An ecological approach to psychological adjustment: A field survey among refugees in Germany

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

An ecological approach to psychological adjustment: A field survey among refugees in Germany

T

Anna Haase , Anette Rohmann, Katrin Hallmann ⁎

FernUniversität in Hagen (University of Hagen), Germany

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Refugees Context Discrimination Adjustment Acculturation

The situation of refugees in Germany and other countries is a current and important matter. The present study adopts an ecological approach to investigate how refugees perceive the welcoming climate in Germany and the consequences of this perception. To further explore the refugees’ situation, we examined several predictors of their psychological adjustment and acculturation attitudes. In a field study in Eastern Germany with N= 94 refugees as participants, we assessed the perceived context of reception, and perceived acculturation attitudes as contextual variables, discrimination and contact as intergroup variables and, on the individual level, psychological adjustment as well as the personal acculturation attitudes as dependent variables. The results revealed that more perceived discrimination resulted in an increase in reported psychological problems. Refugees living in asylum centers reported more psychological problems and more perceived discrimination than those living in independent housing. The perceived context of reception positively predicted refugees’ desire for maintenance of intergroup relations with the host society. Positive intergroup contact lowered their desire for cultural maintenance. In sum, this study gives us rare and valuable insight into refugees’ perspectives in the context of recent immigration to Germany. In doing so, it emphasizes the importance of a welcoming climate. The study shows how meaningful the assessment of the perceived context of reception is. Practical implications for fields such as the accommodation of refugees are discussed.

Introduction Migration is a phenomenon of growing importance for society and policy today. In 2015, almost 60 million people worldwide had been forced to flee from their countries (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2015). Consequently, the number of applications for asylum has risen in many countries, including Germany (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge [BAMF], 2016). This situation has caused challenges for both the host society and, clearly, for the refugees themselves. Giving these refugees a voice and taking their perspective into account is an important issue for psychological research (Birman, 2005). Nevertheless, there is little German data on this topic, and that which is available focuses on refugees’ mental health (e.g. Stotz, Elbert, Müller, & Schauer, 2017; Zepinic, Bogic, & Priebe, 2012). To our knowledge, no studies on refugees’ attitudes and feelings in Germany have been published recently in the field of intergroup research. To address this shortcoming, we conducted a field survey among refugees in Germany addressing the question of how contextual as well as individual factors influence refugees’ adjustment. Psychological research suggests that the migration context shapes how individuals acculturate (Birman, 2011). Their adjustment is multifaceted and can be defined in different ways. In the present research, we will focus on psychosocial adjustment and

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Haase).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.10.003 Received 19 February 2017; Received in revised form 4 October 2018; Accepted 13 October 2018 0147-1767/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

acculturation attitudes as two adjustment facets. Acculturation attitudes bi-dimensionally express migrants’ wish to participate in the host society (maintenance of intergroup relations), and their wish to maintain their own culture of origin (cultural maintenance; Berry, 1997). Research suggests that an approval of both dimensions – that is an integrative attitude towards acculturation – is responsible for a better psychological adjustment (Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Berry, 1997; Ramos, Cassidy, Reicher, & Haslam, 2015). However, even the same behaviors can be adaptive in one and maladaptive in another context (Birman, 2011). The German “Willkommenskultur” (culture of welcoming) has been a major topic of discussion during the most recent so-called "migratory flow" by refugees (Der Spiegel, 2017). There was even a study evaluating the development of the culture of welcoming at that time (TNS Emnid im Auftrag der Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2015; TNS Emnid im Auftrag der Betrelsmann Stiftung, 2017), illustrating the point of view of the German host society. For example, while Germans’ receptivity has decreased over time (TNS Emnid im Auftrag der Betrelsmann Stiftung, 2017), a majority still think that government agencies and the local population mostly make refugees feel welcome. However, refugees’ perceptions, which would be needed to complete the picture, are still missing. In addition, possible effects of the extent of the culture of welcoming on refugees have not yet been the subject of research. It would be of great relevance to know which aspects of the perceived (welcoming) context as well as interactions between refugees and the host society might facilitate integration. Identifying predictors of refugees’ psychological adjustment is likewise of great relevance. Due to a combination of pre-migration traumatic events as well as post-migration factors, refugees report psychological problems quite frequently (Schouler-Ocak & Kurmeyer, 2017), and the role of intergroup phenomena in this regard should be evaluated. In addition, we aim to evaluate whether accommodation and family situation – both well-known predictors of migrants’ psychological adjustment (Porter & Haslam, 2005; Prillentelsky, 2008) – are of comparable importance among contemporary refugees in Germany. Potential outcomes could provide useful starting points for improving the refugees’ psychological adjustment as well as intergroup relations between them and the German host society. According to Amnesty International (2017), the term “refugees” refers to people who have fled their country of origin and are “at risk of serious human rights violations there” (Amnesty International, 2017). “Asylum seekers” are defined as people seeking international protection, but whose claim has not yet been decided. According to Amnesty International (2017), not every asylum seeker will eventually be recognized as a refugee, but every refugee is an asylum seeker at some point. Thus, we use the term “refugees” in this study to refer to people who arrived in Germany as asylum seekers or with humanitarian programs. Typically, refugees leave their homes unwillingly and would choose to return to their country of origin if this were possible in terms of safety (Segal & Mayadas, 2005). We use the term “migrants” as a general term to refer to people with a migration background of any kind, as previous studies have been conducted with diverse samples of people with migration histories. When applicable, we use the term “refugee” instead. An ecological perspective on migration processes “provides a more detailed systemic perspective on human behavior” (Birman & Bray, 2017, p. 313). It can provide us with a deeper understanding of adjustment processes, not only examining individual perspectives, but also considering the environments of migration and their interdependencies with the individual experiences. Bronfenbrenner (1979) established a social-ecological approach, considering different system levels on which acculturation takes place. His approach was formative for subsequent research. Several researchers underlined the relevance of contexts for acculturation processes (e.g., Salo & Birman, 2015; Ward, Fox, Wilson, Stuart, & Kus, 2010; Ward & Geeraert, 2016). For example, Ward and colleagues displayed the importance of family, community and society during acculturation. Likewise, Gudykunst (1983) and Kim (2003) have pointed out the importance of contextual factors for adjustment. Stranger-host relationships are shaped by limited knowledge about “the others”. Refugees are not familiar with the norms and values of the host county, while locals are unfamiliar with the newly arrived people or their beliefs, interests or habits (Kiss, 2008). Such a situation has great potential for intergroup conflict, a notion which is also supported by social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), which states that people’s social identity is an important aspect of their self. Peoples’ social identity is based on (the evaluation of) their ingroup. The differentiation between ingroup and outgroup, combined with a wish for a positive social (ingroup) identity, often results in outgroup derogation, competition and prejudice – and thus intergroup conflicts. Accordingly, intergroup processes take place when migration occurs. Refugees perceive Germans as an outgroup and vice versa, creating the potential for conflicts in the sense of social identity theory. Thus, forced migration and asylum cannot be viewed in isolation from contextual factors, including the host society. The acculturation process is clearly influenced by its context. This circumstance also highlights the responsibility of receiving countries for how individuals acculturate (Birman, 2011). Studies suggest that perceived contexts might be more relevant for the formation of attitudes than objective ones (e.g. Strabac, 2011). This is why we focus on the assessment of perceived rather than objective contextual variables. The same context can be perceived differently. Research suggests that the fit between individual and environment is relevant for adjustment (Salo & Birman, 2015). In the present study, we aim at evaluating the impact of several environmental variables that might be relevant for the adjustment processes of refugees in current Germany. Below, these context variables will be introduced. The selection of variables for investigation was made on the basis of previous research as well as current discussions and ongoing debates on the German culture of welcoming and care for refugees (e.g. Schouler-Ocak & Kurmeyer, 2017; TNS Emnid im Auftrag der Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2015; TNS Emnid im Auftrag der Betrelsmann Stiftung, 2017). According to Ward et al. (2010), family, community and society are of vital importance for acculturation processes. These contextual factors include, for example, the attitudes of and interactions with members of the host society. Refugees can perceive the host country as more or less welcoming and kind (Schwartz et al., 2014). Further contextual factors might be practical issues like housing and work opportunities as part of the resettlement process (Esses, Hamilton, & Gaucher, 2017). All of these are possible determinants of refugees’ psychological adjustment and attitudes. Schwartz et al. (2014) made an attempt to form a concept pooling some aspects of the aforementioned factors by developing and validating the first scale to empirically assess the context of reception. 45

