University of Groningen. Attaching cultures Hofstra, Jacomijn

Transcription

1 University of Groningen Attaching cultures Hofstra, Jacomijn IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2009 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Hofstra, J. (2009). Attaching cultures: the role of attachment styles in explaining majority members' acculturation attitudes s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date:

2 CHAPTER 5 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits and Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 8 As a consequence of globalisation, information technology and welfare amongst others, people increasingly come into contact with other cultures than their own. For instance, tourists travel around the world to discover other countries and cultures; international students and expats temporarily live abroad. For these groups, the confrontation with another culture is of short duration. A group for which the confrontation with a new culture is more pervasive, are immigrants: they leave their own countries with the intention to build up a new life elsewhere and stay there for a long time. The adjustment of immigrants to the host society, or the acculturation of immigrants, has been studied frequently. Acculturation is known as the process that individuals undergo when they are confronted with a changing cultural context. According to Redfield, Linton and Herskovits acculturation comprises of those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups (1936, p. 149). Thus, acculturation is a process of mutual adaptation of people with different cultural backgrounds, for instance immigrants and native host society members. However, as the cultural pattern of immigrants was believed to change the most during intercultural contact, at first acculturation researchers primarily focused on the experiences of this group. Recently, as the number of immigrants worldwide increased, researchers now also recognize that immigration brings about changes in the cultural patterns of the receiving societies as well (e.g., Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997). For instance, in the Netherlands 5% of the population originates from Muslim countries nowadays and consequently Islamic values and traditions gradually pass through in Dutch society. 8 This chapter is based on Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J.P., & Van der Zee, K.I. (2009b). Majority members attachment styles, personality traits and attitudes towards and contact with immigrants. Manuscript in preparation.

3 76 Chapter 5 So, in recent years the acculturation experience of the receiving societies also became a topic of interest. For instance, what is the attitude of majority members (native host society members) towards immigrants? How much contact do majority members actually have with immigrants? And which individual difference variables influence the attitude of majority members towards and their degree of contact with immigrants? These questions are addressed in the present study. We focused on the predictive value of attachment styles, and compared this with the predictive value of two other individual difference variables, the Big Five personality traits and intercultural traits. Attachment styles are individual difference variables which are formed in childhood during interactions with significant others (e.g., Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) and they are found to influence the development of a sense of security about the self and the world and of the ability to confidently explore the environment. Research has shown that attachment styles in adulthood are also linked to exploration-related issues, such as thrill and adventure seeking (Carnelley & Ruscher, 2000), level of curiosity (Johnston, 1999), social exploration, e.g the desire to meet strangers (Green & Campbell, 2000) and the reaction to strangers (Roisman, 2006). Dealing with immigrants implies dealing with strangers and exploring new cultures and situations. Therefore, we assumed attachment styles to be related to attitudes towards and degree of contact with immigrants. Research has already shown that attachment styles of majority members are related to the attitude towards acculturation strategies of immigrants (Hofstra, Van Oudenhoven, & Buunk, 2005; Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006, Hofstra, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee, 2009a). Yet, in order to be relevant in acculturation research, attachment styles not only have to be related to attitudes towards acculturation of immigrants, but also must have additional value in explaining variance in the attitudes beyond other individual difference factors. Therefore, we compared the predictive value of attachment styles to the predictive value of a widely used psychological framework, the Big Five personality traits. In addition, we compared the influence of attachment styles against the influence of intercultural traits which are specifically tailored to effectively dealing with intercultural encounters and to intercultural success (e.g., Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001). Do attachment styles explain a unique portion of the variance in the attitude towards acculturation strategies, or is this predictive value already covered by the Big Five traits or the intercultural traits? To further test the value of attachment styles in the domain of majority-immigrant relations, we examined the relation between attachment styles and the degree of contact majority members have with immigrants. Does a certain attachment style lead to more

