International Journal of Intercultural Relations
30 (2006) 637­651
Patterns of relations between immigrants and
host societies
Jan Pieter Van Oudenhoven, Colleen Ward1
, Anne-Marie Masgoret1
Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, Room 164, 9712 Groningen, TS,
The Netherlands
Received 12 September 2006
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of migration and cultural diversity across seven countries in three
major geographical regions. It describes the evolution of acculturation theory, models and research.
Next, the paper briefly reviews the developments in the application of social psychological theory to
the study of immigration and intergroup relations and illustrates the convergence of these approaches
across ten studies. Finally, it makes recommendations for the course of future research. Specifically it
recommends to clearly distinguish between cultural heritage and cultural identity, to take
transnational contacts into account in models of acculturation, and to examine the concepts of
pluralism and creolization as outcomes of culturally heterogeneous host societies.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Acculturation; Immigration; Host society; Credization; Transnationalism
1. Introduction
Globalization, migration and increasing cultural diversity within nations have resulted
in a growing need to understand and enhance intercultural relations in plural societies.
This volume examines these issues in the international arena, bringing together leading
social and cross-cultural psychologists whose contemporary research spans seven
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.09.001
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 50 3636426; fax: +31 50 3636304.
E-mail address: j.p.l.m.van.oudenhoven@rug.nl (J.P. Van Oudenhoven).
1
Both Colleen Ward and Anne-Marie Masgoret work at the ``Victoria University of Wellington'', New
Zealand.
countries. The purpose of this special issue on relations between immigrants and
host societies is to highlight current trends and new advances in the study of acculturation
and intergroup relations. To accomplish this, the introductory paper provides
an overview of migration and cultural diversity across three major geographical
regions; describes the evolution of acculturation theory, models and research; briefly
reviews the developments in the application of social psychology theory to the study
of immigration and intergroup relations; illustrates the convergence of these two
approaches across the ten papers that follow; and makes recommendations for the course
of future research.
2. Migration and cultural diversity in the 21 century
It is now estimated that there are almost 191 million international migrants on a worldwide
basis. Europe currently hosts the largest number (64 million); however, relative to the
total population, Oceania (15%) and North America (13%) are world leaders (United
Nations, 2005). This volume draws together research from seven countries in these three
migration regions, and brief synopses of their immigration trends and issues are presented
in the following sections.
2.1. Western Europe
2.1.1. Germany
Germany has a moderate level of immigration--9% of its 83 million population.
Nevertheless, the immigration rates to Germany of approximately 650,000 per annum were
amongst the highest in Europe at the close of the twentieth century (Berry et al., 2006).
Approximately, 27% of Germany's migrants originate from other established European
Union countries (e.g., Italy, Greece, Poland, and Austria) with approximately 24% Turks
and 14% former Yugoslavs. Although Zick, Wagner, Van Dick, and Petzel (2001)
reported a preference for assimilation among German nationals, others have suggested
that segregation is explicitly encouraged (Brubaker, 2001).
2.1.2. The Netherlands
Sixteen million people live in the Netherlands, and 10% of these were born elsewhere.
The ethnic origin of the population is primarily Dutch (81%) with Dutch citizens from
Surinam and the Antilles and migrants from Turkey, Morocco, and the former Yugoslavia
being the largest overseas-born groups. Since 1973, the Netherlands has pursued a
relatively restrictive immigration policy based primarily on family unification rather than
skilled labor. Officially, the government endorses policies aimed at integrating immigrants
while preserving cultural identity; however, surveys show that the attitudes of the Dutch
towards immigrants have become more negative in recent years (Arends-Toth & van de
Vijver, 2003) and that there is a growing preference for assimilation (van Oudenhoven,
Prins, & Buunk, 1998).
2.1.3. Italy
Over the last two decades Italy has moved from a country of emigration to a country of
immigration. It is estimated that there are now 2.8 million immigrants amongst its 58
million population, making Italy (ranked equally with Spain and Great Britain) the third
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651638
largest receiving country in the European Union--after Germany and France (Dossier
Statistico Immigrazione, 2005, 2005). The largest groups of immigrants originate
from Albania and Morocco, with Romania, China and the Ukraine also making
substantial contributions to the growing population. Although Italian attitudes toward
immigration have been described as hostile and xenophobic (see Kosic & Phalet, this
issue), the Eurobarometer 2000 survey found that Italians had greater acceptance of
migrants compared to most EU states (Thalhammer, Zucha, Enzenhofer, Salfinger, &
Ogris, 2001).
2.2. North America
2.2.1. Canada
Canada has an ethnically diverse make-up with approximately two-thirds of its 33
million population being of British (40%) or French (27%) ancestry. Nineteen percent of
Canada's population are overseas-born, and in recent years almost two-thirds of the
annual flow of immigrants have originated from Asian countries. Canada officially
adopted a policy of multiculturalism in 1978 and currently targets approximately 300,000
new migrants per annum. National surveys show that Canadians favor integration and
have a high level of acceptance of multiculturalism (Berry & Kalin, 1995). An opinion poll
revealed that 93% of Canadians agree that it is important to accept a wide variety of
cultures in Canada (Hiebert, 2003).
