Multicultural attitudes mediate the relation between personality and perceived ethnic outgroup distance in the Netherlands

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Multicultural attitudes mediate the relation between personality and perceived ethnic outgroup distance in the Netherlands Sneˇzana Stupar a,∗ , Fons J.R. van de Vijver a,b,c , Annet Te Lindert a , Johnny R.J. Fontaine d a b c d

Tilburg University, The Netherlands North-West University, South Africa University of Queensland, Australia Ghent University, Belgium

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 15 October 2012 Received in revised form 21 May 2013 Accepted 27 May 2013 Keywords: Multicultural attitudes Personality Perceived ethnic outgroup distance Ethnic hierarchy Ethnic outgroup

a b s t r a c t We focus in the current study on associations between personality, multicultural attitudes, and perceived ethnic outgroup distance in the Netherlands. Data were collected among four different ethnic groups (from low to high in terms of ethnic hierarchy): Turkish/MoroccanDutch, Antillean/Surinamese-Dutch, Mixed Western immigrants, and Dutch majority group members. We found support for a mediation model in which in all groups multicultural attitudes mediate the relation between personality traits, education level, and age as antecedents, and outgroup distance as outcome; age was the only antecedent that also had a direct effect on outcome. Education was positively related to multiculturalism in the groups high in the hierarchy and unrelated in the groups low in the hierarchy. The association between multicultural attitudes and outgroup distance was negative and stronger for the groups higher in the ethnic hierarchy; hierarchy was unrelated to outgroup distance. Groups higher in the hierarchy scored lower on multicultural attitudes. It was concluded that multicultural attitudes and outgroup distance are important for understanding intergroup dynamics in ethnically diverse societies. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction We focus in the current study on the psychological mechanisms behind intergroup attitudes in ethnically diverse societies, specifically multiculturalism and perceived outgroup distance. Multiculturalism refers to the acceptance of and support for the plural nature of society (Berry & Kalin, 1995). We introduce perceived outgroup distance as a concept that is relevant in intergroup dynamics; it refers to the perceived distance to outgroups in general (i.e., the perceived distance an individual experiences toward the main outgroups). Outgroup distance is a broader concept than perceived cultural distance that has often been used to assess the psychological distance immigrants feel to the majority group or to specific other groups (e.g., Galchenko & Van de Vijver, 2007; Kleinpenning, 1993; Schalk-Soekar, Van de Vijver, & Hoogsteder, 2004; Torbiörn, 1982). We propose and test a model in which multiculturalism mediates the link between the Big-Five personality factors and perceived outgroup distance among different ethnic groups in the Netherlands (both minority and majority groups are

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 13 466 4024. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Stupar). 0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.05.002

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

25

included in the study). Furthermore, we examine the link of diversity-related concepts (multicultural attitudes and outgroup distance) and personality. In the introduction we firstly describe immigrant groups in the Netherlands. Secondly, we discuss existing literature on the concepts of ethnic outgroup distance, ethnic hierarchy, and multicultural attitudes. Thirdly, we describe the relationship between multiculturalism, ethnic hierarchy, and outgroup distance. Fourthly, we describe our proposed mediation model (including personality and biographical variables). Finally, we describe the current study and its novelty. 1.1. Immigration in the Netherlands Since the end of the Second World War, there have been five major immigration waves in the Netherlands. The first consisted of migrants from former Dutch colonies, and it started in the mid-1950s with immigrants from Indonesia and around 1965 with immigrants from Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles. The second wave took place during the 1960s when labor immigrants mainly from Southern Europe, Turkey, and Morocco came to the Netherlands in order to conduct low skilled labor. The third wave took place during the 1970s and was a consequence of family reunions of mainly Turkish and Moroccan “guest workers” (as they were called in those days). The fourth wave started in the 1980s and comprised refugees and asylum seekers from different countries such as the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and Iran. In addition, family formation (with partners from other countries) and reunification continue, mainly involving the largest immigrant groups in the Netherlands. The largest non-Western groups, about 6% of the total population, are Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean immigrants. The fifth and most recent immigration wave is by labor migrants from Eastern Europe countries, such as Poland and Bulgaria (Jennissen, 2009). Immigrants from Turkey and Morocco are culturally more distant from Dutch majority members compared to immigrants from Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2003). This could be due to cultural dissimilarities; both Turkish and Moroccan cultures are Islamic (where Dutch majority members and immigrants from Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles often have a Christian background) and hold different family, marital, and gender-role values (with Turkish and Moroccan immigrants often being more traditional). Surinamese- and Antillean-Dutch are often more educated than Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, 2005). Additionally, the differences between the ethnic groups could be a result of Dutch integration policy during the labor migration period. In the beginning of the immigration wave, Turkish and Moroccan immigrants were stimulated by the Dutch government to maintain their culture of origin because all parties expected that the laborers would repatriate (Jennissen, 2009). Compared to Turkish- and MoroccanDutch, Surinamese- and Antillean-Dutch were more familiar with the Dutch language and culture before their immigration as their countries were former colonies of the Netherlands. It is therefore not surprising that the experienced distance to the Dutch culture is larger in Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch compared to Surinamese- and Antillean-Dutch (Schalk-Soekar & Van de Vijver, 2008; Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998). 1.2. Ethnic hierarchy, cultural distance, and outgroup distance Ethnic hierarchy, cultural distance, and outgroup distance are all related to perceived ethnic distances. However, the differences in the operationalizations of the three concepts show subtle, yet crucial differences. Ethnic hierarchy refers to the relative power position of groups in society based on ethnicity (Kleinpenning, 1993). It has been commonly assessed by asking members of the majority group how close they feel related to ethnic groups in their society. The rank order of these distances reflects the ethnic hierarchy (typically, with the majority group in the top). Members of an ethnic group often have a fairly similar view on the position of other ethnic groups (including their own) on the ethnic hierarchy ladder (Hagendoorn, Drogendijk, Tumanov, & Hraba, 1998; Hraba, Hagendoorn, & Hagendoorn, 1989; Kleinpenning, 1993; Verkuyten, Hagendoorn, & Masson, 1996). Studies conducted in Europe often report hierarchies with North Europeans (the majorities) in top, followed by South and Middle East European (Lange, 2000; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), and with Turkish and Moroccan immigrants at the bottom (Hagendoorn & Hraba, 1987, 1989; Hagendoorn & Pepels, 2003; Hraba et al., 1989; Schalk-Soekar et al., 2004). A lower position in the ethnic hierarchy is associated with poorer psychological and sociocultural adjustment (Kposowa, 2007; Schalk-Soekar et al., 2004). Perceived cultural distance can be defined as a subjective experience of distance from a specific culture in several sociopsychological and physical domains. Perceived cultural distance is measured by asking ethnic groups how close to or distant they feel from other ethnic groups. Although the concept refers to the distance of any two cultures, empirical studies have often addressed the distance to the majority culture (Babiker, Cox, & Miller, 1980; Galchenko & Van de Vijver, 2007; Liebkind & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000; Schalk-Soekar et al., 2004). Participants from immigrant groups were asked to report how many differences they experience toward majority members in various domains, such as language, food, religion, and family structure (if these items are administered to majority members, the ethnic hierarchy is found). Schalk-Soekar and Van de Vijver (2008) found that the largest perceived cultural difference from the Dutch culture was reported by MoroccanDutch, followed by Turkish-, Antillean-, and Surinamese-Dutch. A large perceived cultural distance was associated with less favorable psychological and sociocultural outcomes (Galchenko & Van de Vijver, 2007; Liebkind & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000). While perceived cultural distance was commonly assessed in immigrants, we focused in our research on perceived outgroup distance, which is a broader concept compared to perceived cultural distance in that it refers to how much distance and difference individuals experience to ethnic outgroups. In other words, unlike cultural distance, outgroup distance does