4 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 77 intercultural contacts? Again, we compared the influence of attachment styles on the degree of contact with immigrants to the influence of the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits. In the next sections, we will describe the variables used in the present study. Acculturation Strategies Berry (1997) distinguished four different strategies which immigrants use to adapt to the host society. These so-called acculturation strategies differ along two underlying dimensions: the degree to which one wishes to maintain one's heritage culture and the degree to which one wishes to have contact with the host society. Combinations of these dimensions result in the following strategies. Integration of immigrants is characterized by a wish to participate in the host society and at the same time a wish to maintain their heritage culture. Assimilation occurs when immigrants do not feel the need for cultural maintenance, but wish to join the host society. Separating immigrants do not desire to participate in the host society, but experience a strong desire for cultural maintenance. Finally, marginalization is the strategy immigrants use when they neither participate in the host society nor wish to maintain their original culture. The usage of a certain acculturation strategy is influenced by the orientation of the host society and its majority members (e.g., Bourhis et al., 1997). The assimilation strategy, for instance, can only be pursued by immigrants if majority members are willing to let immigrants participate in the society. In the present study we focused on these attitudes of majority members towards acculturation strategies of immigrants. More specifically, we studied the attitude of Dutch majority members towards acculturation strategies of Moroccan immigrants. We have chosen for Moroccan immigrants as they constitute one of the largest groups of nonwestern immigrants in the Netherlands, together with immigrants from Turkey and Surinam (Statistics Netherlands, 2008b). Besides, it is interesting to study the attitudes towards acculturation strategies of Moroccan immigrants as the Moroccan culture is very different from the Dutch culture and a substantial part of the Dutch population consider it as threatening. Prior research on the attitudes towards several groups of immigrants in the Netherlands, showed that Dutch majority members perceived most social distance towards immigrants from Islamic countries (e.g., Hraba, Hagendoorn, & Hagendoorn, 1989; Verkuyten, Hagendoorn, & Masson, 1996). Moreover, Dutch majority members generally think most negatively about immigrants from Morocco as compared to other groups of immigrants (Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2004). Previous research in the Netherlands on attitudes towards immigrants from Islamic countries has shown that Dutch majority

5 78 Chapter 5 members preferred immigrants from Islamic countries to let go of their original culture, thus to assimilate (Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998; Van Oudenhoven & Eisses, 1998). This is understandable, as when immigrants assimilate, they adopt the cultural values of the host society and thus become more like the majority members. The Similarity-Attraction hypothesis states that in general, people are more attracted to people who are similar to them than to people who are dissimilar, as similarity reduces insecurity about one s opinions and beliefs which leads to positive feelings about the self (Byrne, 1971; Duck & Barnes, 1992; Hogg, Cooper-Shaw, & Holzworth, 1993; Newcomb, 1961). In intercultural encounters, similarity in cultural values may also reduce insecurity, because it confirms that one s beliefs and values are correct (Byrne & Clore, 1970). Therefore, in the present study, we also expect that Dutch majority members prefer assimilation by Moroccan immigrants over integration and separation (Hypothesis 1). We decided not to measure the attitude of majority members towards marginalization as this a strategy which is not actually chosen by immigrants, but often forced upon them (e.g. Berry, 1997; Van Oudenhoven, 2002). Attachment Styles According to the theory of Bowlby (1969/1982), attachment styles refer to people s tendencies of relating to others. The theory further posits that there are individual differences in these tendencies. For instance, some people feel at ease in close relationships, whereas others fear that their hopes will be deceived when they get too closely related to other people. Similarly, some people fear to be left alone, whereas others do not worry about being alone, as they do not need others that strongly. These individual differences in approaching others (or: attachment styles) are the result of differences in internal working models, or mental schemas, of relationships with others. Internal working models are developed in childhood through the internalisation of experiences with caregivers and are conceived to consist of two key components: a model of self and a model of others or trust in others. These working models become increasingly stable and are believed to function as a framework to interpret experiences with other people, thereby affecting subsequent relationships. Therefore, in the last few decades attachment theory has become an important theoretical framework in the study of adult relations. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) distinguished four adult attachment styles, based on the dimensions model of self and trust in others. If a person has a positive image of the self and he/she trusts others, that person is categorized as securely attached. Securely attached people feel comfortable in close relationships. People are classified as

6 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 79 fearfully attached if they have a negative self model and they do not trust others. Fearfully attached individuals tend to avoid social contacts. A dismissing attachment style is characterized by a positive model of the self and a distrust of others. Dismissingly attached individuals like to be independent of others. Finally, preoccupied attached people have a negative image of the self, but they trust others. These individuals for instance fear to be left alone. Attachment Styles and Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies of Immigrants Previous studies have shown that attachment styles of adults are related to their attitudes towards acculturation strategies of immigrants (e.g., Hofstra, et al., 2005, 2009a). In the present study, we were interested in whether we could replicate the earlier findings. Besides, we examined the additional value of attachment styles in predicting acculturation attitudes above the Big Five traits and intercultural traits. But first, how are attachment styles of majority members related to attitudes towards acculturation strategies? Our previous studies have shown a consistent pattern of relations between the attitude towards the integration strategy and the attachment styles. The secure attachment style appeared to be positively related to the attitude towards integration among students (Chapter 3) and among a representative group of adults (Chapter 4). Additional evidence for this positive relation was found among a group of immigrants in the Netherlands (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). This positive relation between the secure style and the attitude towards integration makes sense as of the attachment styles and the acculturation strategies, both the secure attachment style and the integration strategy are the most healthy or beneficial ones. Both secure attachment and integration are characterized by a constructive attitude towards the self, or the own culture, and towards others, or other cultures, respectively. Research has shown that, as compared to the other styles and strategies, the secure attachment style and the integration strategy prevail across cultures (e.g., Schmitt, et al., 2004; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006) and have various positive correlates. For instance, as compared to insecurely attached individuals, securely attached individuals have better relations with friends, peers, and family; have less behavioural problems; and score higher on well-being and psychological health (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, for a review). Immigrants endorsing the integration strategy were found to have for instance fewer psychological and behavioural problems (e.g., Berry et al., 2006), and superior health (Curran, 2003) than immigrants pursuing the other ways of