2.2.2. The United States
The United States has traditionally been a settlement society and currently has a
moderate level of immigration with 11.7% of its total 298 million population being
overseas-born (Berry et al., 2006). At present, 68% of its population is of European
origins, 14% Hispanic, 13% African American, 4% Asian American, and 1% Native
American. The majority of new immigrants to the United States now come from Latin
America, Asia and other non-European countries. The United States has traditionally
assumed a ``melting poť' approach to immigration and diversity, although many have
argued that the philosophy is essentially assimilationist in practice. Along these lines, a
recent survey indicated that most Americans (58%) believe that immigrants do not learn
English quickly enough (Pew Research Centre, 2006).
2.3. Oceania
2.3.1. Australia
Australia has a high level of immigration with one-quarter of its more than 20 million
residents being overseas-born. Ninety-two percent of the population is of European
ancestry, about 7% from Asia and 1% Aboriginal and other. Within this mix, however,
almost 200 source countries for Australian migration have been identified (Berry et al.,
2006). Australia began its move towards multiculturalism in 1975 with policy refinements
in 1989 and 1999. Surveys and opinion polls show widespread support for multiculturalism,
varying opinions about the level of immigration, which are affected by
unemployment trends, and a preference for migrants from Britain and Southern Europe
compared to Asia and the Middle East (Dunn, 2003).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651 639
2.3.2. New Zealand
New Zealand (population 4 million) also has a high level of immigration with one in five
residents born overseas. On the basis of its 2001 census, which permits identification with
more than one ethnic group, the ethnic origins of the population were: 80% European,
14.7% Maori, 6.5% Pacific, 6.6% Asian, and 6.9% other. Changes in immigration policy
in 1986 and 1991 altered the flow from traditional source countries, particularly the United
Kingdom, to skills-based criteria and opened the door to massive increases of migrants
from Asian countries. New Zealand still has an official policy of biculturalism based on the
Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 between Maori and the British Crown; however, it is
evolving into a multicultural nation. National surveys show that New Zealanders,
including Maori, favor integration over assimilation and separation (Ward, Masgoret, &
Leong, 2006).
3. Acculturation theory and research
Several theoretical models have been developed over the years to assess the process of
acculturation, including changes in attitudes, values, behaviors, language and cultural
identity. Although measures of acculturation have sometimes focused on particular
processes, models of acculturation can be placed in one of two broad categories: (1)
unidimensional models--representing cultural change on a linear bipolar continuum,
going from the heritage culture to the host culture, and (2) multidimensional models--
where acculturation processes are seen to take place independently in the home and host
cultures and may also involve multiple domains. Most recently, acculturation researchers
have emphasized the importance of the receiving society in the acculturation processes
adopted by immigrants. The following section reviews a number of these models and
focuses on the convergence of immigrant and host community perspectives within the
acculturation process.
Early studies of acculturation adopted a unidimensional approach in which immigrants
were seen as relinquishing identification with their culture of origin and gradually moving
toward identification with the host culture by adopting the cultural norms, values,
attitudes and behaviors of the host society (e.g., Ramirez, 1984). Despite the initial
popularity of the unidimensional, bipolar conceptualization of acculturation, these models
came under increasing scrutiny. As theory and research on bicultural identity developed
throughout the 1980s (e.g., Mendoza, 1984), it became apparent that unidimensional
models were too simplistic and that identification with home and host culture had come to
be viewed as counterbalancing forces. A balance model of acculturation emerged in which
biculturalism was viewed as the middle ground between assimilation and separation.
Although the balance model was an improvement on the unidimensional approach, it
continued to pose measurement problems because the heritage and host cultures were still
viewed as interdependent, rather than orthogonal dimensions. Specifically, this approach
failed to distinguish between individuals who identified strongly with both cultures and
those who identified weakly with both cultures. To address these difficulties, more
comprehensive models of acculturation emerged which began to consider the heritage and
host cultures as independent influences.
Researchers who espouse this more comprehensive view argue that acculturation is a
multidimensional process. There are two assumptions underlying multidimensional models
of acculturation (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000). The first one views acculturation
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651640
processes as functioning in various separate domains, such as in attitudes, values,
behaviors, language and cultural identity. According to this view, immigrants may relate to
their heritage and host cultures to different degrees in these various domains. For example,
they may be fluent in the new national language, but still totally identify with the values
that are predominant in their country of origin.
The second assumption frames orientations towards home and host cultures as
independent domains, as in Berry's (1980, 1997) classification of acculturation strategies.
According to Berry, immigrants are faced with two fundamental questions, one referring
to the maintenance of heritage culture, ``Is it of value to maintain my cultural heritage?''
and one referring to relations with other ethnocultural groups, ``Is it of value to maintain
relations with other groups?''. On the basis of the answers to these questions four
acculturation strategies 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 cultural heritage is of importance); and (d) marginalisation (neither outcome
is important).
