Personal reactions to ‘strange’ situations: Attachment styles and acculturation attitudes of immigrants and majority members

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Personal reactions to ‘strange’ situations: Attachment styles and acculturation attitudes of immigrants and majority members Jan Pieter Van Oudenhoven, Jacomijn Hofstra Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, Room 164, 9712 Groningen TS, The Netherlands Received in revised form 29 May 2006; accepted 30 May 2006

Abstract A growing number of studies examine the influence of individual factors on acculturation attitudes of immigrants, but few studies focus on majority members’ attitudes. In this paper, two studies are reported on the relation between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes of both immigrants (N ¼ 177) and majority members (N ¼ 243) in the Netherlands. Until now very few studies have associated cultural adjustment with attachment styles. This is remarkable, because attachment theory refers to interaction with others in new situations. Four different styles of attachment (the secure, dismissing, preoccupied and fearful attachment styles) are related to Berry’s classification of acculturation attitudes. People, both immigrants and majority members, with a secure attachment style were positive towards integration, whereas people with a dismissing attachment style were not. Dismissing immigrants were more positive towards separation. Whereas both immigrants and majority members with a secure attachment style showed a similar pattern of correlations between attachment and acculturation, they seem to react quite differently, and even in opposite ways, when they have a preoccupied attachment style. Yet, the different reactions may be caused by the same psychological process: The existential ambivalence of preoccupied people may lead to diverse reactions. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Acculturation attitudes; Attachment styles; Immigrants; Majority members

Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 50 3636426; fax: +31 50 3636304.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.P. Van Oudenhoven). 0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.05.005

ARTICLE IN PRESS 784 J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798

1. Introduction For a long time many people have considered the acculturation of immigrants as a oneway-process of influencing from majority group to immigrants. Recent immigration streams, however, are bringing about fundamental changes in the major immigration areas. For instance, in the US 13% of the population consists of Hispanics. It is predicted that within 50 years, a quarter of the American population will have an Hispanic background (Nagayama Hall & Barongan, 2001). Consequently, the US could change into an Anglo-Hispanic society with English and Spanish as two national languages. Western Europe too is changing into a bicultural society. In the 1960s, large groups of immigrants from mediterranean countries came to Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands. The majority of these immigrants are muslim. At present, more than 5% of the population of the four just mentioned countries is muslim. Their number is still growing, whereas the native population is declining. Islam is a vital religion. Not surprisingly, islamic values and traditions gradually pass through in Western European societies. For instance, the Festival of Fast-breaking is becoming an important holiday in the Netherlands. Because of these immigration streams and their impact, host societies increasingly start to care about what immigrants want and do and adopt a more conscious position towards immigrants. Therefore, in the present study we will focus on acculturation attitudes of both immigrants and majority members. According to Berry (1980, 1997) immigrants are faced with two fundamental questions (see Fig. 1): ‘‘Is it valuable to retain one’s traditional culture?’’ and ‘‘Is it valuable to have positive relations with the larger society?’’ On the basis of the answers to these questions four acculturation attitudes, later called ‘‘strategies’’ (Berry, 1997), may be distinguished: (a) integration (it is important to maintain both cultural identity and to have positive relations with the host society); (b) assimilation (only positive relations with the host society are important); (c) separation (only maintaining my cultural heritage is of importance); and (d) marginalisation (neither outcome is important). In this paper, we will primarily refer to acculturation attitudes rather than strategies, because we want to know the appreciation of both immigrants and majority members of how the acculturation between the two groups should be and not how it actually takes place. In most multicultural societies, the current discourse centres around the question whether immigrants should assimilate or integrate. Berry (1997) and many other researchers (e.g. Berry & Sam, 1997; Horenczyk, 1996; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003; Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998; Zagefka & Brown, 2002) found that integration is the most preferred and most ‘healthy’ adaptation strategy of immigrants. In contrast, majority members generally tend to have an assimilation

Wish to maintain original culture Yes

No

Need for contact with majority group in Yes society

Integration

Assimilation

No

Separation

Marginalisation

Fig. 1. Classification of acculturation attitudes according to Berry (1980).

