Following social identity theory, the author hypothesized that members of minority groups are more likely than majority group members to endorse multiculturalism more strongly and assimilationist thinking less strongly. In addition, the multiculturalism hypothesis proposes that the more minority groups endorse the ideology of multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the more (or less) likely they will be to identify with their ethnic in-group and to show positive in-group evaluation. In contrast, the more majority group members endorse multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the less (or more) likely they are to identify with their ethnic group and to show negative out-group evaluation. Results from 4 studies (correlational and experimental) provide support for this hypothesis among Dutch and Turkish participants living in the Netherlands.

National (dis)identification is examined in three studies among Turkish-Dutch Muslim participants. In explaining national (dis)identification, the first study focuses on ethnic identity, the second on ethnic and religious identity, and the third on three dimensions of religious identity. Many participants show low commitment to the nation, and many indicate national disidentification. In addition, there is very strong ethnic and religious identification. Ethnic and Muslim identifications relate negatively to Dutch identification and, in Study 3, to stronger Dutch disidentification. Furthermore, perceived group rejection is associated with increased ethnic minority and religious identification but also with decreased national Dutch identification. In addition, in Studies 1 and 2 the effect of perceived rejection on Dutch identification is (partly) mediated by minority group identification. The findings are discussed in relation to social psychological thinking about group identification, dual identities, and the importance of religion for intergroup relations.

Racist victimization among children in The Netherlands: the effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic And Racial Studies, 25(2), 310.

This study uses integrated threat theory to examine Dutch adolescents’ (N =1,187) prejudice towards Muslim minorities. One out of two participants was found to have negative feelings towards Muslims. Perceived symbolic and realistic threat and negative stereotypes were examined as mediators between antecedent factors (in‐group identification, intergroup contact, and the endorsement of multiculturalism) and prejudice. Based on structural equation modelling, it was found that stereotypes and symbolic threats, but not realistic threats, predicted prejudice towards Muslims. Further, it was found that the effect of in‐group identification on prejudice was fully mediated by symbolic threat, the effect of contact was partially mediated by stereotypes, and the effect of the endorsement of multiculturalism was mediated by both symbolic threat and stereotypes. In addition, contact and multiculturalism were directly associated with prejudice towards Muslims. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

No abstract

Social psychologists studying intergroup perceptions have shown an increasing interest in essentialist thinking. Essentialist beliefs about social groups are examined as cognitive processes and these beliefs would serve to rationalize and justify the existing social system. Discourse analyses on racism have emphasized that problems of racism are to a large extent problems of essentialism. Anti-essentialism has emerged as an emancipatory discourse in the challenge of hegemonic representations and oppressive relations. The present study examines how, in group discussions, ethnic Dutch and ethnic minority people de ne and use essentialist notions about social groups. Both Dutch and ethnic minority participants engaged in an essentialist discourse in which an intrinsic link between culture and ethnicity was made. However, there were also examples where this discourse was criticized and rejected. This variable use of (de-)essentialism is examined in terms of the conversation's context and issues at hand, such as questions of assimilation, group provisions, cultural rights, and agency. The main conclusion of this paper is that essentialism is not by de nition oppressive and that de-essentialism is not by de nition progressive. The discursive power of (de-)essentialist group beliefs depends on the way they are used and the context in which they appear.

Whereas much social psychological research has studied the in-group and out-group implications of social categorization and collective identity (“we”), little research has examined the nature and relevance of collective psychological ownership (“ours”) for intergroup relations. We make a case for considering collective psychological ownership as an important source of intergroup tensions. We do so by integrating theory and research from various social sciences, and we draw out implications for future social psychological research on intergroup relations. We discuss collective psychological ownership in relation to the psychology of possessions, marking behavior, intergroup threats, outgroup exclusion, and in-group responsibility. We suggest that the social psychological processes discussed apply to a range of ownership objects (territory, buildings, cultural artifacts) and various intergroup settings, including international, national, and local contexts, and in organizations and communities. We conclude by providing directions for future research in different intergroup contexts.

No abstract