In a theoretical analysis of the psychological responses to acculturation, Berry (1980)
proposed that immigrants undergo a process of change in at least six areas of psychological
functioning (language, cognitive styles, personality, identity, attitudes, and acculturative
stress). After some initial changes, the individual reaches a state of conflict, at which point
an adaptation strategy is reached. As individuals acculturate, a number of behaviors are
modified, together with attitudes, beliefs, and values. Berry argued that the four
acculturation strategies are not discrete, static strategies; individuals may switch from
one strategy to another; and the host culture may consist of several cultures rather than a
single majority culture.
Although Berry's model has been extremely influential in the field, it has also
received some criticism. Some researchers have argued that the concept of marginalization
is not a viable one, since migrants do not choose to be marginalized, but rather may
involuntarily be forced to adopt it as an outcome. Or alternatively, it is possible that some
immigrants may not directly identify with either their heritage or host cultures because
they have opted for a more individualistic acculturation strategy (cf. Bourhis, Moi¨se,
Perreault, & Sené cal, 1997). Immigrants who are more individualistic are often
characterized by a high level of cosmopolitism, selectively adopting elements from a
number of cultures.
In most multicultural societies, the current discourse centers on the question whether
immigrants should assimilate or integrate. Berry (1997) and many other researchers (e.g.,
Horenczyk, 1996; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003; Van
Oudenhoven et al., 1998; Zagefka & Brown, 2002) have found that integration is the
most preferred and most `adaptive' strategy for immigrants. Although immigrants may
prefer integration, what members of the host society permit necessarily influences the
ultimate selection of acculturation strategies.
More recent studies have demonstrated that it is important to look beyond the
acculturation attitudes of immigrants to the acculturation expectations of members of the
receiving society. For example, separation and marginalization are more likely to be
adopted, and assimilation less likely, under conditions of greater perceived discrimination
(Barry & Grilo, 2003). Early discussions by Berry broadly considered the acculturation
expectations of members of the receiving society (Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977), and more
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651 641
recently these have been described as multiculturalism, melting pot, segregation and
exclusion orientations (Berry, 2001).
Based on Berry's model of acculturation, the Interactive Acculturation Model by
Bourhis et al. (1997) has provided a useful and inclusive framework by focusing on the role
of both the acculturation expectations of the receiving community and the acculturation
orientations adopted by immigrants. According to this model, host society members may
endorse five acculturation orientations towards immigrants: integration, segregation,
assimilation, exclusion and individualism. The first three orientations parallel Berry's
(1997) notions of integration, separation, assimilation and the last two represent variations
on marginalization. According to Bourhis et al. (1997), integration represents an
accommodative approach in which host nationals believe that immigrants are entitled to
preserve their heritage culture while simultaneously adopting aspects of the national
culture. Those who endorse this strategy anticipate the gradual evolution of a multicultural
society. Host nationals who espouse segregation believe it is in the best interest of the
larger community to separate immigrant cultures from the mainstream society. Those who
support assimilation express a desire to see immigrants relinquish their heritage culture in
favor of the one from their adopted homeland. Exclusionism reflects the belief that
immigration and immigrants are perilous to the national community and that the country
would benefit most from a closed, as opposed to an open, immigration policy. Finally,
individualism is preferred by those who believe that there is no one right way to manage
identity issues as individuals should be empowered to adopt any strategy that they see fit.
Convergence between host and migrant acculturation preferences do not always occur,
and Bourhis et al. have argued that dissimilar attitudes result in problematic or conflictual
outcomes. Horenczyk's (1996) research revealed that both Russian migrants and Israeli
hosts preferred integration, but members of the receiving community had a stronger
preference for assimilation than did migrants; they also believed that migrants were more
willing to assimilate than was actually the case. Van Oudenhoven et al. (1998) noted that
Dutch nationals strongly endorsed assimilation, but that they believed Moroccan and
Turkish migrants favored separation, whereas integration was actually preferred by both
immigrant groups. The outcomes of host and migrant mismatches, however, have not been
widely investigated. One exception to this is research with ethnic repatriates in Finland,
Germany and Israel, which linked discordant acculturation preferences to greater
perceived discrimination and increased psychological distress (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al.,
2003).
In contrast to immigrants who generally prefer integration, host society members have
often adopted an assimilation ideology in which immigrants are expected to abandon their
cultural and linguistic distinctiveness and adopt the core values of the host society. For
instance, in Germany, Zick et al. (2001) reported a preference for assimilation among
nationals, while similar results were found in Slovakia (Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, &
Obdrezá lek, 2000), Israel (Horenczyk, 1996) and the Netherlands (Van Oudenhoven et al.,
1998). Admittedly, not all nations prefer assimilation. Exceptions are Canada and New
Zealand where residents tend to prefer integration (Berry & Kalin, 1995; Ward &
Masgoret, 2004).