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798 785

ideology, which implies that immigrants are expected to abandon their cultural and linguistic distinctiveness and adopt the core values of the host society. For instance, in Germany, Zick, Wagner, Van Dick, and Petzel (2001) reported a preference for assimilation among nationals, while similar results were found in Slowakia (Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrza´lek, 2000), Israel (Horenczyk, 1996) and the Netherlands (Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998). This tendency has become stronger after ‘9/11’ (Van Oudenhoven, 2002). Admittedly, not all nations prefer assimilation. An exception are the New Zealanders who seem to prefer integration (Ward & Masgoret, 2004). Why are cultural differences not appreciated? Why do majority members prefer assimilation? The similarity-attraction hypothesis (Byrne, 1971) offers an easy explanation for why people do not appreciate cultural differences. According to the similarityattraction hypothesis, which is more of a robust empirical datum than a theory, similarity leads to attraction. We like other individuals who are seen to be similar to ourselves or our own group with respect to attitudes, values, abilities, and many other variables. Similarity may reduce insecurity in interpersonal and inter-group relations. Cultural similarity, in particular, may be rewarding because it confirms that our beliefs and values are correct. As a consequence, interactions between individuals and groups occur more smoothly. Acculturation attitudes are frequently seen as a group characteristic, i.e. as a collective reaction to a nation’s immigration policy (e.g. Bourhis, Moı¨ se, Perreault, & Sene´cal, 1997). Although national immigration policies may have an impact on the acculturation attitudes of immigrants and majority members (Bourhis et al., 1997), individual factors also have an important effect on acculturation. Individuals may differ in the degree to which they prefer assimilation, integration, separation, or marginalisation. For example, some may hesitate between assimilation and integration, or between integration and separation. There is evidence that individuals differ in their strategy of acculturation (Phalet & Hagendoorn, 1996). If we assume that there is such a variability in the degree to which people endorse a certain acculturation form, it becomes fruitful to search for individual characteristics that are correlated with acculturation attitudes. Studies increasingly pay attention to personality factors, but so far, most studies on personality and acculturation to new cultures have been carried out in the domain of the selection and training of international employees. These studies have focused on general personality characteristics, such as the Big Five (e.g. Caligiuri, 2000; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1999) and on specific characteristics, such as intercultural competencies (e.g. Matsumoto, 2004; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2001; Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002). However, the number of studies that focus on personality factors of immigrants is also growing (Kosic, 2006). In this paper, we will focus on attachment styles, a concept that has drawn relatively little attention in acculturation research. In two separate studies we will examine the influence of attachment styles of both immigrants and majority members on their acculturation attitudes. 1.1. Attachment theory Originally formulated by John Bowlby (1969), attachment theory states that over the course of unfolding experiences with their caregivers, children develop different attachment styles. Bowlby distinguishes three attachment styles. A secure attachment style is developed when children perceive their caregivers as available and responsive. In contrast, children develop an ambivalent or avoidant style when they perceive their

ARTICLE IN PRESS 786 J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798

caregivers as inconsistently responsive or unavailable and unresponsive. Children internalise their experiences with caregivers into working models, that is mental schemas, of the self as either worthy or unworthy of love and of others as either dependable or undependable. Once established, these working models are believed to function as a framework to interpret experiences with other people, thereby affecting subsequent relationships. For this reason, attachment theory has also emerged as an important theoretical framework in the study of adult relationships. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) have proposed a classification of adult attachment styles which are based on two dimensions that correspond to Bowlby’s original working models of the self and others (Fig. 2). They distinguish four attachment styles. The secure attachment style is characterised by a working model of the self as positive and an expectation that others are trustworthy. The preoccupied attachment style indicates a sense of unworthiness of the love of others, combined with a positive evaluation of others. In contrast, individuals with a dismissing attachment style have a positive working model of the self and a negative disposition to others. Finally, fearful attachment indicates a working model of the self as unworthy combined with an expectation that others are rejecting. Attachment theory pre-eminently refers to the way individuals have been taught to approach others, and attachment styles influence the way people approach unknown individuals or their behaviour in new situations (e.g. Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). A study that underlined the adaptational importance of attachment styles for individuals in new situations was carried out among college students (Lapsley & Edgerton, 2002). In their study, adjustment to college life was positively associated with secure attachment and negatively with insecure attachment. More related to the topic of the present study is the research carried out by Mikulincer and his colleagues who explicitly emphasised the relevance of attachment theory for understanding inter-group attitudes. According to them, dispositional and situational attachment security—a feeling of confidence in the available support and love of attachment figures—is related to less defensiveness (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001), more cognitive openness (Mikulincer, 1997), and more empathy and compassion for others (Gillath, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005). These studies have shown that adults, like young children, seek attachment security and become more open to exploration and affiliation when security is maintained. Furthermore, Mikulincer and Shaver (2001) found that secure attachment was related to less negative reactions towards out-group targets. Because relations between immigrants and majority members imply interaction with others in new situations, we may expect attachment styles to be related to acculturation. Remarkably, until now attachment theory has rarely been applied to acculturation. Only a few studies have explicitly investigated the relation between the attachment styles of migrants and their

Model of self Positive

Trust in others

Negative

Yes

Secure

Preoccupied

No

Dismissive

Fearful

Fig. 2. Classification of attachment styles according to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991).