26

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

not refer to a specific target group such as a majority group but refers to perceived distance between one’s ingroup and (all) outgroups. Perceived outgroup distance can therefore be assessed with the same items used to measure perceived ethnic distance, but the distance is then operationalized as the average distance to ethnic groups different from one’s own. The concept of outgroup distance has relevance for multicultural societies because (1) it expands the existing construct of perceived cultural distance and captures attitudes of both the majority members and the immigrants on an ingroup–outgroup continuum, and (2) individuals who are more similar to outgroups feel closer to these groups and are more likely to interact and have harmonious relationships with these groups, which are key elements in plural societies. Whereas in past, related concepts have been proposed such as the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) and the social dominance orientation (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), our concept of outgroup distance is less personality based and is a more situated concept in that it is based on evaluations of specific groups. This could increase its relevance and predictive power of intergroup dynamics. 1.3. Multicultural attitudes: relations to ethnic hierarchy and outgroup distance Multiculturalism is usually assessed by reporting attitudes toward diversity in different domains, such as whether cultural diversity, plurality, and acculturation orientations (e.g., adaptation and assimilation) of immigrants affect societies in a positive way. It is a unidimensional concept (Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004; Celenk & Van de Vijver, in press) and it predicts contact with and knowledge about immigrants (Schalk-Soekar & Van de Vijver, 2008) and is positively related to life satisfaction (Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004). 1.3.1. Influence of ethnic hierarchy on multiculturalism There is evidence that multicultural attitudes are negatively related to the place in the ethnic hierarchy. Thus, groups lower in the ethnic hierarchy (Turkish-Dutch) were more positive toward multiculturalism than groups higher in the hierarchy such as Dutch mainstreamers (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2003; Van Osch & Breugelmans, 2012; Verkuyten, 2005; Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006). There are at least three possible explanations of this relation. The first is self-interest. Groups higher in the hierarchy probably expect few, if any, gains from supporting multiculturalism in society, which can be interpreted as showing solidarity with less powerful groups in society. Secondly, in line with symbolic threat theory (Sears, 1988; Stephan & Stephan, 1996), multiculturalism may be experienced as a threat to (majority) national identity leading to more negative multicultural attitudes in groups higher in the hierarchy. Thirdly, majority group members, notably those of the lower socioeconomic strata, may perceive immigrants as economic threat to resources in society that are scarce such as jobs (e.g., Realistic Group Conflict Theory; Levine & Campbell, 1972). This perceived threat would bolster identification with the majority culture’s negative attitudes toward immigrants. 1.3.2. Multiculturalism and outgroup distance No studies have yet been conducted on the association between multiculturalism and outgroup distance as defined in the current study. However, several studies suggested that multiculturalism is related to concepts related to outgroup distance. Van Osch and Breugelmans (2012) found that there is a consensual view on perceived intergroup difference in minority and majority groups in the Netherlands. Additionally, the authors suggest that the minority groups that received the least support for multiculturalism were the groups that were perceived as the most different from majority group members. Verkuyten (2005) established earlier that multicultural attitudes are related to outgroup evaluations in Dutch majority members and Turks living in the Netherlands; individuals who endorsed multiculturalism more showed a more positive outgroup evaluation. Similarly, Wolsko et al. (2006) found that the endorsement of multiculturalism is negatively related to perceived ethnic group differences. The major difference between this work and the present study is the nature of the concepts used to understand multiculturalism. Whereas previous studies (e.g., Schalk-Soekar et al., 2004; Van Osch & Breugelmans, 2012) referred to specific aspects of dominant and non-dominant groups to understand differences in multiculturalism, such as perceived intergroup differences (Van Osch & Breugelmans, 2012) and ethnic hierarchy (SchalkSoekar et al., 2004), the present study uses a more general concept, outgroup distance, that does not refer to a specific ethnic group but to ingroup–outgroup differences in general. The question of whether there are group differences in outgroup distance is still unresolved. There are two possible views on cross-cultural differences in outgroup distance. According to the first view, which is based on individualism–collectivism theory (individualism is mainly represented in Western, more developed countries while collectivism prevails in nonWestern, less developed countries; Hofstede, 2001), collectivists perceive themselves as more distant from outgroups, whereas individualists perceive themselves as less distant from outgroups. This view is based on the observation that collectivists have stronger ingroup–outgroup boundaries which would lead to more superficial relationships with outgroup members, whereas individualists have weaker and more permeable ingroup–outgroup boundaries (Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994; Triandis, 1989; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Immigrants from more collectivistic countries would then perceive themselves as more distant from outgroups compared to immigrants from individualistic countries and the (individualistic) majority group in the Netherlands. Contradictory to the first view, the second view suggests that ethnic groups do not differ in outgroup distance. The expectation draws on research findings that demonstrated that outgroup evaluation is not related to ingroup identification in immigrants or majority group members (Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Verkuyten, 2005). In line with these findings, Brewer (1999) argued that ingroup identification and outgroup attitudes

