The dynamics of contact and acculturation

1
The dynamics of contact and acculturation

• Rupert Brown
• School of Psychology
• Sussex University
• r.brown_at_sussex.ac.uk

With Gulseli Baysu (Istanbul, Turkey) Jens
Binder (Nottingham Trent University, UK) Lindsey
Cameron (Kent University, UK) Roberto Gonzalez
(Santiago, Chile) Rosa Hossain (Kent University,
UK) Camilla Matera (Firenze, Italy) Dennis
Nigbur (Christchurch University, UK) Elizabeth
Okoh (Sussex University, UK) Karen Phalet
(Leuven University, Belgium) Adam Rutland
(Goldsmiths, UK) Christina Stefanile (Firenze,
Italy) Linda Tip (Sussex University, UK) Hanna
Zagefka (Royal Holloway, UK)
2
Migration and acculturation a global phenomenon

• Over 232 million people (3.2 of worlds
  population) live in a country other than that of
  their birth in Europe alone there are 72 million
  migrants (UN, 2013).
• Such mass migration poses many challenges as
  migrants and members of receiving society come
  into contact with one another Migrants -
  changing identities, new social mores and values,
  discrimination experiences Receiving society
  perceived economic and symbolic threats

3
What is acculturation?

• Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which
  result when groups of individuals having
  different cultures come into continuous
  first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in
  the original cultural patterns of either or both
  groups.
• Redfield, Linton Herskovits (1936, p. 149)

4
What is acculturation?

• Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which
  result when groups of individuals having
  different cultures come into continuous
  first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in
  the original cultural patterns of either or both
  groups.
• Redfield, Linton Herskovits (1936, p. 149)
• Note
• Intergroup phenomenon (not just something that
  happens to one group)
• Dynamic process (concerned with change)
• Involves intergroup contact

5
Berrys frameworkFrom Sam Berry (2010)
6
Berrys framework some observations

• Traditional focus on immigrant or minority
  groups majority just seen as background.
• Whats best for you? Integration is often the
  modal preference for minorities and is thought to
  yield best adaptation outcomes, but this may
  depend on the prevailing societal climate or
  local context (e.g., Berry et al., 2006).
  Experienced discrimination is frequently as a
  strong (or stronger) predictor of minority group
  well-being as acculturation attitudes.
• Very few longitudinal (or experimental) studies
  exceptions Oppedal et al. (2004),
  Jasinskaja-Lahti (2008) hence, causal inferences
  difficult.
• Majority-Minority concordance Subsequent models
  stress the importance of concordance/discrepancy
  between majority and minority acculturation
  attitudes for intergroup relations Bourhis et
  al. (1997), Piontkowski et al. (2002).
• Implications for social adaptation? Traditional
  focus is on individual adaptation (e.g.,
  well-being, life chances), but social adaptation
  matters too (e.g., quality of majority-minority
  relations) this was little studied prior to 2000.

7
The Contact Hypothesis some observations

• Traditional focus on majority group members
  what can be done to reduce their prejudiced
  attitudes? Minorities little studied (Dixon et
  al., 2012)
• Allport(1954) classic formulation with its four
  conditions (equal status, acquaintance potential,
  cooperation, institutional support.
• Pettigrew Tropp (2006) Meta-analysis of 515
  studies with 713 samples (N gt 250,000). Effect
  sizes, r -.20 to -.23 (for contact-prejudice
  relationship) minorities and majorities differ
  (Tropp Pettigrew, 2005) stronger effects for
  majorities (.24) than for minorities (.18).
• Very few longitudinal studies exceptions,
  Binder et al., 2009 Levin et al., 2003 Swart et
  al., 2011. Hence, causal inferences difficult .
• Is direct contact necessary? The Extended Contact
  Hypothesis (Wright et al., 1997) knowing ingroup
  members with outgroup friends can reduce
  prejudice (changed ingroup norms?).

8
Acculturation Contact developing a dynamic
intergroup perspectiveBrown Zagefka (2011)
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
129-184

• Contact is a common denominator in both research
  traditions (therefore, incorporate both
  acculturation and contact variables in the same
  research design).
• Importance of studying both majority and minority
  groups (acculturation is not a one-way process).
• Need for a more dynamic approach (therefore,
  study change, including developmental effects,
  and mutual intergroup influence).
• Use more longitudinal and experimental designs
  (greater causal interpretability).