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798 787

adjustment to the new culture. Handojo (2000) found that securely attached Chinese Indonesian immigrants in the USA had less problems relating to American culture as compared to insecurely attached immigrants. De Pater, Van Vianen, and Derksen (2003) carried out a study among expatriates. Their study showed a positive relation between a secure attachment style and the number of close contacts with locals. In a large study among Dutch immigrants in Canada, the USA, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and some other countries, Bakker, Van Oudenhoven, and Van der Zee (2004) also found a positive relation between secure attachment and social relations with the host culture, whereas the fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing styles were negatively associated with relations to the host culture. Together, the above-mentioned studies support the idea that attachment styles are important to the acculturation of immigrants to the host society. As mentioned before, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) classified the four styles of attachment based on the dimensions of self or other orientation: secure style (positive about oneself and others), dismissing style (positive about oneself and negative about others), preoccupied style (negative about oneself and positive about others), and fearful style (negative about oneself and others). There is an interesting parallel between the model of attachment styles and Berry’s classification of acculturation attitudes (Berry, 1980). Berry’s model (Fig. 1) can also be characterised by two analogue basic attitudes (orientation towards own group and towards the host society group). In the next two studies we will examine the acculturation attitudes of immigrants and members of the host society, respectively.

2. Study 1. Attachment styles and acculturation attitudes of immigrants: expectations Securely attached immigrants have a positive self-image and they trust others; social interactions are faced with confidence. As a result they will not feel threatened by contact with other cultures. Mikulincer and Shaver (2001) indeed found that activation of the sense of a secure base, which is characteristic for securely attached people, reduced the appraisal of an out-group as threatening, and consequently lead to less negative reactions to outgroups. Therefore, we expect that securely attached immigrants will be positive towards integration, because that adaptation strategy implies a positive attitude towards the in- and out-group. In a similar vein, we may expect that the two attachment styles with a lack of trust towards others (dismissing and fearful styles) will be related to a tendency to avoid approaching other people. The adaptation strategies that fulfill the wish to avoid other people are separation and marginalisation. However, because marginalisation is often not a voluntary option, we expect immigrants with a dismissing or fearful attachment style to be positive towards separation, in particular. Individuals with a preoccupied style have a negative self-image and a positive image of others. Immigrants with such an attachment style are apt to give up their culture and to adopt the culture of the host society. Due to their low self-image and their positive image of others, in this case the host society, they may want to assimilate. Summarising, we formulate the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Secure attachment of immigrants will be related to stronger endorsement of integration.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 788 J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798

Hypothesis 2. Dismissing and fearful attachment of immigrants will be related to stronger endorsement of separation. Hypothesis 3. Preoccupied attachment of immigrants will be related to stronger endorsement of assimilation.

2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants Participants were 177 immigrants (56 Chinese, 58 Surinamese and 63 Turkish immigrants) in the Netherlands. Three different immigrant groups were approached in order to be able to generalise to a broader population of immigrants. Seventy-seven percent of them were first and 23% were second generation immigrants. Their average age was 34.53 years (SD ¼ 12.69). Fifty-seven percent of the participants were male, 43% were female. Slightly more than half of the immigrants (51%) had come to the Netherlands for family reasons, 38% of them for economic reasons, 5% for political reasons, and 7% for other reasons. The first generation immigrants had been in the Netherlands for 22 years on average (SD ¼ 8.85). The respondents had been approached by the two authors and a group of research assistants of whom several belonged to one of the three immigrant groups. 2.1.2. Measures Attachment styles were measured with a 16-item questionnaire developed by the authors. A factor analysis (varimax procedure) yielded four clearly distinguishable factors which reflect the styles as formulated by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991). The scale for the secure style (Cronbach’s a ¼ :77) was measured by five items, such as ‘‘I trust that others will be there when I need them’’. The dismissing style was measured by three items, e.g. ‘‘I feel uncomfortable when the relationship with others becomes too close’’. Cronbach’s a for this scale was .63. The preoccupied scale consisted of four items (Cronbach’s a ¼ :61), for example: ‘‘I usually have the impression that I like others better than they like me’’. Finally the scale for fearful attachment (Cronbach’s a ¼ :68) contained four items, e.g. ‘‘I would like to be open to others but I feel that I can’t trust them’’. For all four scales a five-point scale was used, ranging from not at all applicable (1) to entirely applicable (5). The immigrants’ acculturation attitudes were determined by their affective reactions to four different scenarios of immigrants behaving in ways that corresponded to Berry’s four acculturation strategies. These scenarios were presented at random, one for each respondent. The Turkish respondents read a scenario with a Turkish immigrant, the Chinese with a Chinese immigrant, and the Surinamese respondents read a scenario with a Surinamese immigrant. As an example, the integration scenario (for the Chinese respondents) is presented below: Living in the Netherlands A great number of different cultures are living in the Netherlands. Where do they come from and how do they experience living in the Netherlands? Kim too