7 80 Chapter 5 acculturating. Moreover, the integration strategy is related to positive intergroup relations (Zagefka & Brown, 2002). Additional findings among the students (Chapter 3), the group of adults (Chapter 4) and the group of immigrants (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006) showed that the insecure styles (fearful, dismissing, and preoccupied) appeared to be either negatively related or not significantly related to the attitude towards integration. Hence, in the present study we expect the secure style to be positively related to the attitude towards integration, and the insecure styles to be negatively related or unrelated to the attitude towards this strategy (Hypothesis 2). Our previous studies consistently showed no significant relations between the secure attachment style and the attitudes towards the assimilation and separation strategy. The relations between the attitudes towards these strategies and the insecure styles showed a less clear-cut pattern. We found that the fearful attachment style was either positively related to the attitude towards assimilation among the students (Chapter 3), unrelated to the strategies among the adults (Chapter 4) or positively related to the attitude towards the separation strategy among a group of immigrants (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). Fearful attachment is characterized by distrust of others and a negative image of the self. This distrust might increase when fearfully attached individuals have to deal with people with a different cultural background. Fearfully attached majority members might be positive towards assimilation by immigrants, as when immigrants let go of their heritage culture, the distrust might be somewhat diminished. Fearfully attached immigrants, might have a positive attitude towards the separation strategy as this strategy implies little or no interaction with majority members which they distrust, and staying in the own familiar cultural group. Regarding the dismissing attachment style, we found no significant relations with the attitudes towards assimilation and separation among the students (Chapter 3), a positive relation with separation among the adults (Chapter 4) and positive relations with assimilation and separation among the immigrants (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). Dismissingly attached individuals avoid approaching other people, as they do not have a strong need for social contacts; they like to be self-sufficient. Dismissingly attached majority members might have a positive attitude towards the separation strategy as separation implies that there is no contact between majority members and immigrants. A possible explanation for the positive correlations among the immigrants between the dismissing attachment style and the attitude towards assimilation and separation, might be that dismissing individuals prefer to deal with exclusively one group, either the own immigrant group (separation) or the host society members (assimilation), and

8 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 81 consequently only one set of cultural values and norms so they do not have to go back and forth between two different cultures. Finally, for the preoccupied style we found no relations with the attitude towards assimilation and separation among the students (Chapter 3), a negative relation with the attitude towards separation among the adults (Chapter 4) and positive relations with the assimilation and separation strategies among the immigrants (Van Oudenhoven, & Hofstra, 2006). Preoccupied attached individuals are afraid of being disliked and rejected by others. Therefore, preoccupied attached majority members might not like immigrants who separate and thus avoid contact as they consider that as a rejection of the culture of the host society. Preoccupied attached immigrants on the other hand, might be positive towards separation as when one sticks to ones own familiar group and does not have contact with majority members, one cannot be rejected by the majority members. Also, when immigrants give up their own original culture and adopt the culture of the host society, and thus assimilate, the chance of being rejected by the host society is lower, and therefore preoccupied attached people might have a positive attitude towards the assimilation strategy. In sum, no relations are expected between the secure attachment style and the attitude towards the assimilation and separation strategy. As the relations between the insecure styles and the attitude towards assimilation and separation show a less consistent pattern and seem to be influenced by a context variable like majority or immigrant status, we do not formulate hypotheses about these relationships and examine the relations in an exploratory way. Additive Value of Attachment Styles in predicting Acculturation Attitudes An important aim of the present study is to compare the influence of attachment styles on the reaction to acculturation strategies with the influence of two other individual difference variables, the well-known Big Five traits and intercultural traits which will be explained shortly. Are attachment styles able to explain variance in the attitude towards acculturation strategies beyond that explained by the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits? If attachment styles have additive value in predicting the attitudes towards acculturation strategies above the two other individual difference factors, we can conclude that attachment is a relevant variable in acculturation research.

