Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: A social identity perspective

This article was downloaded by: [Stanford University Libraries]On: 09 October 2012, At: 16:53Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Review of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pers20

Multicultural recognition andethnic minority rights: A socialidentity perspectiveMaykel Verkuyten aa Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Version of record first published: 29 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Maykel Verkuyten (2006): Multicultural recognition and ethnicminority rights: A social identity perspective, European Review of Social Psychology,17:1, 148-184

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463280600937418

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pers20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463280600937418

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights:

A social identity perspective

Maykel VerkuytenUtrecht University, The Netherlands

Questions of multiculturalism give rise to lively and important debates in manycountries and in many spheres of life. Diversity is considered desirable andnecessary for the development of secure ethnic identities and positive self-feelings, but is also challenged for being inequitable and a threat to socialcohesion. It is argued that the social identity perspective offers a usefulframework for examining some of the key social psychological correlates andconsequences of multicultural recognition. This perspective draws attention tostatus positions, ingroup identification, beliefs about the nature of ethnic groups,and perceptions of the social system. The first empirical section deals with theendorsement of multiculturalism in relation to majority –minority group statusand the perceived nature of minority groups. Subsequently, the endorsement ofmulticulturalism is examined in relation to perceived structural discrimination,and the importance of social cohesion and stability. In the third empirical partthe focus is on consequences of multicultural recognition for ingroupidentification and self-esteem. As a set, the various empirical and theoreticalarguments suggest that there is not one best approach to managing culturaldiversity. Rather, it is important to concentrate on when and why specific effectsoccur, which means that more systematic attention should be paid to forms ofmulticulturalism, different groups, and to various conditions and circumstances.

Many societies around the world are, or are rapidly becoming, ethnicallyand culturally diverse. This state of affairs has led to ideological, normative,and political developments such as multiculturalism, ‘‘politics of recogni-tion’’ and ‘‘politics of identity and difference’’ (e.g., Gutman, 1992;Sampson, 1993; Young, 1990). The description of multicultural realitieshas led to various prescriptions for dealing with diversity. The widespreaduse of the terms ‘‘multicultural’’ and ‘‘multiculturalism’’ can be seen as

Correspondence should be addressed to Maykel Verkuyten, Faculty of Social Sciences,

Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Email: [email protected]

EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

2006, 17, 148 – 184

� 2006 European Association of Experimental Social Psychology

http://www.psypress.com/ersp DOI: 10.1080/10463280600937418

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

marking a significant change in the discourses in which societies, schools,organisations, and so on, describe and understand themselves. However,given the wide range of actors, contexts, interpretations, and usages of theseterms it is apparent that there is no single view or strategy implied.Multiculturalism is considered, for example, as an ideology, a lay theory, aset of normative beliefs, a framework for policies, and a guideline foreducation and educational activities.

While the diversity of multicultural ideas, initiatives, and practices issubstantial, the notion of multicultural recognition signals some commonarguments underlying these differences. In general, multicultural approachesin the areas of societal change involve fostering knowledge and anunderstanding of cultural differences, and an appreciation of diversity byacknowledging and respecting minority group identities, cultures, and rights(Fowers & Richardson, 1996). Hence, multiculturalism offers a positive viewof cultural and identity maintenance for ethnic minority groups and, assuch, a concomitant need to accommodate diversity in an equitable way.

Multiculturalism has also been criticised on several grounds by politicalphilosophers and social scientists (e.g., Barry, 2001; Joppke, 2004), andconcerns have been expressed by social psychologists. It has been suggested,for example, that multiculturalism can lead to reified and essentialist groupdistinctions that promote group stereotyping and negative out-group feelings,and ultimately rationalise and justify segregation and separation (e.g., Brewer,1997; Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom, 2003). In addition, multiculturalism canendanger social unity and cohesion, and can contradict the liberal ideals ofindividualism and meritocracy (e.g., Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006).