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

27

(and hence, outgroup distance) are independent. Brewer and Campbell (1976) found that social distance toward outgroups is not related to the positive evaluation of ingroups over outgroups. Ingroup identification may affect outgroup attitudes only if outgroups are perceived as threatening and competitive (Levine & Campbell, 1972). We refrain from specifying any hypothesis about cross-cultural differences in outgroup distance and test which of the models holds in our data set. 1.4. Multiculturalism as a mediator of the personality-outgroup distance relation 1.4.1. Current mediation model of multiculturalism There are no empirical studies that address the question if multiculturalism can be viewed as mediating the link between context variables (such as personality) and outgroup distance as an outcome. The correlations between multiculturalism and outgroup evaluations that have been observed (Verkuyten, 2005) do not suggest a specific line of causation in a mediation model. Therefore, we derive our reasoning from other models in psychology, such as Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model of development, Berry’s (1976) ecocultural model, and coping models in which coping mechanisms link environmental stressors to psychological outputs (e.g., Haley et al., 1996). Additionally, several authors presented evidence for the role of multiculturalism or similar concepts as mediating between personality and outcomes that are conceptually closely related to outgroup distance, such as nationalism, ethnocentrism, and prejudice (e.g., Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrisson, 2004; Schalk-Soekar & Van de Vijver, 2008). All these models link broader input variables to more specific output variables. We argue that compared to outgroup distance, multiculturalism is a broader concept that encompasses various domains, such as rejection of discrimination, acceptance of cultural maintenance of immigrant groups, and the view that diversity can enrich society (Van de Vijver, Breugelmans, & Schalk-Soekar, 2008) than the more narrow concept of outgroup distance (Simmons, Wittig, & Grant, 2010). So, we propose a model where we treat multiculturalism as mediating the link between context (personality, education level, and age) and outgroup distance. 1.4.2. Personality and multiculturalism There is a long tradition of research that suggests a relation between attitudes toward immigrants such as outgroup rejection or multicultural attitudes and certain personality types; examples are the Authoritarian Personality as studied by Adorno et al. (1950), the Multicultural Personality as reported by Ponterotto (2010), and the Expatriate Model of the Multicultural Personality, as studied by Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000). The research on personality is dominated in the last decades by the Five-Factor Model, which describes personality through five traits: emotional stability (neuroticism), extraversion, openness (to experience), agreeableness, and conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 1996). Recent research shows that individuals high on agreeableness (Gallego, in press) and openness (Dinesen, Klemmensen, & Nørgaard, 2011) hold more positive multicultural attitudes. These individuals probably have more frequent contact with outgroups, which may lead to more positive attitudes and less prejudice toward outgroups (Jackson & Poulsen, 2005; Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011). Emotional stability (opposite of neuroticism) was also positively correlated with attitudes toward immigration (Gallego, in press) and negatively with generalized prejudice and racial prejudice (Ekehammar et al., 2004). Individuals who are emotionally stable may feel less threatened by immigrants, may reject them less, and therefore may endorse multiculturalism more compared to emotionally unstable individuals. Recent studies reported contradictory findings on the relation between conscientiousness and multicultural attitudes. Dinesen et al. (2011) found that individuals who are high in conscientiousness held more negative attitudes toward immigration of low-skilled immigrants, whereas Boldero and Whelan (2009) found that multicultural attitudes were positively correlated to conscientiousness. The same inconclusiveness applies to extraversion; multicultural attitudes were not related to extraversion in Gallego’s (in press) study, whereas others found that extraversion was positively related to conservatism (Pearson & Greatorex, 1981) and dogmatism (Ross, Francis, & Craig, 2005), which would suggest a negative relation with multiculturalism (Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008; Gerber, Gregory, David, Conor, & Shang, 2010). Individuals who are more conservative were often characterized as less open-minded and more prejudiced regarding immigrant groups. Therefore, we expect that the personality dimensions that have impact on the political conservatism-liberalism dimension, notably openness and agreeableness, are positively associated with multicultural attitudes. 1.4.3. Multiculturalism and biographical variables The associations of three biographical variables with multicultural attitudes have been studied: education level, age, and gender (Van de Vijver, Breugelmans, & Schalk-Soekar, 2008). Lower education, together with low income and unemployment, are often related to more hostility toward outgroups and more negative attitudes toward multiculturalism (Bulbeck, 2004; Schalk-Soekar & Van de Vijver, 2008). This finding is in line with Realistic Group Conflict Theory (Levine & Campbell, 1972), according to which more educated individuals are less vulnerable to economic changes that could be brought about by immigration of low-educated individuals. Older individuals tend to be less supportive of multiculturalism (Ang, Brand, Noble, & Sternberg, 2006). Education could be a confounding factor in this relation as in many countries older individuals are on average less educated. Associations between attitudes toward multiculturalism and gender are inconsistent. In some studies men were found to display more social dominance and more prejudice toward outgroups as compared to women, which suggests that men are less supportive of multiculturalism (Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999); yet, Schalk-Soekar (2007) did not find any relation with gender. In a Dutch study in which the relative importance of education,

28

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model in the present study.

