreat to

theirown culture and totheunity ofthe society as awhole _(VanOudenhoven et al.,

I998).Therefore, majoritygroup members may wanttoenforce adaptation.Migrant

groups, ontheother hand,may perceive adaptation to majorityculture asathreat to

their groupidentityand culture (Verkuyten& Thijs, 1999). Inaddition,tosurvive economically andtobecomesuccessful inthe society,migrants may favor the

high-statusgroup and thereforethey adapt to themainstream culture toacertaindegree.

Migrants oftenfindthemselves inbetween twodemandinggroups,theirown group

and the _{majority group.} To _{satisfy both sets} of_{possibly not always compatible}

demands, theintegration acculturationstrategyremains themostobviousoption.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE NETHERLANDS

In the last₃₀years,manypeoplefrom differentcultural background came to live in the Netherlands. Alarge number

of

immigrants came fromtheformerDutch

col-onies, from Southern Europe,Turkeyand Moroccoas foreignlaborers during the I96os,and recentlyfrom differentcountries asrefugees (CBS, I999). At this mo-ment, I7% ofthe population is offoreign origin. This figure includesthose who are

foreign bornandthose born intheNetherlands withatleast onenonnativeparent. It is estimated that around the year20IO almost half ofthe population ofthe three

largest citieswillconsistofmigrants, whichis_{unprecedented}inDutch_history.

There-fore, it is notsurprising thatthe topic

of

managingculturaldiversity inthe

Nether-landshasgained much prominence inthepublic discourseonmigrants.

The Netherlands is one of thecountries

in

Europe thathas adoptedthe ideal of

egalitariangoals. Itmeansthatminoritieshave equalaccesstoinstitutionsand their

share in its products and services, and that theycanmaintaintheir ethnic culture. The government, whichbyconstitutionisobligedto treatall groupsalike, does not inter-fere in thisprocess

of

culturalmaintenance. Inpractice,the government policy

im-plies thatminoritygroups can keep key features

of

their own culturewhileaccepting and adopting thevalues andcultureoftheDutchmajority. Despite theDutch govern-ment policy

of

multiculturalism,intolerance and prejudiceofnative Dutchtoward mig-rantshasbecome amore seriousproblem inrecent years _(Vermeulen&_{Penninx, 2000).}

THE PRESENTSTUDY

The Netherlands with its growing cultural diversity and itsmulticulturalist policy

approach provides a good placeforresearchonimmigrationissues. _{The purpose of} the present study wastoinvestigate the psychologicalcomponent

of

immigration in

the Netherlands, in particular theextentofpreconditions

of

multiculturalism; how

Turkish-DutchminorityandDutchmajoritygroup members

think

about multicul-turalism inthe Netherlands and about _{perceived opportunities} and acculturation orientationsofTurkishmigrants. Ourcentralquestion was towhatextent these con-ceptsdifferbetween these twoculturalgroups. Themainreasonsforchoosing the Turkish group forthis_{study were twofold: size (as one}ofthelargestmigrantgroups

inthe Netherlands) andprominenceasmigrant_{group (Turks}areoften seen byDutch

asthe prototypicalmigrantgroupwithrelatively lowstatus; Hagendoorn & Hraba, I989; Pettigrew, I998).

More specifically,fourattitudeswereexaminedboth among Dutch and Turkish-Dutch: (I) attitudes toward the Netherlands asamulticultural_{Society, (2)} attitudes towardculturalmaintenance

of

Turkishmigrants, (3) attitudestoward cultural

ad-aptationofTurkishmigrants, and₍₄₎perceived opportunities

ofTurkish

migrants. The followingfivepredictionswere examined:

I. Turkish-Dutchareexpected tosupporttheideal

of

multicul-turalism more thantheDutchmajoritydosince Turkish-Dutch gain morefrommulticulturalism (as they can main-tain their own culture andcanobtain higher_{social status).} Dutch, ontheotherhand, focus more onthe possible neg-ativeaspects

of

_{multiculturalism (as it} maythreatentheir

dominant cultural_{and social status).}

2. Turkish-Dutchplacemore emphasisoncultural

main-tenanceofTurkishmigrants than Dutch do. Ontheother

hand, Dutchstresstheimportance

of

cultural adaptation of Turkish migrant more than Turkish-Dutch do.

MULTICULTURALISM AND ACCULTURATION 31

integration_(asbeing themost adequate strategy to satisfy demands ofboth_{groups) andDutch prefer assimilation (as}

the leastthreattotheir culturalandsocial_dominance). 4. SinceTurkish migrantsareoften associatedwith

immig-rantswithrelativelylowstatus and they may perceive

preju-dice

of

native Dutch.we expectthatperceivedopportunities

of

_{Turkish migrants}areevaluatedmore_{negatively by} Turkish-Dutch thanbyDutch.