Thus, multiculturalism is offered by some scholars as the solution tomanaging cultural diversity (e.g., Parekh, 2000), while for others it is in itselfan exacerbating cause of conflict (e.g., Bissoondath, 1994; Schlesinger,1992). Hence, in contrast to multicultural notions that promote the value ofdiversity as a core principle, some have argued in favour of colour-blindnessin which emphasis is placed on disregarding ethnic and racial categories andon treating each person as a unique individual or in terms of his or her civicidentity (e.g., Barry, 2001). Also in contrast to multiculturalism, others haveclaimed that it is necessary to rethink and rehabilitate assimilation theorywhereby ethnic minority group members are expected, at least in public life,to abandon their cultural identity and adopt the dominant group’s way oflife (e.g., Alba & Nee, 1997; Brubaker, 2004).

This chapter uses a social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1979;Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) to multiculturalism andprovides supportive evidence from studies primarily conducted in theNetherlands. Multicultural understanding and recognition is examinedamong both ethnic minority and majority group members. Questions ofdiversity involve majority and minority groups alike. Multiculturalism is not

MULTICULTURAL RECOGNITION 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

only about the majority group accepting and recognising minority groupidentities, but also implies acceptance and recognition on the part ofminorities. The views of both groups are needed because of their mutualrelevance (Shelton, 2000). Therefore, in most studies in our researchprogramme we have included ethnically Dutch and ethnic minorityparticipants, particularly Turkish Dutch people.

The most overt European experiment in multiculturalism was developedin the Netherlands. In this country a policy of multiculturalism was adoptedin the 1980s in response to the increased influx of ‘‘foreigners’’. Therecognition that many labour migrants would remain in the country led to apolicy for integration with identity maintenance (Entzinger, 2003). Dutchpolicies saw immigrants according to their group membership and notprimarily as individuals. The political tradition of institutionalised pluralism(‘‘pillarisation’’) provided a wide range of cultural opportunities and grouprights, such as local voting rights for non-nationals and public funding ofIslamic schools. However, much has changed since the 1980s. The previous‘‘ethnic minorities policy’’ has gradually been replaced by a policy of civicintegration (Entzinger, 2003) and in public debates multiculturalism hasbeen described as a ‘‘drama’’ and a ‘‘failure’’, and assimilation has beenproposed as the only viable option (e.g., Schnabel, 2000).

The retreat of multiculturalism is not restricted to the Netherlands but isnoted in other liberal states and also on the level of political theory (e.g.,Joppke, 2004). In various countries, including Australia and Canada, theneed for a practical retreat is increasingly being discussed and favoured. Inaddition, a liberal critique of multiculturalism has emerged and politicaltheorists have questioned the basic premises and assumptions of multi-culturalism (e.g., Barry, 2001). Many of these premises and assumptions areof a social psychological nature, offering social psychologists the opportu-nity to make a contribution to discussions about the merits and pitfalls ofmulticultural ideas and practices. In this contribution, I will examine theextent to which ethnic minority and majority group members endorse amulticultural society and minority rights, and how far this endorsement isrelated to the perceived nature of ethnic groups and the perceived nature ofthe intergroup context. Subsequently, I will discuss the consequences ofmulticultural recognition on ethnic identification and self-feelings.

SOCIAL IDENTITY PERSPECTIVE

For decades, social psychologists have been investigating group identity andintergroup relations, primarily as cognitive and affective processes.Increasingly, more attention is given to processes of legitimisation in socialrelations such as the role of ideologies (see Jost & Major, 2001) and laytheories (Levy, Chin, & Hong, 2006). The idea that people use ideological

150 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

beliefs and lay theories to question or support group identities and grouprelations is examined from different theoretical perspectives, such as systemjustification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994) and social dominance theory(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

Both these theories draw on social identity principles that were firstdeveloped in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). From the startthis theory emphasised the issue of beliefs and ideologies in relation to ethnicminority groups (Tajfel, 1978, 1981). Anticipating current debates on thesocial psychology of minorities and their ‘‘world-wide push towardsdifferentiation’’ (p. 316), Tajfel (1981, p. 317, his italics) argued that

the new claims of the minorities are based on their right to decide to be different(preserve their separateness) as defined in their own terms and not in termsimplicitly adopted or explicitly dictated by the majorities . . . the wish to preservetheir right to take their own decisions and keep their own ‘‘identity’’.