9 82 Chapter 5 Big Five Personality Traits The Big Five model is a well known empirically-based framework describing major individual differences in personality (see e.g., Digman, 1990; John, 1990; Goldberg, 1993). This model distinguishes five robust personality traits which are believed to form the basic structure of personality. Extraversion refers to the tendency to be outgoing, assertive and active; agreeableness refers to the tendency to be kind, trusting and trustworthy; conscientiousness refers to the tendency of being organized, dependable, perseverant and achievement-oriented; emotional stability refers to the tendency to remain calm in stressful situations. Intellect refers to the tendency to be creative, perceptive and to be independent of others. This last trait is also referred to as autonomy (Hendriks, 1996). Despite the widespread acceptance of the Big Five framework, researchers have stated that a problem of the use of the higher-order Big Five personality traits is the loss of specificity in predicting real-world phenomena (e.g., Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen, Helmes, & Rothstein, 1995). Several studies showed that more narrow traits, specifically tailored to a criterion, predicted the criterion more successfully than the broader Big Five traits (Paunonen, 1998; Ashton, 1998; Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006). Research on attachment styles and the Big Five traits in relation to several outcomes, such as prosocial behaviour (Erez, Mikulincer, Van IJzendoorn, & Kroonenberg, 2008), relationship outcomes (Shaver & Brennan, 1992; Noftle & Shaver, 2006) and psychological and sociocultural adjustment (Bakker, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee, 2004) showed that attachment styles were better predictors of the outcome variables than the Big Five traits and that attachment styles explained variance in the outcome variables beyond the Big Five traits. These results were attributed to the specificity of the attachment styles. Attachment styles are tendencies of relating to others, and might therefore be more powerful in predicting outcomes in the interpersonal domain, than the Big Five traits. The Big Five traits are found to be related to outcome variables in several domains, including non-interpersonal domains. In the present study we regarded attachment styles as narrow constructs of personality in the interpersonal domain, and expected, also based on previous studies (e.g., Erez et al., 2008; Noftle & Shaver, 2006) that attachment styles explain variance in the attitudes of majority members towards the acculturation of immigrants beyond the Big Five traits (Hypothesis 3).

10 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 83 Intercultural traits Besides the Big Five traits, we studied the predictive value of intercultural traits and compared this with the predictive value of attachment styles. What are these traits? In recent years, Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000, 2001) have identified five intercultural traits which are related to effectively coping with intercultural situations and to success in intercultural contexts. The first dimension is cultural empathy which is defined as the ability to empathize with the feelings, thoughts, and behaviours of members of different cultural groups. Open-mindedness refers to an open and unprejudiced attitude towards out-group members and towards different cultural norms and values. Social initiative is defined as a tendency to approach social situations in an active way and to take initiatives. The fourth dimension, emotional stability, refers to the tendency to remain calm in stressful circumstances. Finally, flexibility is characterized as the tendency to consider new and unknown situations as challenging and the ability to adjust one s behaviour to the demands of new and unknown situations. We expected attachment styles to be able to explain variance in the attitude towards acculturation strategies beyond the intercultural traits (Hypothesis 4). Attachment styles refer to a general tendency of approaching others; the intercultural traits are specifically tailored to actually dealing with intercultural contacts. Therefore, we think that attachment styles are stronger related to the attitudes towards acculturation strategies (or: the tendency of reacting to strangers ) than the intercultural traits which are more tailored to predicting actual behaviour in intercultural settings. Attachment Styles and Degree of Contact with Immigrants So far, we focused on the relation between attachment styles, the Big Five traits and intercultural traits and the attitude towards immigrants acculturation strategies. To further study the relevance of attachment in the domain of majority-immigrant relations, we examined -in an exploratory way- the link between attachment styles and the degree of real contact majority members have with immigrants. Do attachment styles influence the degree of real contact with immigrants, in addition to the more general attitude towards immigrants? Attachment styles are social interaction tendencies which are related to several aspects of social functioning, such as the exploration of the environment, the reaction to strangers, and social competencies (for an overview see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Roisman, 2006). Therefore, we think it is plausible that attachment styles are linked to the amount of contact majority members have with immigrants.