It is clear from the research based on the current immigration climate that the process of
acculturation can no longer be viewed solely in terms of the experiences of the immigrant,
but must consider the mutual change that occurs when two cultural groups come into
contact with one another. Furthermore, not only should we consider both the role of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651642
acculturation orientations adopted by immigrants and the acculturation expectations of
the receiving community in this process, but we need to consider the interpersonal and
intergroup relational outcomes that are the product of combinations of the immigrant and
host community acculturation orientations (Bourhis et al., 1997). In many cases, these
processes should be considered in a cross-cultural context.
4. Social psychological theory and research
In addition to models of acculturation, social psychological theories of intergroup
relations are pertinent to the analysis of relations between immigrant groups and members
of the receiving societies. These are briefly summarized in the following section. It should
be noted that social psychological theories are often combined with personality or
individual differences measures (e.g., social dominance orientation) in intergroup research
and that studies have been undertaken in both lab and field settings from a range of
perspectives, including developmental and cross-cultural.
The Contact Hypothesis suggests that negative attitudes held by one group towards
another are caused by a lack of knowledge about that group. When individuals of two
groups come into positive, personal, and cooperative contact with each other, they will get
to know each other, a consequence of which is that prejudices will be eliminated or
reduced. Important is that the interaction takes place between individuals with equal status
and that authorities support the contact. Under these conditions mutual attitudes and
interaction will become more positive, for instance through a growing recognition of
similarities (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1997). An example of the application of the contact
hypothesis to the migration context can be found in Voci and Hewstone's (2003) Italian
study and Van Oudenhoven, Groenewoud, and Hewstone's (1996) Dutch research, which
demonstrated that intercultural contact significantly improved attitudes toward immi-
grants.
According to the Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis, which is more a robust empirical
datum than a theory, similarity leads to attraction (Byrne, 1971). The hypothesis states
that when one perceives another to be similar to oneself on various characteristics (for
instance, attitudes and values), this other will be positively evaluated. In other words, we
like people and groups who we think are like us and our own group. Therefore, the
similarity-attraction hypothesis (Byrne, 1971) offers an easy explanation for why people do
not appreciate cultural differences. Similarity may reduce insecurity in interpersonal and
intergroup 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. The similarity attraction hypothesis has also
been discussed under the rubric of cultural distance in the acculturation literature,
accounting for trends where migrants from dissimilar or ``distanť' cultures are perceived
less favorably than those from similar backgrounds (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001).
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) offers an even more
pertinent perspective on the intergroup processes between immigrants and host societies.
Social categorization and comparison are key features of the theory, which posits that (1)
group membership forms an important component of social identity; and (2) people strive
to attain or maintain a positive self-image by engaging in favorable comparisons between
their ingroups and various outgroups. Consequently, ethnocentrism is assumed to be an
inevitable consequence of social identification. Ethnocentrism may manifest itself through
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651 643
ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation, particularly in domains such as stereotyping
and attributions. Social Identity Theory has been widely used to interpret intergroup
relations from both host and migrant perspectives (e.g., Kosmitzki, 1996).
A theory particularly focused on intergroup relations in plural societies is Integrated
Threat Theory (ITT) (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Drawing on a range of theories that
emphasize cognition, comparison, and conflict, ITT identifies four types of threat that play
a significant role in precipitating prejudice: realistic threats, symbolic threats, intergroup
anxiety, and negative stereotyping. Realistic threats include perceived threats to the
welfare of a group or its members. Symbolic threats are associated with values, beliefs and
attitudes and are perceived to undermine or jeopardize the worldview of a group.
Intergroup anxiety constitutes threat as it arises in response to fears of diminished selfconcept
and negative evaluations by others. Finally, negative stereotypes contain elements
of threat in that they lead to the anticipation of negative events and interactions. ITT has
been used widely in studies of attitudes toward migrants, including Stephan, Ybarra,
Martínez, Schwarzwald, and Tur-Kaspa (1998) research in Spain and Israel.
A more recent model which also highlights the role of threat in the relations between
hosts and immigrants is the Instrumental Model of Group Conflict (Esses, Dovidio,
Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001). Inspired by realistic group conflict theory (LeVine &
Campbell, 1972), the model identifies two conditions leading to intergroup antagonism.
The first is resource stress which may arise from limited resources, unequal access to
resources, and desire or acceptance of unequal access based on a social hierarchy. The last
of these three factors is regarded as an individual difference variable and is often discussed
under the rubric of Social Dominance Orientation. The second determinant of conflict is
the presence of a relevant outgroup. The outgroup should be salient, distinctive and a
viable competitor for valued resources. Salience and distinctiveness can be accentuated by
such things as the increasing numbers of outgroup members or by their distinguishable
appearance. The combination of resource stress and a relevant outgroup results in
intergroup competition and is accompanied by the cognitive and affective perception of
threat. The cognitive component revolves around a zero-sum belief system, where there is a
perception that any opportunities and benefits given to one group are regarded as directly
reducing the concomitant opportunities and benefits available to the others. The affective
component encompasses the perceptions of fear and anxiety as a result of the challenges
posed by outgroup competitors. Esses et al.'s (2001) work on attitudes toward migrants in
the United States and Canada has given strong support for the Instrumental Model of
Group Conflict as has Masgoreťs (2004) work in New Zealand.