9
Some recent illustrative research

• A Acculturation and minority group adaptation
  the importance of intergroup context
• Young ethnic minority childrens acculturation
  attitudes and well-being in UK
• African migrants to UK acculturation attitudes,
  discrimination, well-being
• Acculturation attitudes and well-being among
  Muslims in UK Netherlands
• Acculturation attitudes, school climate and
  educational achievement in Belgium
• B Acculturation and mutual adaptation
  intergroup dynamics
• Indigenous and majority group acculturation
  preferences in Chile
• Experimental analysis of effects of perceived
  immigrant acculturation attitudes on Italian
  majority intergroup attitudes
• Direct and indirect contact as antecedents of
  acculturation attitudes among Peruvian migrants
  and Chilean majority
• Prejudice as an antecedent and consequence of
  acculturation attitudes in three European
  countries

10
A Acculturation and minority group adaptation
the importance of intergroup context
11
Acculturation as a process a developmental
studyBrown et al. (2013) Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1656-1667

• Study of British ethnic minority children (N
  206, age 5 11 years), primarily from S Asia
  (e.g., India, Sri Lanka)
• Measures acculturation attitudes adaptation
  (e.g., self esteem, emotional symptoms (teacher
  ratings))
• Three wave study, 6 months between testing

12
Acculturation attitudes by age Brown et al.
(2013)
5-7 yrs
8-11 yrs
13
Changes in self-esteem for immigrant children
(2nd generation) with different acculturation
strategiesBrown et al. (2013)
14
Effects of an integrationist orientation on
emotional symptoms (teacher ratings)Brown et al.
(2013)
t2
t1
Integrationist orientation
.18
Emotional symptoms
Emotional symptoms
.65
15
Acculturation attitudes and well-being among
African migrants in UKOkoh Brown (in prep)

• Sample N228 African migrants to UK (Mage
  21.6, range 12-42), incl. many Muslims
• Measures acculturation attitudes, well-being
  (PANAS, General Health), contact with majority,
  perceived discrimination
• Design cross-sectional survey

16
Acculturation attitudesOkoh Brown
17
Acculturation attitudes and well-being
Culture Maintenance
.22
PANAS
Discrimination
-.22
18
Acculturation attitudes and well-being
Culture Maintenance
.22
PANAS
Discrimination
-.22
R2 .13
Culture Maintenance
.19
Gen Health
-.21
Discrimination
.21
R2 .16
Contact (with majority)
19
Acculturation attitudes and well-being a
longitudinal studyTip Brown (under review)

• Design Two longitudinal (internet-based) studies
  of Muslims (UK, Netherlands) Ns 209, 70
  matched, UK 230, 70 matched, Netherlands.
  Mage 27.4, 29.9 years 122/163F, 87/67M 6
  weeks time lag.
• Measures Culture Maintenance (CM), Desire for
  Contact (DC), in both Public (and Private)
  domains perceived discrimination well-being
  (PANAS).

20
Acculturation attitudes and well-being a
longitudinal study cross-sectional results
In both studies pubCM, p lt .01, pubCM X Discrim
interaction, p lt .05
21
Acculturation attitudes and well-being
longitudinal results
t1
t2
Public CM
Well-being
.29 (UK), .26 (Ne)
R2 .74 (UK), .65(Ne)
In both studies, the only significant
longitudinal predictor, controlling for the DV at
t1, was Public CM, p lt .05 reverse paths were ns.
22
Acculturation, adaptation and intergroup
climateBaysu, Phalet Brown (2011) Social
Psychology Quarterly, 74, 121-143

• According to Berry, adaptation outcomes of
  minority group acculturation depend on social
  climate if this is antithetical to
  multiculturalism, Integration might not be
  optimal strategy.
• Study of Turkish immigrants in Belgium (N 576,
  age 18 35 yrs)
• adaptation educational outcomes (final level of
  school/college achieved), controlling for
  secondary school entry (academic vs vocational)
• acculturation measured via identification (Ethnic
  group, National group) four classic Berry
  strategies derived from crossing Ps levels on
  those two measures (Hi vs. Lo).
• key moderator level of perceived discrimination
  experienced at school (intergroup climate)

23
Acculturation, adaptation and intergroup
climateBaysu, Phalet Brown (2011)
Probability of academic success
24
B Acculturation and mutual adaptation
intergroup dynamics
25
Perceptions of majority members acculturation
preferences can shape minority members own
acculturation preferences evidence from
ChileZagefka, Gonzalez Brown (2011) British
Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 216-233.

• Samples Mapuche school students (age 14 23
  years), Ns 566 (Study 1) and 394 (Study 2). The
  Mapuche are the largest single indigenous group
  in Chile.
• Design cross-sectional surveys conducted in
  Santiago and Temuco
• Measures
• own acculturation attitudes (desire for
  contact/culture maintenance)
• perceived acculturation attitudes of the majority
  for the Mapuche (desire for contact/culture
  maintenance).