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

This can be defined as perceived kindness, feeling welcome and opportunities within the host country. Overall, it refers to the host society’s general valence towards migrants. In their study, both a negative context of reception and perceived discrimination predicted depressive symptoms among Hispanics who had recently migrated to the US. Likewise, Schwartz et al. (2018) found a negative context of reception to be associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety, mediated by discrimination experiences. Only a few more studies have examined the effects of a more or less welcoming climate for migrants: Christ, Asbrock, Dhont, Pettigrew, and Wagner, (2013) showed that intergroup climate, operationalized as the average prejudice among Germans in a given district, influences migrants’ acculturation attitudes. According to Yağmur and Van de Vijver (2012), a country’s diversity climate influences Turkish migrants’ cultural maintenance in the sense of language use. Thus, previous research has started evaluating the influence of the context of reception in the process of acculturation. It appears to be one factor that influences migrants’ psychological adjustment and attitudes. During the most recent so called “refugee crisis” in Europe, surveys assessing the extent of the welcoming climate have been conducted among the German majority. One survey showed a decrease in positive feelings towards new refugees following a period of initial euphoria (TNS Emnid im Auftrag der Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2015). However, others emphasize positive attitudes towards refugees as well as a willingness to help among the majority of Germans (Ahrens, 2016). On the other hand, no data on refugees’ perception of the welcoming climate in this situation has been reported yet. This means that research and policy currently lack information on the refugees’ point of view – a circumstance we need to change (Birman, 2005). While the context of reception describes the host society’s general valence towards migrants, discrimination refers to specific negative actions towards them (Schwartz et al., 2014). Discrimination is an important factor to consider when it comes to migrants’ psychological adjustment. There is meta-analytic evidence that perceived discrimination harms psychological adjustment, with an overall effect size of r = -.23 (Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014). A recent study from Finland shows the same pattern of results for Russian, Somali and Kurdish first-generation migrants in a European setting (Castaneda et al., 2015), as does a study of Somali refugees in the US (Ellis, MacDonald, Lincoln, & Cabral, 2008) and a study of recent Hispanic immigrants in the US (Schwartz et al., 2014). Mewes, Asbrock, and Laskawi (2015) demonstrated that discrimination is associated with depressive and somatoform symptoms among Turkish migrants living in Germany. Another important aspect of the interactions between refugees and the host society is contact, which can either be positive or negative. Positive intergroup contact is known to be one successful way of reducing prejudice (e.g. Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) and may be a solution for reducing intergroup conflicts. A comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that positive contact is negatively associated with prejudice, with a mean effect size of r = - .21 (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Negative contact, on the other hand, is a predictor of negative intergroup attitudes (Barlow et al., 2012). Likewise, Paolini, Harwood, and Rubin (2010) reported experimental evidence that negative contact makes people more aware of group boundaries due to self-categorization processes (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Negative experiences more easily generalize into negative intergroup attitudes. Sam and Berry (2010) define acculturation as “the process of cultural and psychological change that results following meeting between cultures” (Sam & Berry, 2010, p. 472). People’s desire for contact between the host society and migrants represents one of two dimensions of acculturation attitudes (Berry, 1997). There is a bidirectional relationship between wish for maintenance of intergroup relations and actual positive interactions (Brown & Zagefka, 2011). The second dimension of acculturation attitudes expresses the minority’s desire to maintain their culture as well as the majority’s approval of this (Berry, 1997). As this formulation makes clear, both members of the host society and migrants hold acculturation attitudes. Previous research has demonstrated that the two influence one another (see Horenczyk, Jasinskaja-Lahti, Sam, & Vedder, 2013, for a review). Migrants develop a perception of the predominant acculturation attitudes of the host society, or what are known as perceived acculturation attitudes. These represent a further relevant contextual factor that might influence refugees’ adjustment. For example, Zagefka, Gonzales and Brown (2011) demonstrated with two survey studies that the more an indigenous minority in Chile perceived a desire for cultural maintenance, contact or both (integration) from the majority, the more they reported these desires themselves. This means that the more the indigenous minority perceived that the majority sought out contact with them, the more they expressed a desire for contact themselves. Likewise, the more they felt the majority supported cultural maintenance among the indigenous population, the greater their desire for cultural maintenance. These perceived acculturation attitudes represent a further context-related construct we aimed to investigate in the present study. Following Zagefka, Gonzales and Brown (2011) and as outlined above, we expected perceived acculturation attitudes to affect refugees’ acculturation attitudes in a corresponding manner. As already mentioned earlier, the context in which the acculturation process takes place is crucial (Esses et al., 2017; Ward et al., 2010). Highly relevant for refugees’ psychological adjustment are not only refugee characteristics and pre-migration trauma, but also several post-displacement factors and aspects of the resettlement process (Esses et al., 2017). This applies, for example, to housing conditions and family situation as two structural aspects: Porter and Haslam (2005) demonstrated in their meta-analysis that institutional accommodation impairs refugees’ mental health. Prilleltensky, (2008) highlights the supportive role of the family for migrants’ psychological adjustment. According to Ward et al. (2010), this might be because families provide their members with a feeling of togetherness, social support and cultural values. Conversely, an absent family represents a risk factor for psychological adjustment. In conclusion, with the present research, we examine contextual and intergroup predictors of refugees’ adjustment processes. The present study provides an opportunity to examine how previous findings apply in another context and thus to test their generalizability. We particularly focus on the effects of contextual and intergroup factors on refugees’ psychological adjustment. With the present research, we aimed to address the question how do the surveyed refugees currently perceive the context of reception in Germany and how do these perceptions influence the refugees’ psychological adjustment and their acculturation attitudes? Following Ellis et al. (2008) and Schwartz et al. (2014), we hypothesized that a positive context of reception is positively associated with 46

