Ethnic Group Identification and Group Evaluation Among Minority and Majority Groups: Testing the Multiculturalism Hypothesis.

Abstract

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.

Attitudes Toward Multiculturalism and Assimilation and Contact with Members of Outgroup

“…Unlike young Albanians, young Macedonians express that they favor more assimilation. The results are in compliance with findings of other research studies (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006;Verkuyten, 2005;Ajduković & Čorkalo, 2008). Members of minority groups perceive multiculturalism as an opportunity to maintain their identity.…”

“…The more minorities support multiculturalism, the more they express their identification to ingroup. As for the majority group members, the more they express support to multiculturalism, the less they express identification to ingroup and express more positive attitude towards outgroup (Verkuyten, 2005). Majority group members express less positive attitude towards outgroup than members of minority groups and also express a lower level of ethnic identification (Verkuyten, 2005;Ajduković & Čorkalo, 2008).…”

“…Research studies confirm exactly the same. Minority group members express stronger support to multiculturalism than majority group members (Verkuyten, 2005;Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006), whereas majority group members favor assimilation or adapting to the dominant culture (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006;Ajduković & Čorkalo, 2008). Furthermore, in-goup identification moderates multiculturalism impact.…”

Motivations underlying attitudes: regulatory focus and majority versus minority support

“…Research has shown that in contrast to members of majority groups, members of minority groups are overall more cohesive, participative, cooperative and extreme, as well as more committed to enhancing their social identity and disseminating their viewpoint (e.g. Gerard, 1985;Mullen, 1991;Simon & Hamilton, 1994;Simon, Hastedt, & Aufderheide, 1997;Verkuyten, 2005; see Levine & Moreland, 1998). Interestingly, minorities seem to be less motivated to promote their claims once these are picked up and endorsed by the majority (Vernet & Butera, 2005).…”

Acculturation and identity

“…Although both majorities and minorities may consider integration of ethnic minorities into the society as a common goal, majority members often prefer a solution where minority members would assimilate to the representation of the national identity held by the majority group, while minority members would prefer to keep their separate ethnic/cultural identity and develop a civic national identity (Verkuyten, 2005b). Thus, the overall context provided by the dominant group and society is crucial for how the identity patterns and adaptation of ethnic/cultural minorities develop in acculturation.…”