5. The questionwasaddressed whatthe degree

of

coherence is betweenmulticulturalismandacculturation. We_expected

that persons in both culturalgroupswho supportthe ideal

of

multiculturalism,favoralsocultural maintenance and cultural_adaptationofTurkish_migrants.

Finally, we looked fordifferences related to background variables, including age, gender, educational level, andemployment, making itpossibleto control for them

when testing ourexpectations.

METHOD

Participants

A group of ₅₆₅ Dutch andagroup of_I85 Turkish-Dutch participantswereinvolved

in

this study.The Dutchsampleconsisted of_{693 females and872males;}their mean

age was_48.99year (SD = I5·42). TheTurkish-Dutchsampleconsisted of₈₃ females

and I02 males, with a mean age of_30·5Iyears (SD = Io.42).The educationallevel,

withscoresranging from I (primary education) to5 (universitydegree),was higher in

the Dutch sample (M = 3.40, SD = I.30) than intheTurkish-Dutchsample (M = 2.86,

SD = I.38). IntheDutchsample46%

ofthe

participantswere employed; the

employ-ment rate was 5I.9% in the Turkish-Dutch sample. The Turkish-Dutch sample

consisted of II2 first-generation and 7I second-generation _{Turkish-Dutch (two} missing_cases). The Dutch andtheTurkish-Dutch samplesdifferedsignificantly in age, t(287.I) = 2I.46, p < .001, and in educational level, _{t(I698) = 5.27, P < .OOI} (gender andemployment status werenot significantly different).

TheDutch participantsweremembers ofatelepanel ofaresearchcenter in the

Netherlands _{(CentERdata),} whichisassumed to beafairlygood representative sample

ofthe Dutch native_{population. They fill in}a_{questionnaire about various}research

topics usingapersonalcomputerevery twoweeks. TheTurkish-Dutch participants

were approachedusinga_variety

of

networksources,_{including differentorganizations}

and institutions oftheTurkish-Dutch,andgovernmentagencies inthe southern part

reasonsof_{privacy, it is}not_{possible to obtain a}listofnamesandaddresses

ofimmig-rantsforresearch purposes. The most widely applied methodis_{snowball sampling,}

followed bya_comparison

of

_{importantbackground characteristics of the sampled}

participants with themigrantpopulationatlargeinorder to gaininsightinpossible

sample bias.Thisprocedure showed thatoursamplewasquite similar totheTurkish population in_{the Netherlands (CBS, I999;Vermeulen & Penninx, 2000)}

in

terms of

age, gender,andemployment status. Theonly differencewasrelated toschooling; our

samplewassomewhathighereducated thanthe Turkishpopulation inthe Nether-lands, X,(4, N = I83) - 70·96, p < .ooI.

Instruments_{and procedure}

Theinventoryconsistedofthreeparts. Thefirstaskedfor demographicinformation,

like gender, age,educationallevel, and employmentstatus.The second wasformed bythe 'Dutch Multicultural Ideology_{Scale'No items),}atranslationandadaptation of

the Canadian Multicultural IdeologyScale_{(Berry & Kalin, I995). This}scale assesses

support for havingaculturallydiverse society

in

Canada.There are tenitems, with

five worded inanegativedirection _{(seeTable I).}

Table i. Items, foctorloadings, and efect sizes ofthe multiculturalism scale (8 items) for Dutch and Turkish-Dutch

Items Dutch Turkish Effect

Dutch sizesa

I. Dutch shouldrecognize that theDutchsocietyconsists of

groupswith different cultural backgrounds .52 .67 -·2I**

2. Ethnicminoritiesshouldbehelpedto preservetheircultural

heritage intheNetherlands .80 _·70 -I.02***

3. It is best for theNetherlands ifall peopleforgettheir

different culturalbackgrounds as soonaspossible .75 ·47 ·87***

4. A society that hasavarietyofculturalgroups is more able

to tacklenew problems as theyoccur .67 .65 -·7I***

5. The unity ofthiscountryisweakened byDutchofdifferent

culturalbackgroundsstickingtotheir oldways .68 .44

I.07**-6. If Dutchofdifferent cultural origins want tokeeptheir own

culture,theyshould keep itto_{themselves .58} .39 I.IO***

'7· A society that hasavarietyofcultural groups has more

problemswithnational unitythan societies with one or two

basiccultural_groups

-8. Dutchnativesshould do moretolearnabout the customs

and heritageofdifferent cultural groups in this country .65 ·57 -·59***

9. Immigrantparents must encouragetheir childrentoretain

the cultureandtraditionsoftheir homeland .64 ·48 -I.IG*** Io. People who come to live intheNetherlands shouldchange

their behavior to be more liketheDutch

-a. Effect sizeisdefined as thedifferenceofDutch mean andtheTurkishmean,dividedbytheir

pooled standard deviation.