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

refugees’ psychological adjustment (Hypothesis 1). In line with previous research (Ellis et al., 2008; Schmitt et al., 2014; Schwartz et al., 2014), we assumed that perceived discrimination is negatively associated with the refugees’ psychological adjustment (Hypothesis 2). In line with previous research (Porter & Haslam, 2005), we expected refugees living in asylum centers to exhibit lower psychological adjustment (Hypothesis 3). Moreover, based on Prillentelsky (2008), we assumed that those not accompanied by family members would report lower psychological adjustment (Hypothesis 4). Moreover, we aimed to predict acculturation attitudes, supposing that they represent another facet of migrants’ adjustment processes. Based on previous findings (Paolini et al., 2010), we assumed that negative contact is associated with a lower desire for maintenance of intergroup relations but greater desire for cultural maintenance (Hypothesis 5). Positive contact, on the other hand, should be associated with a greater desire for maintenance of intergroup relations (Hypothesis 6). How positive contact might influence refugees’ desire for cultural maintenance is not easy to answer. As group membership becomes less important with positive contact, the desire to maintain one’s culture of origin might decrease. This could be considered as a negative side effect, as the most favorable outcome for intergroup relations is integration, thus a high desire for both maintenance of intergroup relations and cultural maintenance (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). On the other hand, the cultural maintenance dimension of acculturation attitudes might remain unaffected by positive intergroup interactions, or refugees might feel “safe” maintaining their own culture when they have positive contact experiences with members of the host society. This remains to be clarified and should be explored in the present study. We further assumed that the context of reception is associated with refugees’ acculturation attitudes: The more positive the context, the more they approve a maintenance of intergroup relations and possibly feel accepted in maintaining their own culture (Hypothesis 7). Following Zagefka et al. (2011), we expected perceived acculturation attitudes to be associated with refugees’ acculturation attitudes in a corresponding manner (Hypothesis 8). We further aim to explore how acculturation attitudes and psychological adjustment are related. In sum, we want to examine contextual (context of reception, perceived acculturation attitudes, housing and family situation) and intergroup variables (discrimination, intergroup contact) as predictors of refugees’ adjustment processes. The main focus is on psychological adjustment, while we also examine variables’ predictive power for acculturation attitudes as another facet of adjustment. Methods Procedure and participants Data were collected between June and August 2015 in 9 municipalities1 in the state of Saxony, (Eastern) Germany. The survey was open to all persons who had arrived in Germany as refugees or asylum seekers – verified in the first question of the questionnaire – and who were able to understand either English, German, Arabic or Farsi/Persian, as the questionnaire was designed in these four languages2. The translation process included translation and back-translation by two different bilingual speakers and, if necessary, a discussion of discrepancies. Respondents were able to choose among the four languages. Potential participants were contacted via refugee centers, counseling centers for refugees, local initiatives, sports activities and language courses. One of the authors coordinated the data collection and was present to hand out the questionnaires about half of the time. In all other cases, the questionnaires were distributed by social workers, teachers or volunteers she had previously contacted. Refugees were asked to participate individually. It was made clear that participation was voluntary and had nothing to do with asylum procedures. N = 102 refugees participated in the survey (meaning that they answered at least one question). Missing values were completely at random. We identified 8 dropouts. As failing to complete a survey could be a sign of a lack of motivation, and unmotivated participants may impact the results (Osborne, 2013), these participants were removed from the survey, leaving us with a final sample of N = 94 refugees. Single missing values were replaced by the personal mean score, a method that has been shown to be appropriate for survey data (Peyre, Leplège, & Coste, 2011). The refugee respondents came from 16 different countries, with Syrians forming the largest subgroup (N = 29), and had 13 different native languages. Their age varied between 14 and 56 (M = 28.46, SD = 9.576). 85.1% of the sample were male.3 67% had arrived alone, and 26.6% with family members. 54.3% lived in asylum centers at the time of the survey. Educational background varied (21.3% less than 10 years of school, 47.9% 10 or more years of school, 24.5% had a university/college degree). Their length of stay in Germany varied between 1 and 50 months (M = 11.78, SD = 12.75). Measures Perceived context of reception This context variable sought to measure perceived friendliness, feeling welcome and opportunities for new arrivals in the host 1

Chemnitz, Boxberg, Freiberg, Glauchau, Dresden, Roßwein, Großenhain, Meißen, Werdau 47 % of the sample filled in the Arabic version of the questionnaire, 29 % English, 16 % German, 8 % Persian. The questionnaire was available in either the mother tongue and/or the official language of the country of origin of about 70% of respondents. About half of the sample filled in the questionnaire in their mother tongue. 3 In 2015, 69.2 % of the asylum seekers in Germany were men (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2015). In our sample, gender was not correlated with any of the main variables. 2