gender, and age were compared, education was the strongest (positive) predictor of attitudes toward multiculturalism (Van de Vijver et al., 2008). 1.5. The present study The goal of our study was to examine ethnic group differences in multiculturalism and outgroup distance. We tested a mediation model (see Fig. 1) in which personality and background variables are antecedents that influence ingroup–outgroup attitudes through multiculturalism. Our mediation model goes from broad, distal background factors (personality, education, and age) to a more specific variable, outgroup distance, through an intermediate-level variable, multiculturalism. We tested two hypotheses: (1) Groups higher in the ethnic hierarchy show less support for multiculturalism; (2) the hypothesized model of Figure 1 is valid in all ethnic groups. A novelty of our study is the use of a new concept, outgroup distance, that is more closely related to relationships in multicultural societies than previously used concepts, such as the authoritarian personality and social dominance orientation, that are more directly personality based and do not start from an assessment of intergroup relationships in a specific context. Another novel aspect involves the conceptual status of preferences with regard to intergroup relationships. Whereas in previous studies, there was an emphasis on viewing these preferences as part of personality, we view these preferences as consequences of a combination of background factors and personality. Our approach is therefore suitable to disentangle personality and intergroup relation preferences. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants The data set was collected using the LISS panel (Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences; www.lissdata.nl). Members of the panel receive each month a questionnaire; response rates per month are at least 70%. The panel of 5000 households (comprising 8000 individuals of 16 years and older) was randomly selected from the population registers (in cooperation with Statistics Netherlands). Our sample comprised 3743 majority Dutch participants and 545 participants from other ethnic groups (first-, second-, and third-generation immigrants). We used standard definitions of first- and second-generation immigrants and of non-Western and Western countries provided by Statistics Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands, 2000). First-generation immigrants are those who are born outside of the Netherlands with at least one parent born in a foreign country. Second-generation immigrants are those who are born in the Netherlands with at least one parent born in a foreign country. Third-generation immigrants are those who are born in the Netherlands (including both parents) with at least one grandparent born abroad. Majority Dutch refers in the current study to ethnic Dutch and as such it is related to the participants of Dutch heritage whose both parents are born in the Netherlands regardless the birthplace of the participants (Statistics Netherlands, 2000). For the purpose of this study, we divided the sample according to ethnic background into four groups: (1) 63 Turkish/Moroccan-Dutch (67% first-, 29% second-, and 5% third-generation), (2) 61 Antillean/Surinamese-Dutch (64% first-, 26% second-, and 10% third-generation), (3) 421 Mixed Western (Western nonDutch origin such as German and Belgian; 24% first-, 32% second-, and 44% third-generation), and (4) 3743 Dutch (majority

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

29

group members). The merging of ethnic groups was necessary for obtaining adequate sample sizes for testing the hypotheses and was in line with the ordering of the groups on ethnic hierarchy (Hagendoorn & Pepels, 2003; Schalk-Soekar et al., 2004). Of the Dutch majority group, 1748 were male (47%); the other groups showed similar percentages (Turkish/Moroccan 45%, Antillean/Surinamese 32%, and Mixed Western 45%). The age in the majority group varied from 16 to 96 years (M = 48.62; SD = 16.37). The age varied from 16 to 87 years within immigrant sample with the mean age of 36.32 years (SD = 10.74) for Turkish/Moroccan, 42.16 years (SD = 15.58) for Antillean/Surinamese, and 47.49 years (SD = 16.88) for Mixed Western. Education level varied from not having education at all (0) to university degree (6) with a mean of 3.30 (SD = 1.53) for the Turkish/Moroccan, 3.80 (SD = 1.40), for the Antillean/Surinamese, 3.80 (SD = 1.48) for the Mixed Western, and 3.61 (SD = 1.49) for the Dutch majority group. Length of stay varied from 8 to 82 years with a mean of 28 years (SD = 11.52; range: 12–63) for the Turkish/Moroccan, 33 (SD = 15.45; range: 8–82) for the Antillean/Surinamese, and 31 (SD = 16.55; range: 9–82) for the Mixed Western group. A significant, yet small difference between ethnic groups was found in age, F(3, 4284) = 14.97, p < .001, 2p = .010. No significant differences were found between different ethnic groups in gender, 2 (3, N = 4284) = 2.34, ns. We found a significant difference in education level between ethnic groups, F(3, 4284) = 3.50, p < .05, 2p = .002. However, post hoc comparisons did not show significant differences in education level between any pair of ethnic groups. Additionally, no significant differences were found in the length of stay of the immigrants in the Netherlands, F(3, 4284) = .78, ns, 2p = .013. Previous research showed that age, education level, and possibly gender are all related to multicultural attitudes (Van de Vijver et al., 2008). Therefore, we included these background variables as antecedents of multicultural attitudes in the multigroup analyses of our hypothesized model. 2.2. Measures All measures were administered in all ethnic groups and the items were in Dutch. Proficiency in Dutch of all participants was sufficient to participate in this study; immigrants of the panel were staying longer than seven years in the Netherlands. Background variables such as education, age, and gender, were derived from the general part of the longitudinal LISSpanel study (www.lissdata.nl). Attitudes toward multiculturalism in Dutch society were assessed using 10 items scored on a 5-point response scale (from completely disagree to completely agree) originating from the Multicultural Attitude Scale (MAS; Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004). Items were formulated as statements such as “I think that it is the best for the Netherlands that non-Dutch ethnic groups keep their own culture and customs” and “I think that the non-Dutch ethnic groups weaken the unity of the Netherlands” (in the Dutch version the term “allochtonen”, a common term to refer to people living in the Netherlands with a non-Dutch ancestry, was used). Higher scores on the scale indicate more support for multicultural nature of the Dutch society. The scale was unifactorial in all (ethnic) groups explaining between 39% and 50% of the variance. The internal consistency of the scale was high in all ethnic groups, with Cronbach’s ˛ ranging from .82 to .88. The 14-item Perceived Outgroup Distance Scale (an adaptation of the Perceived Cultural Distance Questionnaire; Suanet & Van de Vijver, 2009) was used to assess perceived outgroup distance. In particular, distance from the following ethnic groups was assessed: Turks, Moroccans, Belgians, Germans, Surinamers, Antilleans, and Dutch. We included only items where participants reported distance from people with different ethnic background than one’s own (Cronbach’s ˛ ranging from .81 to .93). Examples of the items are “I differ a lot from Turks” and “I feel distant from Dutch majority members”. Response categories ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The scale was also found to be unifactorial in all ethnic groups (between 37% and 54% of the variance explained). A set of 50 items was selected of the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Big-Five Factor Markers (Goldberg, 1992), consisting of 10 items for each Big-Five factor: extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, openness, and conscientiousness. A 5-point, Likert-type response scale with anchors ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate) was used (Cronbach’s ˛ ranged from .70 to .89 across ethnic groups). For IPIP Big-Five Markers, five-factorial solutions were calculated and the same pattern of factors was found across all ethnic groups. These five factors explained the largest part of the variance: 46% in Turkish/Moroccan-Dutch, 50% in Antillean/Surinamese, 46% in the Mixed Western group, and 44% in Dutch majority members. All items and data can be accessed (after registration) from http://www.lissdata.nl/dataarchive/ study units/view/57. 2.2.1. Equivalence of the measures In order to assess structural equivalence (comparability of the factors across the cultures; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997), Tucker’s phi was calculated for the Multicultural Attitude Scale and IPIP Big-Five Markers using pairwise comparisons. For the Perceived Outgroup Distance Scale, we computed pairwise comparisons between ethnic groups as the outgroups differed in each pair (e.g., a comparison of Dutch majority members and Turkish/Moroccan-Dutch required the removal of all items dealing with the Dutch majority members and the Turkish and Moroccan groups). The average value of Tucker’s phi was .98 (range: .92–1.00), which suggests that this measure shows structural equivalence. The average value of Tucker’s phi for the Multicultural Attitude Scale for all groups was .99 (range: .99–1.00). Regarding IPIP Big-Five Markers, the average Tucker’s phi coefficient for all groups was .99 (.97–1.00) for extraversion, .98 (.97–.98) for agreeableness, .99 (.98–1.00) for emotional stability, .98 (.97–1.00) for openness, and .98 (.97–1.00) for conscientiousness. All values of Tucker’s phi were above .90,