11 84 Chapter 5 Additive Value of Attachment Styles in predicting Contact with Immigrants Again, we examined the additional value of attachment styles in predicting the degree of contact with immigrants above the Big Five traits and intercultural traits. Bakker et al. (2004) showed that attachment styles of Dutch emigrants had incremental validity in predicting contact with fellow Dutch emigrants above the Big Five personality traits, which they attributed to the level of specificity of both individual difference variables. Attachment styles have been found to be stronger related to variables specific to the relationship domain, than the broader Big Five traits (see e.g., Shaver & Brennan, 1992). Therefore, we expect the attachment styles to explain variance in the degree of contact with immigrants beyond the Big Five traits (Hypothesis 5). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001) was developed as a measure of the five intercultural traits. A basic assumption underlying the MPQ is that the instrument has specific predictive value with respect to the adjustment to new and unknown intercultural situations. Research has shown for instance, that among expatriates higher scores on the traits have been related to better psychological, social and professional adjustment (Bakker, 2005; Van Oudenhoven, Mol, & Van der Zee, 2003). Among international students the intercultural traits have been linked to the degree to which they were successful in making contacts with the local people (Stronkhorst, 2005) and to the amount of perceived social support, an indicator of social interactions (Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002). We compared the predictive values of attachment styles and intercultural traits in the degree of contact with immigrants in an exploratory way, thereby assuming that intercultural traits might be stronger related to the degree of contact with immigrants than attachment styles. The intercultural traits are more tailored to predictions regarding behaviour in intercultural settings than attachment styles, which are more tailored to tendencies of relating to others. Method Respondents and Procedure The sample consisted of 275 first-year psychology students from the University of Groningen in the Northern part of the Netherlands. They received credit points for their participation in the study. The mean age was years (SD = 4.10, age ranged from 17

12 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 85 to 51); 75% of the respondents were female. Respondents were included if they and both of their parents were born in the Netherlands. Instruments Attachment styles were measured with the Attachment Styles Questionnaire which we presented in Chapter 2. The secure attachment style was measured by seven items, such as: I think it is important that people can rely on each other. Cronbach s alpha (α) for this scale was.73. The fearful attachment scale consisted of five items (α =.84). A sample item is: I would like to be open to others, but I feel I can t trust other people. To determine dismissing attachment we used five items (α =.61), for example: I feel comfortable without having close relationships with other people. Finally, the preoccupied attachment style was measured with seven items (α =.86), such as: I have the impression that usually I like others better than they like me. Respondents had to indicate on a 5- point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) their level of agreement with the 24 statements regarding attachment to others. Following Fraley and Waller (1998), participants received scores on all four attachment scales and were not classified into one attachment category. The Big Five personality traits were measured by the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI; Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999). The five subscales each consisted of 20 items. Extraversion (α =.87) was measured by items such as: Avoids company (-) and Likes to chat. Sample items of the agreeableness scale (α =.82) are: Takes others interests into account and Empathizes with others. The scale measuring conscientiousness (α =.88) contained items like: Does things according to a plan and Is well prepared. Emotional stability (α =.87) was measured by items such as: Readily overcomes setbacks and Panics (-). Finally, the intellect/ autonomy scale (α =.79) consisted of items like: Can easily link facts together and Takes the lead. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not applicable at all) to 5 (totally applicable) whether the items were applicable to them. We used the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001) to measure the intercultural traits. Respondents had to indicate on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (totally not applicable) to 5 (completely applicable) to what extent a certain statement was applicable to them. Cultural empathy was measured with 18 items (α =.88), like: Takes other people s habits into consideration and Understands the feelings of others. The scale measuring open-mindedness contained 18 items (α =.86), such as Is open to new ideas and Can easily start a new life. Social initiative was

13 86 Chapter 5 determined by 17 items (α =.90 ), like Makes contacts easily and Takes initiatives. We measured emotional stability with 20 items (α =.90). A sample item is: Gets upset easily (-) and Is self-confident. Finally, the scale measuring flexibility consisted of 18 items (α =.85), such as: Changes easily from one activity to another and Dislikes travelling (-). We used a scenario approach in order to measure the attitude towards acculturation strategies of immigrants (see also Van Oudenhoven, et al., 1998; Hofstra, et al., 2005, 2009a; Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). The scenarios were presented as fictitious news paper articles. Each respondent had to read one of three scenarios in which an immigrant from Morocco showed behaviour that was either typical of an integrating, assimilating or separating immigrant. Randomly, the main character was female or male 9. Whereas the scenarios in our previous studies described the behaviour of the immigrant on a more general, abstract level, the presently used scenarios described the behaviour of the main character in three important specific domains: work, family life, and leisure activities. We believed that these new scenarios offer a more realistic description of the different strategies as used by immigrants in their daily lives. The three scenarios are presented in Appendix 6. After reading the scenarios, the respondents had to answer on a 5-point scale two questions which served as manipulation checks: How important is the Moroccan culture for Azedine? and How much contact does Azedine have with Dutch people?. Next, their attitude towards the scenario was measured with seven items (α =.95). Sample items are: How positive do you find Azedine s thoughts and behaviour? and How sympathetic do you find Azedine?. The respondents could give their answers on a 5- point scale ranging from 1 (not positive) to 5 (very positive). Finally, we asked the respondents to indicate on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 5 = very often) how often they have contact with immigrants. The two dependent variables, affective reaction to the acculturation strategies and degree of contact with immigrants appeared to be marginally significantly related in the separation-condition (r =.22, p =.06). 9 Analyses showed that the results did not differ depending on the sex of the main character nor on the sex of the respondent, therefore we do not present separate analyses.