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798 789

exchanged his life in his mother country for a life in the Netherlands. In the present article, Kim talks about his life in Holland. Kim came from China to the Netherlands in 1972. The Netherlands and China are two different countries and Kim wondered how it would be like in the Netherlands. Kim has been living in the Netherlands for a long time and identifies himself with the Dutch as well as with the Chinese culture. ‘‘I do not ask myself whether I am Chinese or Dutch. Both cultures have influenced me. I feel both Dutch and Chinese actually.’’ Kim associates with Dutch a`nd Chinese people. Both at work and in his spare time, Kim has Chinese as well as Dutch friends. ‘‘On the one hand I feel at ease with other Chinese people, but on the other hand I also get along with Dutch people. I feel at home among both groups’’. The sentences in italics were different for the other three strategies. For example, the last sentence in the marginalisation scenario was: ‘‘I do not feel at home among Dutch nor among Chinese people. I identify myself with neither group’’. After reading the scenario, the respondents first answered on a five-point scale how important the person in the scenario considered his own culture, and how important it was for him to have contact with the Dutch. These two questions were used as manipulation checks. Subsequently, the respondents had to answer seven questions on a five-point scale, measuring their affective reaction to the person in the scenario (a ¼ :91). A sample item is: ‘‘How positive do you find Kim’s thoughts and behaviour?’’. An advantage of the scenario approach, in which each respondent responds to only one scenario, is that the social desirability bias towards choosing integration as the favourite strategy is reduced. Additionally, we asked respondents the following questions on a five-point scale (not at all applicable ¼ 1 to entirely applicable ¼ 5): ‘‘How important is Dutch culture to you?’’; ‘‘How important is Chinese/Turkish/Surinamese culture to you?’’; ‘‘How important is it to have Dutch friends?’’; and ‘‘How important is it to have Chinese/Turkish/Surinamese friends?’’. The items referring to the own group (r ¼ :45) and the host society (r ¼ :31) were, respectively, combined into own group orientation and host society orientation. The relatively low correlation between the two orientations (r ¼ :24) indicates that the two dimensions underlying the acculturation attitudes are largely independent which supports Berry’s idea that immigrants must answer two different questions. 2.2. Results and discussion 2.2.1. Acculturation attitudes The three immigrant groups did not differ significantly with respect to the four attachment styles. Nor did they show any substantial difference with respect to the four acculturation forms. Therefore they were combined in the further analyses. ANOVAS on the effect of scenario on the perceived importance of own culture, F ð3; 173Þ ¼ 29:67, po:001, and the perceived importance of contact with the Dutch, F ð3; 173Þ ¼ 72:93, po:001, yielded highly significant differences. These manipulation checks showed that the immigrant in the assimilation and marginalisation scenario was indeed seen as to pay much less importance to his own culture, M ¼ 1:81 and 2.13, respectively, than in the integration and separation scenario, M ¼ 3:04 and 3.95. In addition they showed that the immigrant in the assimilation and integration scenario was

ARTICLE IN PRESS 790 J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798

seen as to have much more contact with the Dutch, M ¼ 4:49 and 3.18, than in the marginalisation and separation scenario, M ¼ 2:25 and 2.20, respectively. Attitudes towards the persons in the four randomly presented scenarios were 3.41 (SD ¼ .72) for integration, 2.66 (SD ¼ .99) for assimilation, 2.55 (SD ¼ .98) for separation, and 2.27 (SD ¼ .87) for marginalisation. Analysis of variance showed highly significant differences, F ð3; 173Þ, po:001, which must be totally attributed to a higher appreciation of integration as compared to all the other acculturation forms. As was found in so many other studies, these three groups of immigrants in the Netherlands clearly prefer integration. The other acculturation forms did not differ significantly. 2.2.2. Relations between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes To test the hypotheses we present the correlations between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes and the results of the regression analyses for the four scenarios. Seven outliers were removed from the analyses. The pattern of correlations is largely in accordance with the expectations (see Table 1). Secure attachment style was indeed related to positive feelings towards integration (Hypothesis 1). Dismissing and fearful attachment of immigrants was indeed related to endorsement of separation (Hypothesis 2). Interestingly, dismissing attachment was also related to assimilation. An explanation may be that dismissing individuals prefer to deal with only one group, whether it be the own group (separation) or the host society (assimilation). As expected, preoccupied individuals sympathise with the assimilating immigrant in the scenario (Hypothesis 3). However, they also sympathised with the marginalised and separating immigrant. The existential ambivalence of preoccupied people may lead to diverse reactions. Preoccupied people may not easily feel accepted by the host society and consequently may sympathise with a person who ‘falls back’ upon his own group (separation) or falls between two stools (marginalisation). A stepwise regression analysis on the four acculturation attitudes with attachment styles as predictors showed a significant amount of explained variance for the secure style as ‘predictor’ of the attitude towards integration, R2 ¼ :17, F ð1; 41Þ ¼ 8:59, po:01. With respect to assimilation the amount of explained variance amounted to 13% which has to be attributed to the dismissing style R2 ¼ :13, F ð1; 40Þ ¼ 5:92, po:05. With respect to separation, both the dismissing R2 ¼ :24, F ð1; 37Þ ¼ 11:62, po:01, and the preoccupied style, R2 change ¼ .11, F ð1; 36Þ ¼ 5:88, po:05, were significant predictors. The preoccupied style also was a significant predictor for marginalisation, R2 ¼ :14, F ð1; 44Þ ¼ 7:41, po:01. Table 1 Correlations between attachment styles of immigrants and their acculturation attitudes