A model that is oriented towards inclusion is the Common Ingroup Identity Model
(Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). The central idea of the model is that once a set of people is
defined as part of the ingroup, they will be treated in a similar way to other ingroup
members. Gaertner and Dovidio argue that by shifting cognitive representations of
membership in ingroups and outgroups to an inclusive social identity within a single
group, more favorable attitudes toward former outgroup members may be produced
through processes involving pro-ingroup bias. When members of a former outgroup come
to be considered part of the ingroup, the cognitive and motivational forces that contribute
to ingroup favoritism become redirected to improve attitudes toward the newly defined
members of the ingroup. Common ingroup identity can be achieved by increasing the
salience of existing common superordinate memberships (e.g., a school, a company, a
nation) or by introducing factors (e.g., common goals or shared fate) that are perceived to
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651644
be shared between the original groups. The model does not necessarily require each group
to forsake its less inclusive group identity completely. Individuals belong simultaneously to
several groups and possess multiple identities (Brewer, 2000). Research demonstrating that
national identity is linked to positive attitudes toward immigrants, such as Billiet,
Maddens, and Beerten's (2003) work in Belgium can be interpreted in terms of the theory
of Common Ingroup Identity.
5. Acculturation research and social psychological theories
As we saw in the previous section, social psychologists have dealt with important topics
that are all very relevant for acculturation research: contact, social identity (cultural),
similarity, intergroup threat, inclusion and exclusion. Remarkably, however, until recently,
the two lines of research have evolved independently from one another in the study of
host­immigrant relations. Social psychologists have too often developed and tested
theoretical paradigms referring to isolated parts of intergroup relations (e.g., the minimal
group paradigm or the similarity-attraction hypothesis), whereas acculturation research
has been very broad and in many cases largely descriptive (e.g., the great number of studies
describing what adaptation strategies groups of immigrants prefer). Fortunately, however,
acculturation researchers have inspired social psychologists to adopt a broader scope and
to extend their research to the context of immigration, and social psychologists have
encouraged acculturation researchers to formulate more precise theoretical explanations.
All papers in this issue illustrate--to various degrees--social psychological contributions
to the study of immigration. In many cases, they also demonstrate the merger of
acculturation theory with intergroup research, sometimes from a cross-cultural perspec-
tive.
A good example is the contribution of Esses, Wagner, Preiser and Wilbur on the effects
of promoting an inclusive national ingroup on attitudes toward immigrants. The authors
combine Social Identity Theory, the concept of Social Dominance Orientation and the
Common Ingroup Identity Model to predict reactions towards immigrants in Canada and
Germany. In Canada the induction of a common national ingroup helped to reduce
unfavorable attitudes of higher social dominance oriented individuals whereas the
inclusion of immigrants in the national group induced a more negative reaction among
the higher social dominance oriented in the German sample. The research clearly
underlined the significance of cultural context in intergroup perceptions and relations.
Two papers highlighted the role of threat and attitudes. Ward and Masgoret tested an
integrative model of attitudes towards immigrants among a random sample of 500 New
Zealanders which was primarily based on the ITT and the Instrumental Model of Group
Conflict. Their study employing structural equation modelling showed that more frequent
intercultural contact led to decreased intergroup anxiety, which, in turn, predicted lower
perceptions of threat and more positive attitudes towards immigrants. A second path from
multicultural ideology led to decreased perception of threat and, in turn, to more positive
attitudes towards immigrants. Rohmann, Florack and Piontowski examined acculturation
preferences and desired intergroup contact in connection with ITT. They found that the
same threats, culture discordance and contact discordance, predicted negative attitudes
towards the minority and majority groups among both German hosts and immigrants
(Italians and Turks), respectively. Moreover, the effects were stronger among and toward
Turks than among and towards Italians.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651 645
The issue of cultural concordance was also featured in the study of attitudes toward
acculturation and intergroup relations by Pfafferott and Brown. Majority group members
and adolescent immigrants in Germany were asked about their own attitudes towards
acculturation and intergroup relations, what they thought their parents would think, and
what the other group (the immigrants and the majority group, respectively) would think.
Integration was preferred by both groups. Discrepancies between own and perceived
preferences of the outgroup were negatively related to life satisfaction for minority
members and to perceived quality of intergroup relations for both groups. For the
immigrants, discrepancies between own preferences and perceived preference of their
parents were also predictive of less satisfaction with life and poorer intergroup relations.
Four papers deal with the classic topics of ethnocentrism, stereotypes and prejudice.