14 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 87 Results 10 Acculturation Attitudes Manipulation Check To test whether the manipulations of the scenarios had been successful, we performed an ANOVA with scenario (integration, assimilation and separation) as the independent variable and the questions about contact with the host society and maintenance of the heritage culture as the dependent variables. It appeared that the immigrant in the assimilation and integration scenario was seen as to have more contact with majority members (M = 4.31 and M = 3.63, respectively) than the immigrant in the separation scenario (M = 2.05). The mean scores all differed significantly F (2, 271) = , p <.001. The immigrant in the separation and integration scenario was perceived as to assign more importance to maintenance of the heritage culture (M = 4.92 and M = 4.18, respectively) than the assimilating immigrant (M = 1.55). Again, the mean scores all differed significantly, F (2, 271) = , p <.001. The respondents estimated the amount of contact the immigrant had with the host society to be higher in the assimilation condition than in the integration condition. Moreover, the importance of cultural maintenance was estimated higher in the separation condition than in the integration condition. It is understandable that one estimates the level of contact of an immigrant who has adopted one s cultural values as higher than the level of contact of an immigrant who maintains his original culture. Likewise, the level of cultural maintenance of an immigrant who does not want contact with the host society will be estimated as higher than the level of cultural maintenance of an immigrant who does want to have contact with the host society. As the immigrants using strategies characterized by a high level of contact with the host society (or: high level of cultural maintenance) were indeed seen as to have more contact (or: assign more importance to maintenance of culture) than the immigrants using low contact (or cultural maintenance) strategies, we conclude that our manipulations worked as planned. Affective Reactions to the Acculturation Strategies In order to examine which acculturation strategy the respondents preferred, we calculated the mean scores on the attitude towards the three scenarios. In contrast to 10 Since controlling for the effects of gender and age did not change our results, it was decided to exclude these variables from subsequent analyses.

15 88 Chapter 5 what was expected, the respondents reacted most positively to an integrating immigrant (M = 4.25), followed by an assimilating (M = 3.93) and finally a separating immigrant (M = 2.31). The mean scores all differed significantly, F (2, 270) = , p <.001. Relations between Attachment Styles and Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies Next, we tested our assumption that attachment styles are related to the attitude towards acculturation strategies. First, the correlations between the attachment styles and the attitude towards the acculturation strategies were considered (Table 5.1). As predicted, the secure attachment style correlated positively with the attitude towards an integrating immigrant. Also in line with our hypothesis, the dismissing style was negatively related to the reaction to integration and positively to the reaction to separation. In contrast to what was expected, the fearful style correlated negatively with the attitude towards assimilation. To examine how the attitudes towards the acculturation strategies could be predicted from the attachment styles, we performed a series of simultaneous regression analyses. Results showed that the attachment styles explained 19% of the variance in the attitude towards integration, F (4, 84) = 4.88, p <.001, which has to be attributed to the secure style (β =.47, p <.001). With respect to the attitude towards the separation strategy, the attachment styles explained 11% of the variance, F (4, 74) = 2.25, p =.07. The secure and the dismissing style appeared to be significant predictors of the attitude towards this strategy (β = -.25, p =.06; β =.24, p <.05, respectively). The attachment styles were not predictive of the attitude towards the assimilating immigrant.

16 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 89 Table 5.1 Correlations between Attachment Styles, Big Five Traits, Intercultural Traits and the Attitude towards the Acculturation Strategies. Integration n = 90 Assimilation n = 104 Separation n = 79 Attachment Styles Secure.37*** Fearful * -.01 Dismissing -.18* * Preoccupied Big Five Traits Extraversion.22*.26** -.09 Agreeableness.20* Conscientiousness * Emotional Stability Autonomy Intercultural Traits Cultural Empathy.22* Open-mindedness Social Initiative * -.24* Emotional Stability Flexibility Note. *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001, two-tailed. Predicted results (in bold) were subjected to onetailed tests. Relations between Big Five Traits and Attitude towards the Acculturation Strategies We also checked whether the Big Five traits were related to the attitude towards the acculturation strategies. From Table 5.1 it can be seen that extraversion and agreeableness were both significantly positively related to the reaction to an integrating immigrant. In addition, extraversion also appeared to be positively correlated with the attitude towards assimilation. Extraverted and agreeable people seem to be positive towards contact with people with a different cultural background. Finally, we found a positive correlation between conscientiousness and the reaction to the separation strategy.