Secure Dismissing Preoccuppied Fearful

Assimilation (N ¼ 42)

Integration (N ¼ 43)

Marginalisation (N ¼ 46)

Separation (N ¼ 39)


.04 .36* .30+ .17

.42**
.30+ .02
.08


.02 .26+ .38** .19


.16 .49** .35* .35*

Note:   po0:01; po0:05 and þ po0:10, two-tailed. Predicted results (in bold) were subjected to one-tailed tests.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798 791

Altogether we may conclude that among immigrants there is a clear relation between a secure attachment style and a positive attitude towards people who have both contact with their group and with the host society (integration). Next, the dismissing style was positively related with separation and assimilation. This looks somewhat contradictory at first sight, but may be understood if we take into account that both forms imply a clear preference for just either the host society culture or the original culture. In this way dismissive people avoid the complicated dual commitment inherent to integration. The more preoccupied one’s attachment style, the more positive one is towards separation and marginalisation. Finally, people with a fearful attachment style seem to prefer separation. 3. Study 2. Attachment styles and acculturation attitudes of majority members Immigrants must to some extent define how they will relate to the host society. For that reason it is not surprising that the way they have learned to approach others is associated with acculturation attitudes. Majority members have for a long time had the freedom not to bother too much about their relationship with immigrants. In most immigration countries that has changed, due to a combination of factors. First, the sheer number of immigrants make them conspicuous, particularly in the major cities. Second, there are considerable numbers of second and third generation immigrants who have acquired higher socio-economic status and consequently have become more assertive than first generation immigrants. Thirdly, at present times it is for all kinds of immigrants easier to remain in contact with their culture of origin, because travelling has become much cheaper and easier, as have contacts by telephone and the internet. These factors together make it easier and more rewarding to maintain their own culture. Finally, ‘9/11’ has demonstrated that it is not possible anymore to approach co-nationals from a different cultural background with a laissez-faire attitude. In the Netherlands the majority preferred immigrants to assimilate (Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998) even before ‘9/11’, but this preference for assimilation has become more outspoken in favour for assimilation in recent years. In a representative survey in 2002, 85% found that immigrants should adapt themselves to the Dutch culture ‘as much as possible’ or ‘to a large extent’ as compared to 75% in 1996 (Van Oudenhoven, 2002). Study 2 dealt with host society members’ attitudes towards acculturation of immigrants. Again we investigated the relation between their attachment styles and their attitudes towards acculturation by immigrants. Of course, the pattern of attitudes towards the four acculturation forms will be different, because majority members evaluate a member of an out-group, whereas the immigrants evaluated a member of the in-group. We tested the following predictions. Securely attached people have a positive image of the self and they trust others. As a consequence they will not feel threatened by contacts with other cultures. Therefore, we expect them to be positive towards an integrating immigrant. People with a dismissing or a fearful attachment distrust others. They tend to avoid social contacts. Therefore, we expect host society members with a dismissing or fearful attachment to react negatively to acculturation forms that imply contact, assimilation and integration. However, when immigrants assimilate they make it relatively easy for majority members to deal with them, because potentially problematic cultural issues are avoided. Therefore, we think that the relationship with integration will be particularly negative,

ARTICLE IN PRESS 792 J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798

because integration not only implies contact with others but on top of that requires acceptance of the others’ culture. Preoccupied people have a negative image of themselves, but they are positive towards others. They are afraid of being disliked. Therefore, host society members do not like immigrants to separate because they consider that as a rejection of their own culture. Summarising, the following hypotheses for the majority members’ attitudes were formulated: Hypothesis 4. Host society members with a secure attachment will be positive towards an integrating immigrant. Hypothesis 5. Host society members with a dismissing or a fearful attachment will be negative towards an integrating immigrant. Hypothesis 6. Host society members with a preoccupied attachment will be negative towards a separating immigrant.

3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants Respondents were 243 adults (mean age ¼ 36.6 years; SD ¼ 12.16) who answered the questionnaire as part of a study on job satisfaction. Half of the group had higher vocational or university education. Forty-eight percent of the respondents were males, 52% were females. All were native Dutch. The respondents had been approached by the two researchers and a group of temporary research assistants. 3.1.2. Measures Attachment styles were measured with the Attachment Styles Questionnaire (Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003). This questionnaire is an enlarged version of the one used in Study 1. It consists of 23 items, but three items were not included in the analyses because they were not sufficiently reliable. The scale for the secure style (Cronbach’s a ¼ :67) was measured by six items. The preoccupied style consisted of five items (Cronbach’s a ¼ :73). The dismissing style was measured by five items. Cronbach’s a for this scale was .64. Finally the scale for fearful attachment (Cronbach’s a ¼ :68) contained four items. The attitudes of the majority members towards immigrants’ acculturation were determined by their affective reactions to almost the same four scenarios of immigrants as were used in Study 1. These scenarios were presented at random, one for each respondent. After reading the scenario, the respondents first answered on a five-point scale how important the person in the scenario considered his own culture, and how important it was for him to have contact with the Dutch. These two questions were used as manipulation checks. Next the respondents had to answer five questions measuring their affective reaction to the person in the scenario (a ¼ :91). All respondents received a scenario with a Surinamese immigrant, because the Surinamese—with over 2% of the population—form one of the largest immigrant groups in the Netherlands.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798 793