Berry shows a hierarchy in the attitudes (``comfort levels'') of 12 different groups of
Canadians towards 14 ethno-cultural groups in Canada. He also highlights the importance
of multiple perspectives on multiple groups in evolving multicultural societies. A similar
theme emerged in Griffiths and Nesdale's research on attitudes of children (AngloAustralian
and Pacific Islanders) towards ingroup and outgroup. Results showed that
majority children rated both outgroups (Pacific Islanders and Aboriginals) less favorably
than the ingroup, whereas the Pacific Islanders rated their own group as favorably as the
majority children, but were less favorable towards the Aboriginals. Lee and Fiske's study
also reflected a hierarchy in the attitudes towards different groups of immigrants in the
United States. Based on their Stereotype Content Model, the research demonstrated how
stereotypes can be further differentiated by two dimensions relating to perceived status and
competition within society, i.e., warmth and competence. Kosic and Phalet reported an
`over-inclusion effecť with respect to the two most numerous groups of immigrants
(Albanians and Moroccans) in Italy. Their study demonstrated that the tendency to
categorize immigrants as belonging to the dominant immigrant groups was most
pronounced among respondents who expressed higher levels of prejudice and perceived
the immigrants as maintaining their culture of origin.
In several papers individual differences, in particular Social Dominance Orientation, are
included in the analyses of acculturation and intergroup relations. Van Oudenhoven and
Hofstra introduce a new individual difference variable to the field-attachment styles--and
examine its relationship to acculturation preferences. The concept is pertinent to research
on host­immigrant relations because attachment styles underpin contact and predict the
tendency to approach other people in novel situations. Interestingly, in their study in the
Netherlands a secure attachment style was related to a preference for integration in both
immigrants and hosts.
The last paper illustrates a cross-cultural approach to acculturation and intergroup
relations. Leong and Ward examine the influence of cultural values (of 14 European
nations) on attitudes towards immigrants and multiculturalism. The results showed that
Mastery, Masculinity, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Collectivism were
negatively related to support for policies that promote harmonious co-existence.
Masculinity and Mastery were also linked to more pessimism towards multiculturalism.
Interestingly, cultural values, and Hofstede's value dimensions in particular, were better
predictors of attitudes towards immigrants than socio-economic factors.
Altogether, the ten papers offer novel integrative and comparative perspectives on the
relationships between immigrants and hosts. Integration comes in the form of merging
theories and frameworks from acculturation research and social psychology and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651646
incorporating the perspectives of both hosts and immigrants. The comparative dimension
is reflected in the inclusion of different groups of immigrants, cultures, nations, and age
ranges. Despite these advances, there are at least two important issues that merit further
attention in future research: (1) the refinement of core constructs, culture and identity, in
particular; and (2) influence of globalization on host­immigrant relationships. These are
elaborated in the final section.
6. Future directions for research
The imprecise and sometimes interchangeable use of `culture' and `identity' in the
acculturation literature is problematic and should be remedied in future theory building
and research. Culture is a complex construct and may be seen as encompassing artefacts,
social institutions, language, customs, traditions and shared meanings. Cultural identity,
however, refers to a sense of pride and belongingness to one's cultural group. Immigrants
may easily adopt the language, the dress code and the working habits of the new country
and even love the new food--all the external trappings of `culture'--but they may still
identify strongly with their nation of origin. This means that immigrants may give up parts
of their cultural heritage without giving up their cultural identity. Therefore, future
research should investigate which aspects of culture are essential for immigrants to retain
their cultural identity, which may differ from group to group, and which may vary across
contexts. In the global arena, religion is likely to be one area that deserves particular
attention.
The refinement of the definitions of culture and identity also has implications for social
inclusion. Social inclusion is a normative concept in the sense that it is found to be
desirable to promote conditions that favor the inclusion of individuals and groups into
society (see, for instance, Abrams, Hogg, & Marques, 2005). The concept is, however, not
normative as to whether individuals and groups should maintain their culture or their
identity. As such, social inclusion offers a valuable perspective on intergroup relations in
culturally diverse societies.
Beyond issues pertaining to culture, identity and inclusion, attention should be paid to
the influences of globalization on acculturation and intergroup relations. There are
currently two related factors that are evoking changes in the life and options of immigrants
and their receiving societies: the ever growing number of immigrants on a worldwide basis
and the unprecedented opportunities for transnational contact. The consequences of these
two factors have barely been investigated and should be incorporated into future research.
Transnationalism broadly refers to multiple ties and interactions linking people or
institutions across the borders of nation-states (Vertovec, 1999). Although transnationalism
may reflect international linkages across multiple countries, in many instances the
term is used to refer to the process by which immigrants forge and sustain multistranded
social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement (Basch, Glick
Schiller, & Szanton Blanc, 1994. An essential element of transnationalism is the great
number and variety of involvements that immigrants sustain in both home and host
societies. Examples are: money remittances, commercial ties between the country of origin
and the new country, intensive links with relatives and friends in the country of origin,
branches of religious organizations that are set up in the new country, second homes in the
country of origin, and mutual visits. Transnationalism is facilitated by geographical
proximity and good telecommunication services; some also argue that is more likely to
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651 647
arise in conditions where immigrants form a considerable proportion of the nation, e.g.,
North Africans in Western Europe and Hispanics in the United States.