47

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

country. The scale consisted of eight items formulated in line with Schwartz et al. (2014), taking the circumstances of refugees in Germany into account. An example item is: “People from my country are not welcome here” (reverse coded). Items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “I strongly disagree” to 5 = “I strongly agree”). The mean value of the items was calculated and used as scale value. Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable, yet on the lower end of the spectrum, with α = .629. Further item analyses did not provide any indications that the exclusion of certain items would improve Cronbach’s alpha. In light of the fact that the measure was implemented for the first time in this context, all eight items were included. Higher scale values indicate a more positive perceived context of reception. Structural aspects Refugees reported whether they lived in an asylum center or an apartment. They were also asked whether they lived in Germany alone or with members of their family. Both aspects were assessed via one item each. Perceived discrimination To assess the degree to which the participants felt discriminated against, 5 items from the Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies (MIRIPS) questionnaire were used (Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, 2010). Items included, for example, “I don’t feel accepted by Germans” and “I have been threatened or attacked because of the country I come from”. Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “I strongly disagree” to 5 = “I strongly agree”). The mean value of the items was calculated and used as scale value. The internal consistency was satisfactory (α = .742). Higher scale values represent more perceived discrimination. Positive and negative intergroup contact Two items were used to assess the frequency of positive and negative intergroup contact the participants experienced (Barlow et al., 2012; “On average, how frequently do you have positive/good contact with Germans?” and “On average, how frequently do you have negative/bad contact with Germans?”). These were answered on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 = never and 7 = extremely frequently. (Perceived) acculturation attitudes Refugees’ own acculturation attitudes as well as the acculturation attitudes they assume Germans have were assessed with scales following Berry (1997); Rohmann, Piontkowski, & van Randenborgh, 2008; Zagefka & Brown, 2002. This bidimensional approach is in line with current recommendations (Matsudaira, 2006; Ozer, 2013; Rudmin, 2009). Different life domains of acculturation, however, have not been distinguished in the present study due to practical considerations: It was important to keep the questionnaire short. With the exception of the initial wording of each item, the two scales were identical (“I think it is important that…” versus “Germans think that…”). The scales consisted of two subscales each assessing the maintenance of intergroup relations and culture maintenance dimensions of acculturation, respectively, with three items each. Sample items are: “I think it is important that my cultural group in Germany maintains its culture” (cultural maintenance), “I think it is important that members of my cultural group have German friends” (maintenance of intergroup relations). They were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “I strongly disagree” to 5 = “I strongly agree”). The mean value of the items was calculated and used as scale value. The internal consistency of the culture maintenance dimension of participants’ own acculturation attitudes was satisfactory, with α = .754. The second subscale, maintenance of intergroup relations, showed a problematic internal consistency of α = .160 at first. The exclusion of one item (“I think that we should stick to our own kind in Germany”) led to a marked improvement (α = .887). The same pattern emerged for perceived acculturation attitudes: The cultural maintenance subscale exhibited a satisfactory internal consistency of α = .928. The contact subscale presented a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .690, which could be improved to α = .927 by excluding the same problematic item. Higher values on each subscale mean greater agreement with the corresponding attitude. Psychological adjustment Psychological adjustment was operationalized by assessing the refugees’ psychological problems. For this purpose, a 15-item scale from the MIRIPS questionnaire was used (Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, 2010). Items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = never to 5 = all the time. The mean value of the items was calculated and used as scale value. The internal consistency of the scale was α = .926. Items included, for example, “I feel tired” and “I worry a lot of the time”. Higher scale values represent more psychological problems, and thus lower psychological adjustment. Results Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24. Our introductory research question was: How do the refugees in our sample currently perceive the welcoming climate in Germany? On average, the context of reception was seen as moderate (M = 3.22, SD = 0.59). Perceived discrimination was less pronounced, but still present (M = 2.36, SD = 0.95). Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the main variables (context of reception, discrimination, positive and negative intergroup contact, acculturation attitudes, perceived acculturation attitudes, psychological problems). Table 2 shows the bivariate correlations between these variables, indicating that multicollinearity is not a problem. To test our hypotheses, multiple regression analyses were conducted.

48

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of the main variables. Variable

M

SD

Min

Max

Contexta Discriminationa Positive ICb Negative ICb Acculturation attitudes (intergroup relations)a Acculturation attitudes (culture)a Acculturation attitudes (intergroup relations), perceiveda Acculturation attitudes (culture), perceiveda Psychological problemsc

3.22 2.36 5.02 2.89 4.72 3.70 3.88 3.71 2.35

0.59 0.95 1.71 1.76 0.47 1.08 1.08 1.06 0.78

1.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

4.88 5.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.40

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation, Min = minimum, Max = maximum. a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “I strongly disagree” to 5 = “I strongly agree”) b 7-point Likert scale (1 = “never” to 7 = “extremely frequently”) c 5-point Likert scale (1 = “never” to 5 = “all the time”). Table 2 Bivariate correlations of the main variables. Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

– −.279** .283** −.237* .301** .086 .268** .250* −.184

– −.057 .326** .093 −.011 −.150 .013 .400**

– .037 .345** −.159 .429** .330** −.193

– .074 .034 .138 .077 .192

– −.133 .322** .318** −.028

– .018 .010 −.150

– .481** −.120

– −.138

Context Discrimination Positive IC Negative IC Acculturation attitudes (intergroup relations) Acculturation attitudes (culture) Perceived acculturation attitudes (intergroup relations) Perceived acculturation attitudes (culture) Psychological problems

Note.

**

p < .01, two-tailed;

*

p < .05, two-tailed.

Table 3 Multiple Regression of Psychological Problems on Intergroup Contact, Discrimination, Duration of Stay, Context, and Acculturation Attitudes. Measure

b

SE

β

p

(Constant) Positive IC Negative IC Discrimination Duration of stay Context Acculturation attitudes Acculturation attitudes Acculturation attitudes Acculturation attitudes

2.230 −0.068 0.043 0.315 −0.001 0.119 −0.116 −0.033 −0.080 0.037

0.927 0.056 0.052 0.098 0.007 0.164 0.076 0.189 0.089 0.099

−.150 .095 .367 −.015 .085 −.164 −.021 −.110 .051

.019 .226 .408 .002 .892 .470 .134 .860 .372 .709

(culture) (intergroup relations) (culture), perceived (intergroup relations), perceived

Note. R2 = .205.