3.2. Results and discussion 3.2.1. Acculturation attitudes ANOVAS on the effect of scenario yielded highly significant differences with respect to the perceived importance of own culture, F ð3; 238Þ ¼ 188:45, po:001, and the perceived importance of contact with the Dutch, F ð3; 173Þ ¼ 136:11, po:001. These manipulation checks showed that the immigrant in the assimilation and marginalisation scenario was indeed seen as to pay much less importance to his own culture, M ¼ 1:44 and 1.38, respectively, than in the integration and separation scenario, M ¼ 3:16 and 3.97. In addition, they showed that the immigrant in the assimilation and integration scenario was seen as to have much more contact with the Dutch, M ¼ 4:27 and 3.43, than in the marginalisation and separation scenario, M ¼ 2:07 and 2.41. Attitudes towards the immigrant in the four randomly presented scenarios were 3.91 (SD ¼ .45) for integration, 3.30 (SD ¼ .75) for assimilation, 2.55 (SD ¼ .77) for separation, and 1.91 (SD ¼ .87) for marginalisation. Analysis of variance showed highly significant differences, F ð3; 238Þ ¼ 121:57, po:001. Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that all four forms differed significantly, one from another. Clearly, the two forms that imply contact (integration and assimilation) were appreciated the most. In contrast to other studies on majority members in the Netherlands integration was liked more than assimilation. Probably, this more favourable attitude towards integration must be attributed to the relatively high level of education of the respondents: Half of them had higher or university education. In general, level of education appears to be related to more liberal attitudes towards immigrants (Quillian, 1995). 3.2.2. Relations between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes To test the hypotheses regarding the relation between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes we present the correlations and subsequently the results of the regression analyses for the four scenarios. Seven outliers were removed from the analyses. The pattern of correlations is in accordance with the expectations (see Table 2). A secure attachment style was indeed related to positive feelings towards integration (Hypothesis 4). The dismissing and fearful styles were, as expected, negatively related to an immigrant who wishes integration (Hypothesis 5). As was stated in the introduction, preoccupied people are afraid of being rejected and consequently will not like persons who avoid contact with them which happens when immigrants separate. Host society members with a preoccupied

Table 2 Correlations between attachment styles of majority members and their attitudes towards acculturation of immigrants

Secure Dismissing Preoccuppied Fearful

Assimilation (N ¼ 59)

Integration (N ¼ 57)

Marginalisation (N ¼ 58)

Separation (N ¼ 59)


.11
.24+
.29* .03

.37**
.33* .05
.33*


.08 .24+ .02 .16


.14 .14
.38* .07

Note:   po0:01; po0:05 and þ po0:10, two-tailed. Predicted results (in bold) were subjected to one-tailed tests.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 794 J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798

atttachment were indeed negative towards a separating immigrant (Hypothesis 6). Preoccupied individuals were not favourable towards the assimilating immigrant either. An explanation may be that, because of their negative self-image, they will not be inclined to impose their culture on immigrants, and because of their positive image of others they would not expect the others to give up their culture. This may lead to a more negative attitude towards immigrants who assimilate. A stepwise regression analysis on the four acculturation attitudes with attachment styles as predictors showed a significant amount of explained variance for the secure style as ‘predictor’ of the attitude towards integration, R2 ¼ :14, F ð1; 55Þ ¼ 8:75, po:01. With respect to assimilation the amount of explained variance amounted to 9% which has to be attributed to the preoccupied style R2 ¼ :09, F ð1; 57Þ ¼ 5:37, po:05. Regarding separation, the preoccupied style, R2 ¼ :15, F ð1; 56Þ ¼ 9:48, po:01, was the most important predictor. None of the attachment styles was a significant predictor for marginalisation. Altogether we may conclude that a secure attachment is clearly associated with a positive attitude towards people who have both contact with their own cultural group and with the host society (integration). Next, we found negative relations between the two avoidant styles (dismissing and fearful attachment) and integration where they would have to deal with immigrants who stick to their culture. Majority members with a preoccupied attachment style are strongly against separation. There were no specific predictions with respect to the relation between attachment styles and marginalisation. We assume that majority members, in general do not like marginalised immigrants and that is what we found. Marginalisation was by far the least appreciated form of acculturation. 4. General discussion Both attachment theory and acculturation theory deal with people approaching other persons in new situations. In the present studies the link between attachment styles and acculturation forms could be empirically established. The results are largely in accordance with the theoretical predictions. In general, the variances in acculturation styles explained by the attachment styles are more modest for host society members than for immigrants. This is understandable because on a daily basis immigrants are more confronted with acculturation issues than majority members. The most important finding is that the more securely attached people are, both immigrants and host society members, the more positive they are towards an integrating immigrant. Apparently, people with a positive self-image who have learned to approach others with trust generalise such behaviour to intercultural situations. Both securely attached immigrants and host society members appreciate immigrants who desire mutual contact and find it important that immigrants maintain their own culture. These results are in line with a previous study on Dutch adult majority members (Hofstra, Van Oudenhoven, & Buunk, 2005) where we also found a relation between secure attachment and integration. People with a dismissing style show an opposite pattern. That is not surprising, because dismissing people tend to approach others with distrust. The more dismissing they are the less they prefer integration. In addition, immigrants with a dismissing attachment have a preference for separation in which there is none or little mutual contact with members of the host society. However, whereas immigrants with a dismissing style clearly appreciate separation, majority members do not have a— significant—preference for separation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798 795