The emergence of these patterns suggests that we can add a new dimension--`wish to be
engaged in transnational contacť--to the dimensions `wish to maintain contact with the
host society' and `wish to maintain culture and identity' in Berry's model of acculturation.
This extends the within-society mechanisms referred to in the model to the international
domain, reflecting current worldwide trends in globalization. The desire for transnational
contact may combine with the four core acculturation strategies in different ways. For
example, integrated migrants, who value both cultural maintenance and contact with the
host society, may extend their means of cultural maintenance through association with
their country of origin. On the other hand, immigrants who combine separation with
transnational links may retreat from society and stay within `ethnic enclaves' where they
can keep living as they were accustomed in their country of origin. Such ethnic enclaves
(e.g., Klein-Ankara in Berlin and Chinatowns in San Francisco and London) have multiple
connections with the country of origin, such as trading companies, travel agencies,
exchange of artists or students, and sustained, frequent mutual visits. Indeed, withdrawal
into ethnic enclaves may become an attractive option for immigrants, when they
experience discrimination or if the host society puts too much pressure on them to
assimilate.
Transnationalism has provided immigrants with a wider range of alternatives for life in
their new country. It also affords greater opportunities for immigrants to distance
themselves from the host society when their identity is being threatened. Paradoxically, the
availability of several options to deal with the new society may make immigrants also feel
more at ease and more `at home' in the new society.
The second factor that should influence developments in future research is changing
demographics. Immigrants are evolving into members of established communities and now
form a large proportion of many national populations. As a consequence, host societies are
becoming increasingly culturally heterogeneous. These multicultural environments are
likely to lead to new acculturation strategies and outcomes. Two of these are creolization
and pluralism.
When a variety of cultural groups co-exist and there is no clearly dominant group, a
process of creolization may take place. The concept of creolization refers to the mixing of
two or more formerly discrete traditions or cultures. creolization occurs in many parts of
the world, but there are large differences in the degree of mixing (Hannerz, 1992).
Examples of creolization include: spontaneous forms of youth language (ethno-language)
or music (for instance hip hop) in which elements from different ethnic groups are adopted,
or food preferences (for instance cajun food) that have become fashionable among a larger
public. Such hybrid cultural phenomena are specially to be found among transnational
youth whose primary socialization has taken place with the cross-currents of differing
cultural fields (Vertovec, 1999). In the end, the implications of creolization are that
immigrants shape the transformation of the host culture by adding elements from their
own culture and, that in doing so, find it easier and more appealing to identify with the
evolving national culture.
Another plausible outcome in a multicultural society is pluralism. This approach
encourages both cultural maintenance and intergroup contact; however, the cultural
mixing, which is seen in creolization, does not occur. Pluralism arises from the
relationships amongst a number of different groups that together form a new nation
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651648
(or community). Although there may be status differences among the groups, each
represents an important component of societies where no clear majority group is apparent.
Pluralism is distinct from the common understanding of integration, which tends to refer
to a dyadic relation between a subgroup of immigrants and the host society largely defined
by its culturally dominant group. Furthermore, we may assume that marginalisation and
separation (including withdrawal into ethno-cultural enclaves) may occur in plural
societies, but will do so relatively infrequently because these societies embrace cultural
diversity.
Finally, the issue of national identity in multicultural societies is important and should
receive greater attention in future research. Nations that support maintenance of cultural
heritage while at the same time promoting a superordinate national identity show high
levels of ethnic tolerance. Canada is a good example of this.
Most residents identify as Canadians, as opposed to by ethnic group, and support for
multiculturalism and outgroup tolerance are moderately high (Berry, 2000). Indeed, the
tendency for migrants to identify by national label is higher in Canada than in the United
States or Australia (Van Oudenhoven, 2006). Similar trends have been observed in
Singapore's multicultural society. There, research has shown that ethnic and national
identity are strong and positively correlated in the four major ethnic groups, that
Singaporeans typically refer to themselves in terms of a hyphenated identity (e.g.,
Singaporean­Chinese) and that stronger national identity is associated with more positive
outgroup attitudes (DeRoza & Ward, 2005). These developments are in line with the
Common Ingroup Identity model of Gaertner and colleagues who argue that intergroup
conflict can be diminished by interventions that shift cognitive representations of
membership in ingroups and outgroups to an inclusive social identity within a single
group (Gaertner, Dovidio, & Bachman, 1996). It is the acceptance of multiculturalism and
the evolution of a multifaceted, inclusive national identity that holds the promise for our
future in an era of increasing globalization.
References
Abrams, D., Hogg, M. A., & Marques, J. M. (2005). The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion. New York:
Psychology Press.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arends-Toth, J. V., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and
Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 249­266.
Barry, D. T., & Grilo, C. M. (2003). Cultural, self-esteem and demographic correlates of perception of personal
and group discrimination among East Asian immigrants. American Journal of Ortho-psychiatry, 73, 223­229.
Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1994). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial
predicaments and deterritorialized nation-states. Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models
and some new findings (pp. 9­25). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46,
5­34.