First, we focused on the prediction of psychological adjustment: We tested all main variables4 as predictors of psychological problems, including duration of stay as a control variable (Table 3). We assumed that a positive context of reception positively predicts the refugees’ psychological adjustment (Hypothesis 1) and that perceived discrimination negatively predicts the refugees’ psychological adjustment (Hypothesis 2). Only the refugees’ level of perceived discrimination reached significance as a predictor of psychological problems (β = 0.367, p = .002, R² = 0.205). It was hypothesized that the refugees living in asylum centers (Hypothesis 3) would report lower psychological adjustment compared to those living in apartments. To examine this and to explore whether housing conditions affect any of the other main variables in dependence, t-tests were conducted. The following results were found: Refugees living in asylum centers reported significantly more psychological problems than those living in apartments (t = 2.469, p = .016, Masylum center = 2.541, Mapartment = 2.128), with an effect size of Cohen’s d = 0.5335. They also reported more discrimination experiences (t = 2.011, p = .047, Masylum center = 2.513, Mapartment = 2.111), with d = 0.434. Following this, an exploratory mediation analysis was conducted

4 Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, discrimination, length of stay, context of reception, own acculturation attitudes (both dimensions), perceived acculturation attitudes (both dimensions) 5 This and the following effect sizes were calculated via http://www.psychometrica.de/effektstaerke.html#dep

49

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

Fig. 1. Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between housing and psychological problems, mediated by perceived discrimination. The total effect is in parentheses. Indirect effect β = 0.084*. The coding of housing was 1 = centralized (asylum center), 2 = decentralized. + p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 *** p ≤ .001

Table 4 Multiple Regression of Acculturation Attitudes (maintenance of intergroup relations) on Intergroup Contact, Discrimination, Duration of Stay, Context, and Perceived Acculturation Attitudes. Measure

b

SE

β

p

(Constant) Positive IC Negative IC Discrimination Duration of stay Context Acculturation attitudes (culture), perceived Acculturation attitudes (intergroup relations), perceived

2.959 0.048 0.013 0.104 0.003 0.211 0.051 0.085

0.392 0.033 0.031 0.058 0.004 0.096 0.054 0.059

0.168 0.045 0.193 0.073 0.239 0.112 0.187

.000 .144 .680 .076 .499 .030 .344 .151

Note. R2 = 0.242.

Table 5 Multiple Regression of Acculturation Attitudes (cultural maintenance) on Intergroup Contact, Discrimination, Duration of Stay, Context, and Perceived Acculturation Attitudes. Measure

b

SE

β

p

(Constant) Positive IC Negative IC Discrimination Duration of stay Context Acculturation attitudes (culture), perceived Acculturation attitudes (intergroup relations), perceived

3.736 −0.169 0.045 −0.089 −0.005 0.242 −0.040 0.070

0.970 0.081 0.077 0.144 0.010 0.236 0.132 0.146

−0.262 0.070 −0.074 −0.064 0.123 −0.039 0.069

.000 .040 .561 .536 .588 .309 .765 .630

Note. R2 = 0.081.

using PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). The relationship between housing conditions and psychological problems was mediated by discrimination experiences. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the standardized regression coefficient between housing conditions and discrimination was significant (β = -0.210, p = .0475), as was the one between discrimination and psychological problems (β = 0.402, p < .001). Standardized indirect effects were computed for each of 5000 bootstrapped samples. The bootstrapped standardized indirect effect was β = -0.084. The 95% confidence interval ranged from -0.1917 to -0.0099, indicating that the indirect effect was statistically significant. Finally, there was a difference in perceived acculturation attitudes: Refugees living in asylum centers perceived significantly more frequently that Germans approve a maintenance of intergroup relations between the refugees and the host society, compared to those living in apartments (t = 2.796, p = .006, Masylum center = 4.170, Mapartment = 3.554), with d = 0.606. In terms of family situation, we assumed that the refugees not accompanied by family members would exhibit lower psychological adjustment. The result was marginally significant: Refugees who were in Germany alone reported more psychological problems than those living in Germany together with family members (t = 1.961, p = .053, Malone = 2.463, Mwith family = 2.098, d = 0.457). Second, we tested all main variables6 as predictors of the participants’ acculturation attitudes. Following our hypotheses, we 6 Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, discrimination, length of stay, context of reception, perceived acculturation attitudes (both dimensions)