17 90 Chapter 5 Conscientiousness has been found to be positively related to measures of rigidity (Musch, 2003; Von Zerssen, 1994). People who score high on rigidity tend to like having control and to stick to familiar principles and customs. Therefore, it could be that people who score high on conscientiousness might want immigrants to separate from society as that way the traditional arrangement of society is maintained. Regression results showed that the Big Five traits together explained 15% of the variance in the attitude towards the integration scenario (p<.05), which had to be attributed to extraversion (β =.30, p <.05) and agreeableness (β =.28, p <.05). Of the variance in the attitude towards separation, 13% was explained by the Big Five traits (p =.06). Conscientiousness was a significant predictor of the reaction to this strategy (β =.35, p <.01). Relations between Intercultural Traits and Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies With regard to the intercultural traits, we found that cultural empathy correlated positively with the affective reaction to integration (Table 5.1). Cultural empathy is characterized by empathizing with feelings, thoughts and behaviours of people with different cultural backgrounds. Therefore, people scoring high on cultural empathy might understand that immigrants want to participate in the host society and at the same time maintain their original culture. Social initiative appeared to be positively correlated with the affective reaction to assimilation and negatively with the affective reaction to separation. This makes sense as social initiative refers to the tendency to approach social situations in an active way, e.g. by making contacts, which is indeed happening when immigrants assimilate and not when immigrants separate. Regression analyses revealed that the intercultural traits were only predictive of the attitude towards separation, R 2 =.13, F (5, 73) = 2.24, p =.06. Social initiative was the sole significant predictor (β = -.34, p <.01). Incremental Validity of Attachment Styles in predicting Acculturation Attitudes Relations between Attachment Styles, Big Five Personality Traits and Intercultural Traits When considering the incremental validity of attachment styles above the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits, it is important to know first how the attachment styles are rooted in these latter psychological personality frameworks. Do the attachment scales have specific content relevant to attitudes towards acculturation strategies which is not captured by the Big Five traits or the intercultural traits? To examine this, we first performed four simultaneous regression analyses with the attachment styles as the

18 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 91 dependent variable and the Big Five traits as the independent variables (for raw scale inter-correlations see Table 5.2). The Big Five traits explained 23% of the variance in the secure style, which had to be attributed to extraversion and agreeableness (β =.41, p <.001; β =.21, p <.01, respectively). The fearful style was predicted by extraversion and emotional stability (β = -.25, p <.001; β = -.20, p <.01; R 2 =.15). With respect to the dismissing style, both extraversion and autonomy were significant predictors (β = -.26, p <.001; β =.21, p <.01; R 2 =.09). Finally, emotional stability appeared to be a strong negative predictor of the preoccupied attachment style (β = -.37, p <.001; R 2 =.24). On average, the Big Five traits explained 18% of variance in the attachment scales. This means that there is a certain amount of overlap between attachment styles and the Big Five traits, but that attachment is not a superfluous concept. The Big Five traits explained the highest percentage of variance in the preoccupied attachment style. Next, simultaneous regression analyses with the attachment styles as the dependent variable and the intercultural traits as the independent variables were performed (for raw scale inter-correlations see Table 5.2). Cultural empathy (β =.46, p <.001), open-mindedness (β = -.24, p <.001), social initiative (β =.30, p <.001) and emotional stability (β =.12, p <.05) were all significant predictors of the secure style (R 2 =.34). However, as the zero-order correlation (see Table 5.2) between secure attachment and open-mindedness was not significant, the beta-weight for openmindedness has to be interpreted with caution. The fearful style was predicted by emotional stability (β = -.36, p <.001), social initiative (β = -.20, p <.01) and cultural empathy (β = -.16, p <.05). The explained variance amounted to 26%. Although we also found a significant beta-weight for open-mindedness (β =.26, p <.001), the raw correlation of this variable with fearful attachment was not significant. With regard to dismissing attachment, open-mindedness (β =.29, p <.001), emotional stability (β =.16, p <.05) and cultural empathy (β = -.18, p <.01) were significant predictors (R 2 =.13). However, the zero-order correlation between dismissing attachment and cultural empathy was not significant. Finally, the preoccupied attachment style was predicted by emotional stability alone (β = -.56, p <.001, R 2 =.39). On average, the intercultural traits were able to explain 28% of the variance in the attachment scales. The preoccupied attachment style appeared to be best predictable by the intercultural traits With regard to the relations between the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits it was found that cultural empathy was best predicted by agreeableness, followed by autonomy and extraversion (β =.34, p <.001; β =.26, p <.001; β =.17, p <.01 respectively; R 2 =.16). Autonomy was the single predictor of open-mindedness (β =.34, p <.001; R 2 =.11). The strongest predictor of social initiative was extraversion (β =.45). Also autonomy and agreeableness were significant predictors of this intercultural trait (β =.21, p <.001; β = -.15, p <.01). Together, they explained 37% of the variance in the social initiative scale. The Big Five scale for emotional stability was the strongest predictor of the MPQ scale for emotional stability (β =.56, p <.001). Together with autonomy (β =.13, p <.05), these scale explained 42% of the variance in emotional stability. With respect to

