Majority group perceptions of minority acculturation preferences: The role of perceived threat

Recently, there has been growing focus on the intergroup influences of acculturation preferences, and in particular majority members’ perceptions of how minority members want to acculturate. This paper contributes to this emergent literature by examining the extent to which majority members in the UK perceive that minority members’ preferences for heritage culture maintenance and majority culture adoption are conflicting, and whether this is moderated by perceived threat. One hundred and sixty-three participants who self-reported being white British completed an online survey. Participants were asked about their perceptions of minority acculturation preferences for two target groups living in the UK: Pakistani and German minority groups. Overall, perceived culture maintenance and perceived culture adoption were weakly negatively associated for both groups. Moreover, results confirmed the pre-registered hypotheses, but only for the Pakistani target group. At higher levels of perceived threat, perceived culture maintenance was related to less perceived culture adoption. However, when threat was low, there was no association between perceived heritage culture maintenance and perceived culture adoption. For the German target group, threat did not moderate the relationship between perceived culture maintenance and perceived culture adoption. Findings suggest that depending on levels of perceived threat and the minority group in question, majority members perceiving that minority members maintain their heritage culture has different consequences. Results are discussed in relation to implications for integration, intergroup relations in culturally plural societies, and the need to focus on specific minority groups when studying acculturation processes.     

Difficult dialogs: Majority group members’ willingness to talk about inequality with different minority groups

The present study explored attitudes of a majority group, Turks, toward dialog with two minority groups, Kurds and Armenians, in Turkey. We examined whether Turks would be equally likely to avoid discussing inequality (power talk) in imaginary dialogs with Kurds and Armenians, two groups that while equally devalued differ in their likelihood of being considered ingroup members. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that because Turks share a common religious identity with Kurds but not with Armenians, they would be more willing to engage in power talk with Kurds than with Armenians. In addition, we explored the role of intergroup contact, majority group identification (Turkish and Muslim), social dominance orientation (SDO), and the legitimizing ideologies of belief in cultural diversity and perceptions of ethnic discrimination as predictors of willingness for power talk with each group. Ethnic Turks were more willing to talk about commonalities with both minority groups, and less willing to talk about power inequalities with either group, even less so with Armenians than with Kurds. As expected, this difference was moderated by religious identification, such that Turks with stronger Muslim identification were more willing to have power talk with Kurds but not with Armenians. These findings point to the importance of common ingroup identity in majority members’ responses to different minority groups.     

Positive and negative intergroup contact and willingness to engage in intergroup interactions among majority (Han) and minority (Uyghur) group members in China: The moderating role of social dominance orientation

The present study investigated whether the associations of positive and negative intergroup contact with behavioral intentions (intentions to have contact with the outgroup in the future) are moderated by social dominance orientation (SDO), by considering the perspective of both majority and minority group members in China. Participants were 325 Han (majority) and 373 Uyghur (minority) members, who completed a self-report questionnaire. Results indicated that positive contact was associated with more positive behavioral intentions among high-SDO majority group members, whereas SDO did not moderate the association between positive contact and behavioral intentions among minority group members. In addition, negative contact was associated with lower behavioral intentions among high-SDO majority group members, and among low-SDO minority group members. This study suggests that attention should be placed simultaneously on positive and negative contact and on individual difference variables relevant to social ideologies, such as SDO.     

Conceptions of national identity and opposition to bicultural policies in New Zealand: A comparison of majority and minority perspectives

Using a nationally representative sample, the present research tested whether conceptions of national identity differentially predicted attitudes toward bicultural policies among New Zealanders of European, Māori, Asian, and Pacific descent. A series of multi-group structural equation models revealed that among members of the majority group and all minority groups, endorsement of a civic conception of national identity (i.e., respecting political institutions and laws) was related to opposition to resource policies, but such a relationship was especially strong among the majority group. By contrast, endorsement of an ethnic conception of national identity (i.e., having Māori or European ancestry) was related to support for resource and symbolic policies among minority group members, but to opposition to the same policies among the majority group. The present work documents that belonging to a majority vs. minority group moderates the relations between conceptions of national identity (civic vs. ethnic) and support or opposition to specific bicultural policies. In addition, some elements of civic conceptions of national identity may legitimize inequalities rather than reduce them.     

The trouble with assimilation: Social dominance and the emergence of hostility against immigrants

In exploring the “status boundary enforcement hypothesis,” Thomsen, Green and Sidanius (2008) theorized and confirmed that Social Dominance Orientation would be more strongly correlated with a general willingness to aggress against immigrants when respondents are primed with an immigrant who is eager to assimilate into the dominant culture than when they are primed with an immigrant who prefers cultural isolation (separation). However, because assimilation differs from separation on both the home culture component and the host culture component, the actual source of this effect remains unclear. By using an assimilation versus integration contrast that differ only on the home culture component, the present study confirmed and extended Thomsen et al.’s findings. We were able to conclude that this counter intuitive effect, at odds with most research in this area, is primarily driven by people with high SDO having more negative reactions to immigrants’ willing to abandon their original cultures rather than to immigrants wanting to maintain contact with the host culture. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.