While both immigrants and majority members with a secure attachment style roughly show a similar pattern of correlations between attachment and acculturation, they seem to react quite differently, and even in opposite ways, when they have a preoccupied or a fearful attachment style. That may seem contradictory, but the different reactions may be caused by the same psychological process. For instance, majority members and immigrants with a preoccupied attachment style react differently to a separating immigrant due to their fear of being rejected. Majority members with a preoccupied attachment style do not like separating immigrants because that implies that they are rejected to some extent by those immigrants. Immigrants with a preoccupied style on the other hand are positive towards separation because by not interacting with the majority group they are able to avoid being rejected. A common underlying avoidance motive may also explain the reactions of the fearfully attached. Fearful people basically distrust other people and tend to avoid others. Therefore, fearful immigrants are favourable towards a separating immigrant in the scenario, because separation is for them the most effective way not to be confronted with majority members. Fearfully attached majority members on the other hand are wary of contact with immigrants. Their distrust of others will be enhanced if the others in addition have different cultural values which they like to stress. It is easier to distrust people with deviating opinions and values. Hence, they are negative towards an integrating immigrant. Immigrants appear to have differential attitudes towards all four acculturation strategies, depending on their specific attachment style. This finding nicely illustrates that personal factors play a role in immigrants’ answers to the questions whether they wish to maintain their own culture and whether they desire contact with the host society (Berry, 1997). Majority members also differ in their reactions to the acculturation of immigrants, although they seem to react primarily to the question whether they desire contact with ‘real’ immigrants (i.e. immigrants who still have their own culture) or not. Securely attached people do so, whereas majority members with an avoidant attachment style do not desire contact with such immigrants. Preoccupied majority members react from their existential ambivalence: they do not like immigrants who live exclusively within their own group, but neither do they seem to like immigrants who assimilate. In contrast to other studies in the Netherlands (Van Oudenhoven, 2002; Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998; Verkuyten & Thijs, 1999), majority members in the present study were more favourable towards integration than to assimilation. This result is also contrary to the current emphasis on assimilation of the Dutch government. The preference for integration could be attributed to the relatively high level of education of our sample. A higher level of education is usually associated with a higher level of tolerance. It could also be caused by our choice for a Surinamese immigrant as the main character in the scenarios, whereas in previous studies attitudes concerned immigrants from Islamic countries. Surinamese immigrants are generally more accepted than most other non-western immigrants because Surinam, being a former colony of the Netherlands, has for more than three centuries been influenced by Dutch culture. The two studies have some limitations. First, the sample of immigrants was not representative although we included three different groups. The majority sample was even less representative. This implies that we cannot draw conclusions about acculturation attitudes of the total population of immigrants and majority members. That was not the purpose of these studies, however. We were primarily interested in the relation between attachment and acculturation attitudes. Another limitation of the studies was the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 796 J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798