30

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

which supports the conclusion that all scales in the current study were equivalent across all groups (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). 3. Results We first describe differences in the scores on the scales per ethnic group followed by the description of the test of the hypothesized mediation model. 3.1. Ethnic group differences Multivariate analyses of variance were conducted in order to explore differences across ethnic groups (four levels: Turkish/Moroccan-Dutch, Antillean/Surinamese-Dutch, Mixed Western immigrants, and Dutch majority members) in scale scores (Multicultural Attitude Scale, Perceived Outgroup Distance Scale, Big-Five Markers: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, Openness, and Conscientiousness), with age as covariate. Post hoc tests were calculated to test differences in scale scores between immigrant and majority group participants (with the latter as reference category). Cross-cultural differences in personality traits ranged from absent to small (see Table 1). A significant, yet very small difference in personality traits was found between the Mixed Western and Dutch group on emotional stability (F(3, 4284) = 4.402, p < .05, 2p = .003), where the latter scored higher. A significant and very small difference was also found between Turkish/Moroccan-Dutch and Dutch majority members on openness (Dutch scored higher), F(3, 4284) = 4.089, p < .05, 2p = .003. Additional analyses revealed that there was no significant difference in scores on the Perceived Outgroup Distance Scale between immigrant and Dutch majority group members, F(3, 4284) = .370, ns, 2p = .000. The similarity of these scores implies that the groups did not differ in the average distance they experience to other groups. Contrast weights (univariate ANOVA) were defined to test the hypothesis of the role of ethnic hierarchy in support for multiculturalism; weights of −1.5, −.5, .5 and 1.5 were used for the Turkish/Moroccan-Dutch, Antillean/Surinamese-Dutch, Mixed Western immigrants, and Dutch majority members, respectively (with age as covariate); this order reflects the ethnic hierarchy. The contrast yielded a significant, yet small effect, F(3, 4284) = 57.06, p < .001, 2p = .038. As predicted in the first hypothesis, a lower position on the ethnic ladder was related to more positive multicultural attitudes, although the effect size was small. 3.2. Mediation model We first tested a mediation model described in the introduction (see Fig. 1) in which multicultural attitudes mediate the relation between personality dimensions, age, and education level as predictors and perceived ethnic outgroup distance as outcome. Gender was not significantly related to multicultural attitudes and outgroup distance; therefore, we did not include it in the model. Initial analyses revealed that the relation between the two demographic variables, age and education level, and attitudes toward multiculturalism varied across ethnic groups; these analyses also suggested that age should have a direct link to outgroup distance (in addition to the indirect link through multiculturalism). Therefore, in the multigroup analysis that was conducted the paths of age and education were allowed to vary across ethnic groups in all models and constraints were only imposed on the other relations of the model (i.e., relations between personality and multicultural attitudes and between multicultural attitudes and outgroup distance). A set of nested models was fitted to the data (see Table 2). We chose the structural covariances model because it was the most restrictive model with a good fit (recommended values are given by Schweizer, 2010), 2 (129, N = 4288) = 224.995, p < .01; 2 /df = 1.744 (recommended: <2.50), the comparative fit index (CFI) was .982, the goodness of fit index (GFI) was .989 (recommended: ≥.95), the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) was .985 (recommended: ≥.90), the Tucker Lewis index (TLI) was .979 (recommended: ≥.90), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .013 (recommended: ≤.08). The multigroup path analysis supported a model in which multicultural attitudes mediate the relations between personality, education level, and age as predictors Table 1 Means, standard deviations (in parentheses) and per ethnic group effect sizes of the differences between each immigrant and Dutch majority group.

Extraversion Agreeableness Emotional stability Openness Conscientiousness Attitudes toward multiculturalism Outgroup distance

Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch

Antillean- and Surinamese-Dutch

Mixed Western immigrants

Dutch majority members

Partial eta square (2p )

3.18 (.63) 3.73 (.45)a 3.33 (.65)a,b 3.35 (.53)a 3.67 (.54) 3.61 (.63)a .34 (.11)

3.26 (.64) 3.83 (.53)a,b 3.53 (.63)a,b 3.53 (.45)a,b 3.59 (.63) 3.28 (.59)b .33 (.06)

3.25 (.66) 3.89 (.46)b 3.32 (.69)a 3.53 (.49)b 3.73 (.56) 2.84 (.70)c .34 (.07)

3.20 (.63) 3.85 (.43)a,b 3.44 (.65)a,b 3.48 (.49)a,b 3.76 (.53) 2.71 (.65)d .34 (.07)

.001 .002 .003* .003* .001 .038*** .000

Note: Means with different subscripts are statistically significant (Contrast weights). * p < .05. *** p < .001.

