Patterns of ethnic minority identification and modes of social adaptation

We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup

“…Different models on the subject have emphasised different aspects of the acculturation concept: this includes relational aspects pertaining to the willingness to have contact with the host society (Berry, 1980), more boundary-related properties that have to do with the degree to which immigrants define themselves within the bounds of both the original group and the host society (Hutnik, 1986), but also ideological beliefs that shift between cultural maintenance and cultural adoption (Bourhis, Moı¨se, Perrault, & Sene´cal, 1997;Maquil et al, 2009). The above-mentioned studies do not allow us to identify what aspect of people's assimilationist beliefs is driving the lack of ingroup humanisation.…”

Migrant worker acculturation in China

“…Liebkind (2001) noted that these two dimensions have come to be operationalised in different ways by different researchers, especially the second dimension about the national aspect. These include: identification with the larger society (e.g., Hutnik, 1986Hutnik, , 1991; adoption of the national culture (e.g., Donà & Berry, 1994;Nguyen, Messé, & Stollak, 1999;Sayegh & Lasry, 1993); or adapting to the larger society (e.g. Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2006).…”

Etniciteti, nacije i granice na Kordunu: primjer bošnjačke nacionalne manjine

“…Tipologija strategija temelji se na kulturi i zajednici te su ta dva fenomena u korelacijskim ili regresijskim odnosima, a individualni etnički identitet jest pokazatelj, indikator ili sadržaj akulturacijskih procesa (npr. Hutnik 1986;Phinney 1996Phinney , 2003Phinney i ostali 2001Phinney i ostali , 2005. Tako fiksne kategorije većine i manjine, većinske i manjinske kulture sugeriraju klasičnu, čvrstu povezanost između etničkih identiteta i etničkih grupa, ne ostavljajući mnogo prostora za raspravu o kvaliteti i strukturi granica među ljudima.…”