50

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

conducted separate analyses for each dimension (maintenance of intergroup relations and cultural maintenance, see Tables 4 and 5). Hypothesis 5 predicted that negative contact would lead to a lower desire for maintenance of intergroup relations but greater desire for cultural maintenance. However, negative contact was not a significant predictor of the refugees’ desire for maintenance of intergroup relations or cultural maintenance (β = 0.045, p = .680 and β = 0.070, p = .561 respectively). In Hypothesis 6, we assumed that positive intergroup contact would lead to a greater desire for maintenance of intergroup relations. Whether it affects the desire for cultural maintenance was to be tested in an exploratory manner. Regression analyses revealed that positive intergroup contact did not significantly predict the desire for maintenance of intergroup relations, but negatively predicted the desire for cultural maintenance (β = -0.262, p = .040). Hypothesis 7 stated that a positive context of reception would positively predict refugees’ desire for maintenance of intergroup relations. Its influence on cultural maintenance was to be explored. The results revealed that the context of reception predicted the desire for maintenance of intergroup relations (β = 0.239, p = .030) but not for cultural maintenance (β = 0.123, p = .309). To evaluate Hypothesis 8, we checked whether perceived acculturation attitudes affect the refugees’ own acculturation attitudes such that the two become aligned. The analyses revealed that perceived acculturation attitudes do not predict any dimension of acculturation attitudes (βs < 0.2, ps > .1). To sum up, the regression analyses revealed the context of reception as significant predictor of refugees’ desire for maintenance of intergroup relations. In addition, perceived discrimination was marginally significant as a predictor of the desire for maintenance of intergroup relations (β = 0.193; p = .076), R² was 0.242. For the cultural maintenance dimension, only positive intergroup contact turned out to be a significant predictor (R² = 0.081). Discussion In a time of increasing migratory movements, the role of contextual predictors for refugees’ successful adjustment has become the subject of frequent discussion. The present study addresses the question of how contextual and individual factors influence refugees’ psychological adjustment and acculturation attitudes. It thus contributes to the sparse knowledge on refugees’ perspectives. Our first point of interest was how the surveyed refugees perceive the current context of reception: On average, they reported a moderate welcoming climate. We were mainly interested in predictors of the refugees’ psychological adjustment. What are relevant (contextual) predictors of psychological adjustment? We assumed that the context of reception would be associated with the refugees’ psychological adjustment. This could not be confirmed. Thus, our results partially differ from the findings of Schwartz et al. (2014). In their study, the context of reception was one crucial factor influencing immigrants’ depressive symptoms, with the exception of the subsample of parents in Miami. One explanation for the divergent results might be that we had to adapt the scale measuring the context of reception in our study due to differences between the two contexts. The measurements are not completely equivalent, as the items by Schwartz et al. (2014) are context-specific and cannot be applied in other contexts without some changes in content. Another possibility is that the importance of the context of reception for psychological adjustment varies across host societies and/or immigrant groups. In our sample, discrimination played the crucial role in explaining refugees’ psychological adjustment (Hypothesis 2). The link between discrimination and psychological adjustment is well-known (Schmitt et al., 2014) and appears to be generalizable to the German context examined here. With regard to housing conditions, refugees living in asylum centers were found to have lower psychological adjustment. This supports Hypothesis 3 as well as previous research (Porter & Haslam, 2005). A mediational model explained the effect of housing conditions on psychological adjustment, with discrimination experiences emerging as a significant mediator. Accordingly, refugees living in asylum centers appear to experience more discrimination and thus report more psychological problems than those living in apartments. This effect might be driven by xenophobic actions such as attacks on asylum centers or even by discrimination within the asylum centers themselves, as reported in a recent study of female refugees in Germany (Schouler-Ocak and Kurmeyer, 2017). Xenophobic actions have occurred in several areas of Germany (Bundeskriminalamt, 2015). As our data are only correlational, this model does not deliver proof of causality. Nevertheless, it reveals one plausible explanation for differences in psychological adjustment as a function of housing that should be further evaluated in future research. It also suits well to recent findings by Schwartz et al. (2018), showing that the effect of a context of reception on depression and anxiety symptoms is mediated by discrimination. Our analyses also revealed that refugees accompanied by family members exhibit higher psychological adjustment than those living in Germany alone (Hypothesis 4). This is in line with previous research (Prillentelsky, 2008). Refugees’ family situation and housing conditions seem to be crucial for the degree of self-reported psychological problems (Porter & Haslam, 2005; Prilleltensky, 2008). Refugees’ housing conditions appear to be one major factor influencing their quality of life (Ager & Strang, 2008). Thus, family and housing both represent potential approaches to improving refugees’ psychological adjustment in Germany. The finding demonstrates the importance of social support in the context of forced migration, a fact that should be borne in mind by policy makers. In addition, we examined factors associated with the refugees’ acculturation attitudes as another facet of their adjustment process in Germany. Our analyses did not confirm Hypotheses 5 and 6. Positive and negative contact experiences were not associated with refugees’ desire for maintenance of intergroup relations when controlling for the perceived context of reception and several other variables, in contrast to previous research (Brown & Zagefka, 2011). It is important to note that the bivariate correlations between these two variables were significant and in the assumed direction: Positive contact and desire for maintenance of intergroup relations were significantly correlated (r = .345, p < .01), as were positive contact and the context of reception (r = .283, p < .01), as well as negative contact and the context of reception (r = -.237, p < .01) – but not negative contact and the desire for maintenance of intergroup relations. This suggests that positive intergroup contact does play a role in refugees’ desire for maintenance of intergroup 51

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

relations, but cannot explain incremental variance in addition to the welcoming context. Instead, positive intergroup contact could potentially be seen as an intergroup variable adding to the welcoming climate, as the two are positively related, while negative contact is negatively correlated with the welcoming climate. Positive contact was negatively associated with the desire for cultural maintenance, while negative contact had no effect. Therefore, experiencing positive contact with Germans is associated with a lower desire to maintain their own culture among refugees. This can be seen as a negative side effect of intergroup contact. Hypothesis 7 was confirmed: The more positively the refugees perceived the context of reception, the greater their desire for maintenance of intergroup relations with the host society. The desire for cultural maintenance once again remained unaffected. This finding demonstrates that a positive context of reception has the potential to improve intergroup relations by promoting a desire for maintenance of intergroup relations with the host society among refugees. Perceived acculturation attitudes hold by members of the majority did are not associated with desire for maintenance of intergroup relations or cultural maintenance, meaning that Hypothesis 8 could not be confirmed. This differs from previous findings (Zagefka et al., 2011), demonstrating that results from other intergroup contexts cannot simply be generalized to the situation of refugees in Germany. However, bivariate correlations showed that perceived acculturation attitudes were positively correlated with the welcoming context, positive intergroup contact, and the desire for contact as well as with each other. Thus, perceived acculturation attitudes appear to be part of a positive, contact-supporting migration climate consisting of more distal as well as more proximal intergroup variables. However, other important variables appear to be more important for explaining variance in the refugees’ acculturation attitudes (context of reception, positive intergroup contact, see Table 4 and 5). This might explain the differences between our findings and previous research results. Future research should examine the interrelations of acculturation attitudes and psychological adjustment, as these are both important facets of refugees’ adjustment processes. Previous research has shown that an approval of both dimensions of acculturation attitudes is associated with a better psychological adjustment (Berry, 1997; Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Ramos et al., 2015). However, in the present study, acculturation attitudes were no significant predictors of psychological adjustment, when controlling for the other predictor variables. Future research should examine possible explanations for the absence of this effect. It might be due to the specific small sample or due to the reason that other variables are more important in this regard. As described above, only perceived discrimination is a significant predictor of psychological adjustment in the present study. One interesting question would be if depending on the stage of migration, the impact of acculturation attitudes on psychological adjustment varies. Another possible explanation might be that if discrimination is present, this is so important for the individual experiences, that nothing else really affects psychological adjustment. Future research might aim at developing and testing a conceptual model while striving for lager sample sizes of participants. The results of this study show that the context of migration matters. It gives us starting points to improve refugees’ psychological adjustment: lower discrimination, decentralized accommodation and company of family members are three factors likely leading to a better psychological adjustment. This should be considered by policy makers and people making decisions in this regard. Antidiscrimination programs and activities might in the end help improving the refugees’ adjustment by reducing the likelihood of discrimination experiences. Our measure of the context of reception influenced refugees’ desire for maintenance of intergroup relations, while the role of intergroup experiences was less pronounced. To further evaluate our findings, future studies should include more differentiated measures of contact. We used only one item each, leaving the interpretation of what positive and negative contact experiences are to the participants themselves. In what ways intergroup contact, perceived acculturation attitudes and a positive context of reception complement each other or emerge together should also be evaluated. Furthermore, desire for cultural maintenance was only (negatively) associated with positive intergroup contact. Thus, the more refugees positively interact with the German host society, the weaker their desire to maintain their own culture. This might be a negative side effect of intergroup contact. Apart from that, cultural maintenance turned out to be unrelated to the other measures. This should be kept in mind in future research and when designing possible interventions. Future studies should investigate whether this effect is generalizable to other samples and contexts. One avenue could be to identify other factors that strengthen the desire for cultural maintenance – and when combined with a desire for future contact, enhance integration. Limitations Our data are only correlational and therefore do not allow for causal conclusions. Nor did our data allow us to differentiate between subgroups of refugees on the basis of factors such as ethnicity, nationality, religion, reasons for displacement or type of border crossing. Furthermore, we were not able to reach all ethnic groups of refugees in Germany, as the questionnaire was only available in a limited number of languages. Nor is the sample is representative. Still, it gives us valuable insight into the perspective of refugees in Germany. We conducted a post-hoc power analysis using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007), which revealed that the power of this study was acceptable. Still, this issue is more complex when working with data from culturally and linguistically diverse groups, and this must be considered when drawing conclusions based on our results, as it might limit our study’s generalizability. Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that gathering (representative) data for this marginalized group is extremely difficult (Birman, 2005). At the very least, this study gives us valuable insights into the perspective of refugees in Germany. Future research should aim to gather larger samples of refugees to replicate and further evaluate our results, keeping in mind that the relationships might be more complex than presented here, as refugees do not form a homogeneous group. Future research could furthermore aim at testing the full conceptual model that we have outlined, using sufficiently large samples, if possible. Our measure of the context of reception also has potential for improvement, as it turned out to be only moderately reliable (with 52