19 92 Chapter 5 Additional Value of Attachment Styles beyond the Big Five Traits To test whether attachment styles are able to explain variance in the attitude towards acculturation strategies of immigrants beyond that explained by the Big Five traits, hierarchical regressions in which the Big Five traits were entered in the first step and attachment styles in the second step (Table 5.3) were conducted. As was shown earlier, when entered alone the Big Five traits significantly explained 15% of the variance in the attitude towards integration (see Table 5.3, first step). The attachment styles alone explained a higher percentage of variance, 19%. The addition of attachment styles in the second step resulted in a significant increase in the explained variance of 10% (Table 5.3). The secure attachment style was the single best predictor. So, adding attachment styles to the Big Five traits in the regression resulted in an improvement of the predictive power of the model. With respect to the variance in the attitude towards the separation strategy, simultaneous regression analyses showed that attachment styles and the Big Five traits explained this equally well (R 2 = 0.11, p =.07 and R 2 = 0.13, p =.06 respectively). From hierarchical regressions (Table 5.3) it appeared that the attachment styles did not have significant additional value in explaining the variance in the attitude towards separation above the Big Five traits. We also conducted hierarchical regressions in which the attachment styles were entered in the first step and the Big Five in the second step, to see whether the Big Five traits added a significant percentage of explained variance in the prediction of the attitude towards the acculturation strategies when controlled for the attachment styles. This was not the case. The Big Five traits were not able to significantly explain additional variance in the attitude towards the integration strategy (ΔR 2 =.06; ΔF (5, 79) = 1.21) nor in the attitude towards the separation strategy (ΔR 2 =.09; ΔF (5, 69) = 1.57). In conclusion, the attitude towards integration is best predicted by the more narrow attachment styles as compared to the broader Big Five personality traits. Attachment styles and the Big Five traits predict the attitude towards the separation strategy equally well. flexibility, the amount of explained variance amounted to 34%, which had to be attributed to conscientiousness (β = -.50, p <.001), autonomy (β =.22, p <.01) and agreeableness (β =.12, p <.05). However, the zero-order correlation between flexibility and agreeableness was not significant. So, the corresponding beta-weight has to be interpreted with caution. On average, the Big Five traits explained 28% of the variance in each intercultural personality scale. Our results are in line with previous studies by Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000); Van der Zee, Zaal, and Piekstra (2003); and Leone, Van der Zee, and Van Oudenhoven (2005).

20 Majority Members Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 93 Table 5.2 Means, Standard Deviations and Scale Inter-correlations for the ASQ, Big Five and MPQ scales and Degree of Contact with Immigrants M SD Secure *** -.27*** -.19**.43***.18**.05.22***.18**.46***.06.42***.23***.12*.03 2.Fearful *.45*** -.31*** *** -.18** -.17** *** -.42*** -.21***.03 3.Dismissing ** -.14* -.14* ** ***.04.20**.19**.14* 4.Preoccupied ***.07.17** -.45*** -.34*** *** -.61*** -.33*** Extraversion ***.40***.21***.18**.55***.31***.19**.07 6.Agreeableness ***.14* -.22***.26*** *** Conscientiousness * -.21*** *** Emotional Stability *** ***.62***.23***.06 9.Autonomy **.30***.43***.43***.33***.17** 10.Cultural Empathy ***.32***.13*.17** Open-mindedness ***.27***.39***.30*** 12.Social Initiative ***.35***.14* 13.Emotional Stability ***.12* 14.Flexibility *** 15.Contact Note. *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001.