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

31

Table 2 Results of the multigroup analysis. Model

2 (df)

CFI

GFI

AGFI

TLI

RMSEA

Unconstrained Structural weights Structural covariances Structural residuals

86.940 (24) 123.847 (45)*** 224.995 (129)*** 300.851 (135)***

.988 .985 .982 .968

.996 .994 .989 .980

.967 .976 .985 .973

.927 .951 .979 .966

.025 .020 .013 .017

2 – 36.907** 101.149 75.856***

df – 21 84 6

Note: Most restrictive model with a good fit is printed in italics. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Fig. 2. A model of attitudes toward multiculturalism and perceived cultural distance: standardized coefficients. Note: Standardized regression coefficients are given next to the arrows. Gender was not significantly related to attitudes toward multiculturalism and perceived cultural distance. Numbers in boxes of attitudes toward multiculturalism and perceived cultural distance represent proportions of variance explained. TM = Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch, AS = Antillean- and Surinamese-Dutch, MW = Mixed Western immigrants, and D = Dutch majority group members. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

and perceived ethnic outgroup distance as outcomes; age had a direct link with distance, whereas all other variables were linked to distance through attitudes toward multiculturalism (see Fig. 2). We computed the significance of indirect effects of personality and education level on perceived distance to outgroups, using bootstrapping (see Table 3). Although the indirect effects were almost all significant, they were very close to zero explaining between up to 5% of outgroup distance’s variance (1% in Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch, 2% in Antillean- and Surinamese-Dutch, 5% in Mixed Western group, and 0% in Dutch majority members). As a consequence, we concluded that personality has a limited (indirect) influence on outgroup distance. The relations between the Big-Five Markers and multicultural attitudes were invariant across all ethnic groups including the majority members; all path coefficients were significant, though small. Higher scores on emotional stability, openness, and agreeableness and lower scores on conscientiousness and extraversion were associated with more positive multicultural attitudes. In all ethnic groups a negative, significant relation was found between multicultural attitudes and outgroup distance (ˇ = −.44, p < .001). The relation between the background variables (age and education level) and attitude toward multiculturalism varied across ethnic groups. Level of education was not significantly related to multicultural attitudes for the ethnic groups low in the ethnic hierarchy (ˇ = −.06, p > .05, for Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch; ˇ = −.04, p > .05, for Antillean and SurinameseDutch). However, in groups with a higher position in the ethnic hierarchy, education showed a significant, positive relation

32

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

Table 3 Standardized indirect effects of personality and education on outgroup distance per group. Measure Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Openness Education level Antillean- and Surinamese-Dutch Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Openness Education level Mixed Western immigrants Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Openness Education level Dutch majority members Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Openness Education level *

Indirect effect on outgroup distance

95% Confidence interval

.023* −.046* .045* −.037* −.031* .017

(.011, .035) (−.060, −.035) (.034, .057) (−.050, −.027) (−.044, −.019) (−.047, .076)

.033* −.068* .065* −.054* −.045* .016

(.017, .051) (−.090, −.050) (.048, .086) (−.073, −.039) (−.065, −.029) (−.090, .129)

.036* −.075* .072* −.060* −.050* −.124*

(.018, .053) (−.093, −.057) (.054, .089) (−.076, −.043) (−.069, −.031) (−.177, −.073)

.036* −.074* .071* −.059* −.049* −.123*

(.018, .052) (−.091, −.056) (.054, .087) (−.074, −.043) (−.068, −.031) (−.140, −.105)

p < .05.

to multicultural attitudes (ˇ = .23, p < .001, for Mixed Western, and ˇ = .25, p < .001, for Dutch majority members). Age was only significantly related to multicultural attitudes in the ethnic groups with the lowest and the highest position in the ethnic hierarchy (ˇ = −.35, p < .05 for Turkish and Moroccan-Dutch; ˇ = .08, p < .001, for Dutch majority members). The direction of the (significant) relations also differed between those two ethnic groups: In the Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch group, a higher age was associated with more negative multicultural attitudes whereas in Dutch majority members a positive significant relation was found. Additionally, there was a direct link between age and outgroup distance that was weak, yet significant in all ethnic groups. Furthermore, age was more strongly (negatively) related to outgroup distance in the groups higher in the ethnic hierarchy when compared to the groups lower in the hierarchy. It can be concluded that our second hypothesis was confirmed and that the hypothesized model is valid for all ethnic groups. It could be argued that our cross-sectional design does not allow for an unambiguous interpretation of the causal order of the variables in our model, notably the order of multicultural attitudes and outgroup distance. Therefore, we tested a model with outgroup distance as mediator and multiculturalism as outcome (testing the reverse mediation). The multigroup path analysis did not provide strong support for the latter model: 2 (135, N = 4288) = 599.062, p < .01; 2 /df = 4.437, CFI = .911, GFI = .972, AGFI = .963, TLI = .905, and RMSEA = .028; these statistics, though quite reasonable when considered in isolation, suggested a worse fit than the fit of the model in Fig. 2. We concluded that our proposed mediation model (Table 2) where we treated multiculturalism as a mediator, shows a better fit than the reversed model where we treated multiculturalism as an outcome. 4. Discussion The present study tested a mediation model in which multicultural attitudes mediate the relation between personality dimensions, together with age and education level, as antecedents, and perceived ethnic outgroup distance as outcome. The model was tested in the largest ethnic groups in the Netherlands (Turkish/Moroccan-Dutch, Antillean/Surinamese-Dutch, Mixed Western, and Dutch majority members). We expected that our hypothesized model would be valid in all groups and that multicultural attitudes would be negatively associated with the position in the ethnic hierarchy. Results revealed that this mediation model was supported in all groups. Personality and education level were related to outgroup distance but only through broader multicultural attitudes as mediator of this relation. Previous research had already suggested that multicultural attitudes might mediate the link between personality and outcomes that are closely related to outgroup distance (e.g., Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Ekehammar et al., 2004). Therefore, the link between personality and specific aspects of attitudes or behaviors involving outgroups may be accounted for by broad attitudes vis-à-vis multiculturalism. Also in line with our expectations, ethnic hierarchy was associated with multicultural attitudes. Groups lower in the hierarchy scored higher on multicultural attitudes when compared to groups higher in the hierarchy. Thus, both hypotheses were confirmed.