correlational design which does not allow us to draw causal conclusions. Another risk of correlational studies is that they often produce common method variance which may lead to an overestimation of the actual association between concepts. We could reduce this risk to a great extent by using a scenario approach to measure the acculturation attitudes. Unfortunately we only measured attitudes and not actual contact. In a study among Eastern European immigrants in the Netherlands, however, we find evidence that a secure attachment style is related to frequency of contact of immigrants with both locals and conationals (Polek, Van Oudenhoven, & Ten Berge, 2006). The present two studies showed that attachment styles are important for the reciprocal attitudes of immigrants and members of the host society. Not surprisingly, a secure attachment style offers the best starting point for the interaction between the two groups. It seems therefore desirable to create conditions for both immigrants and majority members that stimulate the development of secure attachment styles. Parents and other family members, as well as teachers and other professional educators can obviously play an important role. National immigration policies differ in their levels of trust towards different cultures. It is an interesting question whether we can translate the concept of secure attachment to the societal level: are societies able to create conditions in which people have a positive image of their own culture and at the same time approach other cultures with trust? Canada seems to be a positive example of such a society, whereas some Western European countries, such as Denmark, The Netherlands and France, tend to be become more defensive of their own culture. The Netherlands used to have a clear multicultural policy until 2002. Almost suddenly, there was a strong shift towards an emphasis on assimilation combined with a very strict immigration policy. Many first and second generation immigrants show reactance by stressing their culture and—particularly in the case of muslims—rediscovering their religion. Fortunately, at the level of municipalities, at the workplace and at schools where immigrants and native Dutch meet at a daily basis, many initiatives are taking place to enhance contact between the two groups without forcing immigrants to give up their culture. It is a challenging idea to find out whether some cultures can create favourable conditions for the development or reinforcement of secure attachment styles. A subsequent topic of research may be whether attachment styles differ from culture to culture and, if they do, to relate the differences to the degree of integration of immigrants. A recent study that took place in 62 cultural regions revealed that in most countries secure—romantic— styles were normative, but that in some East Asian countries preoccupied—romantic— styles were prevalent (Schmitt et al., 2004). Yet, according to Harwood, Miller, and Isizarry (1995), in all cultures there exists a link between security and exploration. Acknowledgement This research was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. References Bakker, W., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2004). Attachment styles, personality, and Dutch emigrants’ intercultural adjustment. European Journal of Personality, 18, 387–404.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798 797 Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder, CO: Westview. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–34. Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In H. C. Triandis, & W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 291–326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bourhis, R. Y., Moı¨ se, L. C., Perreault, S., & Sene´cal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 5, 1–18. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The Big Five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate’s desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53, 67–88. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press. De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & Derksen, M. (2003). Het aangaan van hechte relaties en de crossculturele aanpassing van expatriates: de rol van persoonlijkheid en hechtingsstijl [Close relationships and cross-cultural adaptation of expatriates: The role of personality and attachment style]. Gedrag in Organisaties, 16(2), 89–107. Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and volunteering. Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoretical framework. Personal Relationships, 12, 425–446. Handojo, V. (2000). Attachment styles, acculturation attitudes/behaviors, and stress among Chinese Indonesian immigrants in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61(4B), 2271. Harwood, R. H., Miller, J. G., & Isizarry, N. L. (1995). Culture and attachment: Perception of the child in context. New York: Guilford Press. Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Buunk, B. P. (2005). Attachment styles and majority members’ attitudes towards adaptation strategies of immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 601–619. Horenczyk, G. (1996). Migrant identities in conflict: Acculturation attitudes and perceived acculturation ideologies. In G. Breakwell, & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing European identities: Social psychological analyses of social change (pp. 241–250). Oxford: Butterworth. Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G., & Schmitz, P. (2003). The interactive nature of acculturation: perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel and Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 79–97. Kosic, A. (2006). Personality and individual factors in acculturation. In D. L. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lapsley, D. K., & Edgerton, J. (2002). Separation-individuation, adult attachment style, and college adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 484–492. Matsumoto, D. (2004). Reflections on culture and competence. In R. J. Sternberg, & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Culture and competence (pp. 273–282). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and information processing: Individual differences in curiosity and cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1217–1230. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 97–115. Nagayama Hall, G. C., & Barongan, C. (2001). Multicultural psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1999). Relative importance of personality dimensions for expatriate selection: A policy capturing study. Human Performance, 12, 275–294. Phalet, K., & Hagendoorn, L. (1996). Personal adjustment to acculturative transitions: The Turkish experience. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 131–144. Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrza´lek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1–26. Polek, E., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Ten Berge, J. M. F. (2006). Attachment and acculturation: A study among immigrants from three East-European countries, submitted for publication.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 798 J.P. Van Oudenhoven, J. Hofstra / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 783–798 Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586–611. Schmitt, D., et al. (2004). Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions. Are models of self and of other pancultural constructs? Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35, 367–402. Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). The multicultural personality questionnaire: Reliability and validity of self- and other ratings of multicultural effectiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 278–288. Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2002). Cross-culturele Psychologie: de zoektocht naar verschillen en overeenkomsten in culturen [Cross-cultural psychology: The search for differences and similarities in cultures]. Bussum: Coutinho. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Hofstra, J., & Bakker, W. (2003). Ontwikkeling en evaluatie van de hechtingstijlvragenlijst (HSL) [Development and evaluation of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ)]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 58, 95–102. 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. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness of international students: The multicultural personality questionnaire. International Journal of Intercultural Relationships, 26, 637–653. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (1999). Nederlandse en Turkse jongeren over multiculturalisme: Cultuurbehoud, aanpassing, identificatie en groepsdiscriminatie [Dutch and Turkish youth about multiculturalism: Cultural maintenance, assimilation, identification and group discrimination]. Sociologische Gids, 46, 407–425. Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. -M. (2004). New Zealanders’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Paper presented at New directions, new settlers, new challenges: Foundation for science, research and technology endusers seminar on migration, Wellington, New Zealand. 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, 171–188. Zick, A., Wagner, U., Van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001). Acculturation and prejudice in Germany: Majority and minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 541–557.