Berry, J. W. (2000). Sociopsychological costs and benefits of multiculturalism. In: J. Dacyl & C. Westin (Eds.),
Governance of cultural diversity (pp. 297­354). Stockholm: UNESCO.
Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615­631.
Berry, J. W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of
Supply and Services.
Berry, J. W., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 national
survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 301­320.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651 649
Berry, J. W., Westin, C., Virta, E., Vedder, P., Rooney, R., & Sang, D. (2006). Design of the study: Selecting
societies of settlements and immigrant groups. In J. W. Berry, J. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.),
Immigrant youth in cultural transition (pp. 15­45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Billiet, J., Maddens, B., & Beerten, R. (2003). National identity and attitude toward foreigners in a multinational
state: A replication. Political Psychology, 24, 241­257.
Bourhis, R. Y., Moi¨se, L. C., Perreault, S., & Sené cal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model:
A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369­386.
Brewer, M. B. (2000). Reducing prejudice through cross-categorization: Effects of multiple social identities. In
S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 165­183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brubaker, R. (2001). The return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels in France,
Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24, 531­548.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
DeRoza, C., & Ward, C. (2005). National identity, ethnic identity and intergroup perceptions in Singapore.
Submitted for publication.
Dossier Statistico Immigrazione 2005. (2005). Statistic Dossier on immigration 2005. Roma: Idos.
Dunn, K. (2003). Attitudes toward immigration and immigrants in Australia. Paper presented at New Directions,
New Settlers, New Challenges-Building and Enhancing Communities End-users Seminar. Wellington, New
Zealand.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). Public attitudes toward immigration in
the United States and Canada in response to the September 11, 2001 ``Attack on America''. In V. M. Esses, J.
F. Dovidio, K. L. Dion (Eds.), Immigrants and immigration, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 (pp. 389­412).
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. New York:
Psychology Press.
Gaertner, S., Dovidio, J., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a
common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271­290.
Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the cultural organization of meaning. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Hiebert, D. (2003). Are immigrants welcome? Introducing the Vancouver Community Studies Survey. Vancouver
Centre of Excellence: Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis, Working Paper, No. 03-06.
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. 241­250). 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, 79­90.
Kosic, A., & Phalet, K. Ethnic categorization of immigrants: the role of prejudice, perceived numerosity and their
acculturation strategies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, this issue.
Kosmitzki, C. (1996). The reaffirmation of cultural identity in cross-cultural encounters. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 57­74.
Levine, R. A., & Campbell, D. W. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior.
New York: Wiley.
Masgoret, A. M. (2004). Examining the bases of intergroup competition and its role in determining immigration
attitudes in New Zealand. Paper presented at the XXVI International Conference of Psychology, Beijing,
China.
Mendoza, R. H. (1984). Acculturation and sociocultural variability. In J. L. Martinez, & R. H. Mendoza (Eds.),
Chicano psychology (pp. 61­75). Orlanda, FL: Academic Press.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 173­185.
Pew Research Centre. (2006). America's immigration quandry. /http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID
 1045. Retrieved September 9, 2006S.
Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrezá lek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of
dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1­26.
Ramirez, M. (1984). Assessing and understanding biculturalism-monoculturalism in Mexican­American adults.
In J. L. Martinez, & R. H. Mendoza (Eds.), Chicano psychology (pp. 77­94). Orlanda, FL: Academic Press.
Ryder, A., Alden, L., & Paulhus, D. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49­65.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651650
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.),
Claremont symposium on applied psychology (pp. 23­46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, P., Martínez, C. M., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice toward
immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 29,
559­576.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differences between social groups: Studies in the psychology of intergroup relations.
London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel
(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 23­48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Coole.
Thalhammer, E., Zucha, V., Enzenhofer, E., Salfinger, B., & Ogris, G. (2001). Attitudes toward minority groups in
the European Union: A special analysis of the Eurobarometer 2000 survey. Vienna: European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
United Nations. (2005). Trends in total migrant stock: The 2005 revision. Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2006). Immigrants. In D. L. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook on
acculturation psychology (pp. 163­180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Groenewoud, J. T., & Hewstone, M. (1996). Co-operation, ethnic salience and
generalization of inter-ethnic attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 649­661.
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, 995­1013.
Vertovec, S. (1999). Conceiving and researching transnationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22, 447­462.
Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational
role of anxiety and the moderational role of salience. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 37­54.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. London: Routledge.
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 End-users Seminar on Migration. Wellington, New Zealand.
Ward, C., Masgoret, A. M., & Leong, C.-H. (2006). Immigration, acculturation and intergroup relations in New
Zealand. Paper presented at the 18th International Congress of the International Association for Crosscultural
Psychology, Spetses, Greece.
Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies and relative fit and intergroup
relations: Immigrants-majority relations in Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 171­188.
Zick, A., Wagner, U., Van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001). Acculturation and prejudice in Germany: Majority and
minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 541­557.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Van Oudenhoven et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 637­651 651