26
Association between perceived (majority)
acculturation attitudes and own acculturation
attitudesZagefka et al. (2011)
27
Influence of perceived acculturation attitudes of
outgroupMatera, Stefanile Brown (2011) Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 776-785

• Context majority attitudes towards immigrants in
  Italy
• Two experimental studies (Ns 220, 135, native
  Italians) the perceived acculturation
  preferences of an African immigrant were
  manipulated via a fake but seemingly real
  newspaper interview. He expressed (independently)
  preference for Cultural Maintenance (or not) and
  Contact (or not) in 2 X 2 design.
• Tolerance towards Africans, combination of
  evaluative and affective measures (r .71).
• Study 1 used non-student Ps

28
Influence of perceived acculturation attitudes of
outgroup (Study 1)Matera, Stefanile Brown
(2011)
ANOVA Contact (F 120.62, ?2 .36)
Maintenance (F 10.71, ?2 .05) Interaction
(F 18.91, ?2 .08). Effects of Contact on
Tolerance were mediated by Symbolic Threat and
Meta-stereotypic perceptions (what the outgroup
thinks of Italy)
29
Contact, norms and acculturation
attitudesGonzalez, Zagefka, Brown et al. (in
prep)

• Context Intergroup attitudes between Peruvian
  immigrants and Chile majority members Peruvians
  are one of the largest immigrant groups to Chile.
  
• Longitudinal design time lag, 5 months Ns 475
  (majority, Chileans), 112 (minority, Peruvians).
• Measures direct contact ( outgroup friends),
  extended contact ( friends with outgroup
  friends), norms about contact (friends approval
  of contact with outgroup), acculturation
  attitudes, positive feelings towards outgroup

30
own preference for culture maintenance t2
0.147
0.276
friends approval for contact with outgroupt1
Positive affect towards outgroup t2
.141
0.075 ns
Direct Contactt1
0.086 ns
0.190
own preference for contact t2
Control t1 of all variables measured at T2
31
own preference for culture maintenance t2
0.147
0.276
Extended Contact t1
0.200
R2.0.361
0.300
-0.006 ns
friends approval for contact with outgroupt1
Positive affect towards outgroup t2
.141
0.075 ns
0.199
Direct Contactt1
0.086 ns
0.190
own preference for contact t2
Chilean. RMSEA0.067 SRMR0.056 CFI0.971
Chi31.598 p0.000 n475
Control t1 of all variables measured at T2
32
own preference for culture maintenance t2
-0.160 0.147
-0.199 ? 0.276
Extended Contact t1
0.142 ns 0.200
R2.0.395 R2.0.361
0.311 0.300
0.026 ns -0.006 ns
friends approval for contact with outgroupt1
Positive affect towards outgroup t2
.141
-0.100 ns 0.075 ns
0.077 ? 0.199
Direct Contactt1
0.585 0.086 ns
-0.017 ns 0.190
own preference for contact t2
Peruvian. RMSEA0.000 SRMR0.036 CFI01.00
Chi9.177 p0.515 n112 Chilean. RMSEA0.067
SRMR0.056 CFI0.971 Chi31.598 p0.000 n475
Control t1 of all variables measured at T2
33
Prejudice as an antecedent of acculturation
attitudes (and vice versa)Zagefka, Binder, Brown
et al. (in press) European Journal Social
Psychology

• Sample N 1655 (1143 majority, 512 minority)
  school students (16-18 yrs) from Be, De and GB
• Design longitudinal, 6 month time lag
• Measures
• acculturation attitudes (desire for heritage
  culture maintenance, desire for majority culture
  adoption)
• prejudice towards the outgroup (social distance
  negative intergroup emotions)
• prior contact included as a control

34
Reciprocal effects of prejudice and acculturation
attitudesZagefka et al. (in press)
T1
T2
-.27
CMaint
Prejudice
CAdoption
.21
Majority
35
Reciprocal effects of prejudice and acculturation
attitudesZagefka et al. (in press)
T1
T2
-.27 .05
CMaint
R2 .41 R2 .25
Prejudice
CAdoption
R2 .33 R2 .33
.21 -.09
Majority Minority
36
Reciprocal effects of prejudice and acculturation
attitudesZagefka et al. (in press)
T1
T2
-.27 .05
CMaint
R2 .41 R2 .25
Prejudice
CAdoption
R2 .33 R2 .33
.21 -.09
-.05 .07
CMaint
Prejudice
.06 -.06
CAdoption
R2 .66 R2 .40
CM X CA
-.03 .03
T1 values of DV controlled
Majority Minority
37
Policy implications

• Intergroup contact contact both actual and
  desired - is positively implicated in several
  studies therefore need to promote more
  opportunities for the development of cross-group
  friendships (e.g., school diversity policies
  single faith schools)
• Reciprocal perspectives both majority and
  minority perspectives matter! Multiculturalism
  interventions should target both groups and
  should take account of possible (perceived)
  differences in their acculturation preferences
• Cultural climate Institutional and normative
  climates may be crucial for success of
  Integration (or other) strategy