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

33

Finally, we found that immigrant groups did not differ in perceived outgroup distance from the Dutch majority group. These findings support Brewer’s view on group differences in outgroup distance and are not in line with predictions from the individualism-collectivism model. Our findings provide evidence that the relationship between multicultural attitudes and outgroup distance is negative, as expected. Although the current study did not investigate psychosocial mechanisms behind multiculturalism-outgroup distance relationship, we suggest that multicultural attitudes are closely related to specific social perceptions with a bearing on outgroup distance, such as stereotypes, ethnocentrism, and openness for other cultures. Sayama and Sayama (2011) demonstrated that a higher multicultural awareness is related to more positive stereotyping regarding White, Black, and Asian participants. Therefore, we can speculate that more positive multicultural attitudes reduce outgroup distance due to less negative and more positive stereotyping toward ethnic outgroups. We also found that the groups do not differ in the average distance they feel to other ethnic groups that are part of the same multicultural society. Combining this finding with previous research on differences among ethnic groups in the amount of reported cultural difference and cultural distance from specific groups will provide us with more insight into ingroup–outgroup boundaries. Previous research showed that the largest perceived cultural difference and distance from the Dutch culture was reported by Moroccan-Dutch, followed by Turkish-, Antillean-, and Surinamese-Dutch (e.g., Schalk-Soekar, 2007; Van Osch & Breugelmans, 2012; Verkuyten et al., 1996). Therefore, averages of perceived distances to specific groups tend to differ in a meaningful manner across groups, but if all distances to outgroups are averaged, cultural groups do not differ. Outgroups are, on average, on the same distance to the ingroups, regardless of ethnic background (e.g., Verkuyten, 2005). Our findings suggest that, confirming Brewer’s (1999) view, the stricter boundaries between ingroups and outgroups in collectivistic groups (as compared to more individualistic groups) may be more a function of stronger ingroup ties (e.g., stronger ingroup identification and/or ingroup favoritism) than of stronger distancing from outgroups. We found that individuals who scored high on emotional stability, openness, and agreeableness, and who scored low on conscientiousness and extraversion held more positive multicultural attitudes. Past research has also shown that certain personality profile is related to multicultural attitudes (e.g., Ponterotto, 2010; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). Our findings are mainly in line with both multicultural personality models of Ponterotto (2010) and Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000), where they described a multicultural personality as emotionally stable, open-minded, flexible (opposite of conservatism) and socially initiating. The main addition of our study to this literature involves conscientiousness. The negative association we found suggests that conscientiousness may be negatively associated with multiculturalism through its common link with political conservatism (Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu, & Peterson, 2010). It has been argued that conscientiousness has various subfacets, such as industriousness and traditionalism (Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Goldberg, 2005). It could well be that these subfacets show different correlations with multiculturalism, with industriousness showing positive correlations and traditionalism showing a negative correlation. Positive relationships between education level and multicultural attitudes have been reported in the literature. The theoretical framework for these findings comes from Realistic Group Conflict Theory (Levine & Campbell, 1972) according to which more educated individuals who hold better socioeconomic positions in the society compared to low educated groups will not perceive immigrant groups low in the hierarchy as economic threat. Our study adds a new aspect to this finding by suggesting that the relationship may be moderated by the position of the informant’s ethnic group in the hierarchy. The positive relationship between education and support for multiculturalism was only found in the groups that were high in the ethnic hierarchy. In groups lower in the ethnic hierarchy, no relationship between education and support for multiculturalism was found. We argue that the moderation could be an effect of the expected gain from multiculturalism. Immigrants lower in the hierarchy are more likely to profit of multiculturalism (e.g., more access to the labor market, less exposure to discrimination), irrespective of their educational background whereas for persons from groups higher in the hierarchy, this expectation will vary with educational level. Majority group members with lower levels of education will see more competition from immigrant groups (realistic conflict theory) than more educated persons; this probably also holds in groups of Western immigrants. There is much evidence that the Dutch labor market is not easily accessible notably for non-Western immigrants, that there is much (often) implicit discrimination, and that this group is the last to be hired in times of prosperity and the first to be fired in times of economic downturns (Andriesen, Nievers, & Dagevos, 2012). There is no evidence that this discrimination varies much with level of education. As a consequence, non-Western immigrants from all levels of education may feel to the same extent that they would profit from education. 4.1. Limitations There are several limitations that need to be acknowledged regarding the present study. Perhaps the main limitation of the current study is that we were not able to investigate possible psychosocial mechanisms behind the link between multicultural attitudes and outgroup distance. Future research might benefit from information on how multiculturalism, as a general variable, translates into specific social perceptions such as stereotypes in specific ethnic groups (including the differences between the groups). Secondly, an important limitation is the design of the study. Cross-sectional studies can only provide a snapshot of the relation between variables and cannot provide more information on causal relations between, in our case, personality, multicultural attitudes, and outgroup distance. By changing the design in the longitudinal, firmer conclusions can be drawn regarding possible causality relationships. Thirdly, future studies could independently assess outgroup distance and ethnic hierarchy scores so as to compare their predictive power in the realm of acculturation and