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

α = .629). Still, we showed that it has an impact on refugees’ desire for contact with the host society and is appropriately correlated with other constructs. Thus, it appears to be a worthwhile addition to other predictors that have already been the subject of research. Still, it must be kept in mind that the measure we used is not yet sufficient. For example, differences between our results and the findings by Schwartz et al. (2014) might be explained by the lack of reliability of our context measurement. However, both our study and the one by Schwartz et al. (2014) found that the context of reception is an important aspect to consider in acculturation research. Thus, future research should consider the context of reception from the minorities’ perspective as an important complement to intergroup experiences when it comes to predicting integration. In doing so, future research should also aim to improve the measurement, making its predictions more accurate. Conclusions and practical implications This study provides us with rare insight into the perspective of refugees in Germany currently. It forms a valuable basis for further research in this field but also for discussing policy changes and action. It identifies potentially fruitful approaches to improving the refugees’ psychological adjustment, including reducing discrimination, facilitating support from family members, and moving towards decentralized accommodations. In addition to promoting refugees’ psychological adjustment, a further aim should be to foster integration and positive intergroup relations. In this regard, our analyses indicate the following: To strengthen refugees’ desire for contact, one should design a positive welcoming climate and maybe foster intergroup contact. Still, one should keep in mind that positive contact with the host society also lowers refugees’ desire to maintain their culture of origin. This again shows that including the perspectives of both minorities and majorities is crucial when shaping future society. When designing interventions to establish a positive climate of reception in a society both perspectives should be considered as well and different levels of systems should be addressed. While our results do have some practical implications, further studies should still aim to replicate these findings in order to ensure their validity for other samples. Overall, we want to highlight that our findings are of great relevance to better understanding the adjustment of refugees in Germany by taking their perspective. They provide approaches to improving both refugees’ psychological adjustment and intergroup relations, showing that previous research results mostly hold true for our sample of refugees. Moreover, this research can serve as a valuable basis for future studies exploring this phenomenon more deeply. References Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016. Ahrens, P. (2016). Skepsis oder Zuversicht? Erwartungen der Bevölkerung zur Aufnahme von Flüchtlingen zwischen November 2015 und August 2016. [Skepticism or confidence? Expectations of the population on receiving refugees between November 2015 and August 2016.]. Retrieved from Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland website: http://www.ekd.de/fluechtlingsstudie-2016.pdf. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley. Amnesty International (2017). Refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-andmigrants/. Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R., Harwood, J., et al. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55(3), 303–332. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x. Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.11.007. Birman, D. (2005). Ethical issues in research with immigrants and refugees. In J. E. Trimble, & C. B. Fisher (Eds.). The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations & communities (pp. 155–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Birman, D. (2011). Migration and well-being: Beyond the macrosystem. Psychosocial Intervention, 20(3), 339–342. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2011v20n3a11. Birman, D., & Bray, E. (2017). Immigration, migration, and community psychology. In M. Bond, C. Keys, & I. Serrano Garcia (Eds.). APA handbook of community psychology. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Brown, R., & Zagefka, H. (2011). The dynamics of acculturation: An intergroup perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 129–184. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00003-2. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (2015). Migrationsbericht 2015[Migration report 2015.] Retrieved from http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/ Publikationen/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2015.html. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge [BAMF] (2016). Aktuelle Zahlen zu Asyl. [Current figures on asyl.] Retrieved from http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/ Anlagen/DE/Downloads/Infothek/Statistik/Asyl/aktuelle-zahlen-zu-asyl-dezember-2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Bundeskriminalamt (2015). Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung. Bundeslagebild 2015. [Crime in the context of immigration. Federal situation survey 2015.] Retrieved from https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/DE/Kurzmeldungen/161018_BundeslagebildKriminalitaetImKontextZuwanderung.html. Castaneda, A. E., Rask, S., Koponen, P., Suvisaari, J., Koskinen, S., Härkänen, T., et al. (2015). The association between discrimination and psychological and social well-being: A population-based study of Russian, Somali and Kurdish migrants in Finland. Psychology and Developing Societies, 27(2), 270–292. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0971333615594054. Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research (2010). Mutual intercultural relations in plural societies (MIRIPS). Retrieved fromhttp://www.victoria.ac.nz/cacr/research/ mirips. Christ, O., Asbrock, F., Dhont, K., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wagner, U. (2013). The effects of intergroup climate on immigrants’ acculturation preferences. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000155. Der Spiegel (2017). Flüchtlinge: Willkommenskultur, das war einmal. [Refugees: Welcoming climate, this is history.] Retrieved from Spiegel Online website http://www. spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlinge-in-deutschland-willkommenskultur-war-einmal-a-1142147.html. Ellis, B. H., MacDonald, H. Z., Lincoln, A. K., & Cabral, H. J. (2008). Mental health of Somali adolescent refugees: The role of trauma, stress, and perceived discrimination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.184. Esses, V. M., Hamilton, L. K., & Gaucher, D. (2017). The global refugee crisis: Empirical evidence and policy implications for improving public attitudes and facilitating refugee resettlement. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 78–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12028. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.

53

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 68 (2019) 44–54

A. Haase et al.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1983). Toward a typology of stranger-host relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0147-1767(83)90046-9. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press. Horenczyk, G., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2013). Mutuality in acculturation: Toward an integration. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221(4), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000150. Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Becoming Intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kiss, G. (2008). A theoretical approach to intercultural communication. Communication, 7(3), 435–443. Matsudaira, T. (2006). Measures of psychological acculturation: A review. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(3), 462–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461506066989. Mewes, R., Asbrock, F., & Laskawi, J. (2015). Perceived discrimination and impaired mental health in Turkish immigrants and their descendents in Germany. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 62, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.06.009. Osborne, J. W. (2013). Best practices in data cleaning: A complete guide to everything you need to do before and after collecting your data. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.. Ozer, S. (2013). Theories and methodologies in acculturation psychology: The emergence of a scientific revolution? Psychological Studies, 58(3), 339–348. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12646-013-0203-0. Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723–1738. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0146167210388667. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press. Peyre, H., Leplège, A., & Coste, J. (2011). Missing data methods for dealing with missing items in quality of life questionnaires: A comparison by simulation of personal mean score, full information maximum likelihood, multiple imputation, and hot deck techniques applied to the SF-36 in the French 2003 decennial health survey. Quality of Life Research, 20(2), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9740-3. Porter, M., & Haslam, N. (2005). Predisplacement and postdisplacement factors associated with mental health of refugees and internally displaced persons: A metaanalysis. JAMA, 294, 602–612. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.5.602. Prilleltensky, I. (2008). Migrant well-being is a multilevel, dynamic, value dependent phenomenon. American Journal of Community Psychology, 42(3-4), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9196-6. Ramos, M. R., Cassidy, C., Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2015). Well-being in cross-cultural transitions: Discrepancies between acculturation preferences and actual intergroup and intragroup contact. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12272. Rohmann, A., Piontkowski, U., & van Randenborgh, A. (2008). When attitudes do not fit: Discordance of acculturation attitudes as an antecedent of intergroup threat. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207311197. Rudmin, F. (2009). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001. Salo, C. D., & Birman, D. (2015). Acculturation and psychological adjustment of Vietnamese refugees: An ecological acculturation framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56(3-4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-9760-9. Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610373075. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 921–948. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035754. Schouler-Ocak, M., & Kurmeyer, C. (2017). Abschlussbericht: Study on female refugees: Repräsentative Untersuchung von geflüchteten Frauen in unterschiedlichen Bundesländern in Deutschland[Final report: Study on female refugees: Representative survey of fled females in different states in Germany.] Retrieved from Charité website: https://female-refugee-study.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites/sonstige/mentoring/Abschlussbericht_Final_-1.pdf. Schwartz, S. J., Salas-Wright, C. P., Pérez-Gómez, A., Mejía-Trujillo, J., Brown, E. C., Montero-Zamora, P., et al. (2018). Cultural stress and psychological symptoms in recent Venezuelan immigrants to the United States and Colombia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 67, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel. 2018.09.001. Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Des Rosiers, S. E., Villamar, J. A., Soto, D. W., et al. (2014). Perceived context of reception among recent Hispanic immigrants: Conceptualization, instrument development, and preliminary validation. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 1–15. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0033391. Segal, U. A., & Mayadas, N. S. (2005). Assessment of issues facing immigrant and refugee families. Child Welfare, 84(5), 563–583. Stotz, S. J., Elbert, T., Müller, V., & Schauer, M. (2017). The relationship between trauma, shame, and guilt: Findings from a community-based study of refugee minors in Germany. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25863. Strabac, Z. (2011). It is the eyes and not the size that matter: The real and the perceived size of immigrant populations and anti-immigrant prejudice in Western Europe. European Societies, 13(4), 559–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2010.550631. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.). Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. TNS Emnid im Auftrag der Bertelsmann Stiftung (2015). Willkommenskultur in Deutschland: Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage in Deutschland. [Welcoming climate in Germany: Developments and challenges. Results of representative population survey in Germany.] Retrieved from Bertelsmann Stiftung website: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/user_upload/Emnid_Willkommenskultur_2015_BST.pdf. TNS Emnid im Auftrag der Betrelsmann Stiftung (2017). Willkommenskultur im„ Stresstest“: Einstellungen der Bevölkerung 2017 und Entwicklungen und Trends seit 2011/ 12. [Welcoming climate in Germany: Attitudes of the population 2017 and developments and trends since 2011/12] Retrieved from Bertelsmann Stiftung website: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/Projekte/28_Einwanderung_und_Vielfalt/IB_Umfrage_Willkommenskultur_2017.pdf. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Blackwell. Ward, C., Fox, S., Wilson, J., Stuart, J., & Kus, L. (2010). Contextual influences on acculturation processes: The roles of family, community and society. Psychological Studies, 55(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-010-0003-8. Ward, C., & Geeraert, N. (2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: The acculturation process in its ecological context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.021. Yağmur, K., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2012). Acculturation and language orientations of Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1110–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111420145. Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: Immigrant-majority relations in Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.73. Zagefka, H., González, R., & Brown, R. (2011). How minority members’ perceptions of majority members’ acculturation preferences shape minority members’ own acculturation preferences: Evidence from Chile. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X512211. Zepinic, V., Bogic, M., & Priebe, S. (2012). Refugees’ views of the effectiveness of support provided by their host countries. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v3i0.8447. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] (2015). Weltweit fast 60 Millionen Menschen auf der Flucht. [Worldwide almost 60 million people on the run.] Retrieved from UNHCR website: http://www.unhcr.de/home/artikel/f31dce23af754ad07737a7806dfac4fc/weltweit-fast-60-millionen-menschen-auf-der-flucht. html.

54