34

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

multiculturalism attitudes. Finally, our sample of immigrants might be selective. The immigrants in the present study were already living in the Netherlands longer than seven years, their education level was comparable to the majority members, and they were therefore probably well adapted to the Dutch culture (e.g., as all items are always administered in Dutch, selfselection against recent immigrants is unavoidable). However, the advantages of the very careful sampling procedures of the panel outweigh this shortcoming as it is fair to assume that the global picture we get of the immigrant groups is still better and more representative than what would normally be obtained using snowball sampling or other types of convenience sampling that are often used in research of immigrants. References Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Norton. Andriessen, I., Nievers, E., & Dagevos, J. (2012). (At a distance. Discrimination of non-Western migrants on the labor market) Op achterstand. Discriminatie van niet-westerse migranten op de arbeidsmarkt. The Hague, the Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Ang, I., Brand, J. E., Noble, G., & Sternberg, J. (2006). Connecting diversity: Paradoxes of multicultural Australia. Artarmon, Australia: Special Broadcasting Services Corporation. Arends-Tóth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 249–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.143 Babiker, I. E., Cox, J. L., & Miller, P. M. C. (1980). The measurement of cultural distance and its relationship to medical consultation, symptomatology and examination performance of overseas students at Edinburgh University. Social Psychiatry, 15, 109–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00578141 Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York, NY: Sage/Halsted. Berry, J. W., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 27, 301–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0008-400X.27.3.301 Boldero, J. M., & Whelan, J. (2009). Personality, nationalism, and attitudes to multiculturalism and migrants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISPP 32nd Annual Scientific Meeting, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Breugelmans, S. M., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Antecedents and components of majority attitudes toward multiculturalism in the Netherlands. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 400–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00177.x Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/0022-4537.00126 Brewer, M. B., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bulbeck, C. (2004). The “white worrier” in South Australia: Attitudes to multiculturalism, immigration and reconciliation. Journal of Sociology, 40, 341–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1440783304048379 Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x Celenk, O., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. Assessment of acculturation and multiculturalism: An overview of measures in the public domain. In V. Benet-Martínez, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multicultural identity: Basic and applied psychological perspectives. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press (in press). Dinesen, P. T., Klemmensen, R., & Nørgaard, A. S. (2011). Attitudes toward immigration: The role of personal predisposition. Paper prepared for the 4th annual NYU-CESS experimental political science conference. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2003). The relation between personality and prejudice: A variable- and a person-centered approach. European Journal of Personality, 17, 449–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.494 Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big-five personality, social dominance orientation or right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.526 Galchenko, I., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). The role of perceived cultural distance in the acculturation of exchange students in Russia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 181–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.004 Gallego, A. Looking beyond threat: Personality, ideology and attitudes towards immigration. Political Behavior (in press). Gerber, A. S., Gregory, A. H., David, D., Conor, M. D., & Shang, E. H. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104, 111–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000031 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 Hagendoorn, L., Drogendijk, R., Tumanov, S., & Hraba, J. (1998). Inter-ethnic preferences and ethnic hierarchies in the former Soviet Union. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 483–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00020-0 Hagendoorn, L., & Hraba, J. (1987). Social distance towards Holland’s minorities: Discrimination against and among ethnic out-groups. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 10, 120–133, 10.1080%2F01419870.1987.9993571. Hagendoorn, L., & Hraba, J. (1989). Foreign, different, deviant, seclusive and working class: Anchors to an ethnic hierarchy in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12, 441–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1989.9993647 Hagendoorn, L., & Pepels, J. (2003). Why the Dutch maintain more social distance from some ethnic minorities than from others: A model explaining the ethnic hierarchy. In L. Hagendoorn, J. Veenman, & W. Vollebergh (Eds.), Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands: Cultural versus socio-economic integration (pp. 41–61). Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate UK. Haley, W. E., Roth, D. L., Coleton, M. I., Ford, G. R., West, C. A. C., Colllins, R. P., et al. (1996). Appraisal, coping, and social support as mediators of well-being in Black and White family caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 121–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.1.121 Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae. In D. Abrams, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 48–70). New York, NY: Springer. Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 655–664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210366854 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hraba, J., Hagendoorn, L., & Hagendoorn, R. (1989). The ethnic hierarchy in The Netherlands: Social distance and social representation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 57–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00846.x Jackson, J. W., & Poulsen, J. R. (2005). Contact experiences mediate the relationship between five-factor model personality traits and ethnic prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 667–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02140.x Jennissen, R. (2009). Een algemeen beeld van internationale migratie in Nederland. In Ministry of Justice (Ed.), Migratie naar en vanuit Nederland: Een eerste proeve van de Migratiekaart. The Hague, the Netherlands: WODC. Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.-C., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

S. Stupar et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38 (2014) 24–35

35

Kleinpenning, G. (1993). Structure and content of racist beliefs’ an empirical study of ethnic attitudes\ stereotypes and the ethnic hierarchy. Utrecht, the Netherlands: ISOR (Dissertation). Kposowa, A. J. (2007). Is there a racial/ethnic hierarchy in health care status and care? The Western Journal of Black Studies, 31, 17–32. Lange, A. (2000). (Discrimination, integration, and ethnic relations: A summing-up and a discussion) Diskriminering, integration och etniska relationer: Sammanfattning och discussion. Norrköping, Norway: Integrationsverket. Levine, R., & Campbell, D. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes and group behavior. New York, NY: Wiley. Liebkind, K., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2000). The influence of experiences of discrimination on psychological stress: A comparison of seven immigrant groups. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(200001/02)10:1<1::AID-CASP521>3.0.CO;2-5 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York, NY: Guilford. Pearson, P. R., & Greatorex, B. J. (1981). Do tough-minded people hold tough-minded attitudes? Current Psychological Research, 1, 45–48. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/BF02684425 Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001 Ponterotto, J. G. (2010). Multicultural personality: An evolving theory of optimal functioning in culturally heterogeneous societies. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 714–758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000009359203 Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x Ross, C. F. J., Francis, L. J., & Craig, C. L. (2005). Dogmatism, religion and psychological type. Pastoral Psychology, 53, 483–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11089-005-2587-9 Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz, & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53–84). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Sayama, M., & Sayama, H. (2011). Positive stereotyping and multicultural awareness: An online experiment. Retrieved from: http://www.uiowa.edu/∼grpproc/ crisp/crisp16 6.pdf Schalk-Soekar, S. R. G. (2007). Multiculturalism: A stable concept with many ideological and political aspects. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University (Doctoral dissertation). Schalk-Soekar, S., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2008). The concept of multiculturalism: A study among Dutch majority members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2152–2178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00385.x Schalk-Soekar, S., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hoogsteder, M. (2004). Migrants’ and majority members’ orientations toward multiculturalism in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 533–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.01.009 Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (Eds.). (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Simmons, S. J., Wittig, M., & Grant, S. (2010). A mutual acculturation model of multicultural campus climate and acceptance of diversity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 468–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020237 Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. (2005). (Annual integration report) Jaarrapport integratie. The Hague, the Netherlands: Author. Suanet, I., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2009). Perceived cultural distance and acculturation among exchange students in Russia. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 182–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.989 Schweizer, K. (2010). Some guidelines concerning the modeling of traits and abilities in test constructions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 1–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000001 Statistics Netherlands. (2000). (Standard definition of immigrants) Standaard definitie allochtonen. Retrieved from: http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/26785779-AAFE-4B39-AD07-59F34DCD44C8/0/index1119.pdf Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 409–426. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0147-1767(96)00026-0 Torbiörn, I. (1982). Living abroad. New York, NY: Wiley. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.506 Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1006 Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Breugelmans, S. M., & Schalk-Soekar, S. R. G. (2008). Multiculturalism: Construct validity and stability. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 93–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.11.001 Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The multicultural personality questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/10990984(200007/08)14:4<291::AID-PER377>3.0.CO;2-6 Van Osch, Y. M. J., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2012). Perceived intergroup difference as an organizing principle of intercultural attitudes and acculturation attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 801–821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022111407688 Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995–1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<995::AID-EJSP908>3.0.CO;2-8 Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 121–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.121 Verkuyten, M., Hagendoorn, L., & Masson, K. (1996). The ethnic hierarchy among majority youth in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1104–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01127.x Wolsko, C., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2006). Considering the Tower of Babel: Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism among ethnic minority and majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research, 19, 277–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0014-8