A core idea of the social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979;Turner et al., 1987) is that a social group can become part of the self, makinggroup membership have cognitive, affective, and motivational significance.The social identity as group members involves group-based understandings,emotions, and actions. It is argued that individuals tend to achieve a positiveand distinctive self-understanding. Because group members derive theirsocial identity from membership in social groups, it can be assumed thatpeople prefer their in-group to be socially recognised, accepted, and valued.This confers a meaningful and positive social identity on them that they willtry to maintain and protect. In contrast, a lack of distinctiveness and adevalued social identity represent identity threats that are likely to lead tothe deployment of a wide range of identity-management strategies (e.g.,Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Van Knippenberg, 1989).

The social identity perspective stresses that these psychological dynamicsplay themselves out as a function of in-group identification and contextualfeatures, such as the perceived legitimacy and stability of intergrouppositions and the social norms that prescribe reactions and evaluations(Reicher, 2004; Rubin & Hewstone, 2004; Turner, 1999). From the startthe role of ideological and normative issues, particularly in relation tosubordinate or ethnic minority groups, was emphasised (Tajfel, 1978, 1981).The social identity perspective provides an interactive framework forunderstanding intergroup relations among ethnic groups. It argues for theinteraction between people’s collective psychology as group members andtheir beliefs about the nature of social groups, and the collective theoriesand ideologies about the social system (Turner, 1999; Turner & Reynolds,2001). Hence, an account of intergroup relations needs to consider howgroups understand themselves and to examine ‘‘what are the collectivetheories and ideologies which they have developed to make sense of,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

explain, justify, and rationalise their intergroup relations’’ (Turner &Reynolds, 2001, p. 147). The social identity perspective is appropriatebecause multiculturalism is about group identities and status positions,beliefs about the social system, and requires a conceptualisation of thenature of groups.

MULTICULTURALISM AND STATUS POSITIONS

We started our research by examining what people think about multi-culturalism. An understanding of the everyday meanings of and attitudestowards multiculturalism is important, not only for political reasons butalso because, ultimately, multicultural societies consist of people who facethe actual task of living with cultural diversity.

Multiculturalism is a difficult and controversial issue that leads to a lot ofconfusion, ambivalence, and debate. Ginges and Cairns (2000) found thatAustralian citizens saw the multicultural policy as beneficial for the countryand as increasing social equality, but people also mentioned disadvantagessuch as a threat to the status quo, and to the unity and stability of thecountry. Among Dutch majority members, Breugelmans and Van de Vijver(2004) found a positive social norm involving support for multiculturalismand a negative social norm referring to multiculturalism as a threat. Bothsocial norms were predictors of multicultural attitudes. In our research wefirst examined the meanings of multiculturalism among the dominantmajority group, and subsequently we examined the endorsement of multi-cultural recognition and minority rights among both majority and ethnicminority members.

Meanings of multiculturalism

The question of multiculturalism is not simply about the level of publicsupport but also about the notions or meanings that exist in society and thatfuel the nature of the public debate. In one study we tried to identify thesocial thought or the main arguments used for justifying or criticising theidea of multiculturalism (Verkuyten, 2004, Study 1). A total of 64 ethnicallyDutch participants (between 18 and 26 years) were asked to participate in astudy on the opinions of people in Dutch society about issues of multi-culturalism. Half of the participants were asked to give, in writing, threereasons why people in general may find a multicultural Dutch societyimportant and approvable. The other half of the participants were asked togive three reasons why people may oppose a multicultural society, favouringassimilation by ethnic minorities. Participants were not asked their personalopinion but rather about social thought or common and accepted socialarguments.

152 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

The responses were analysed by a two-step content analysis. The first stepwas a very conservative grouping that kept to the original responses. Thisproduced 19 categories or types of responses to the two open-endedquestions. Since some of these categories had very low frequency ofoccurrence, a second step of more evaluated content analysis was under-taken. Categories with low frequencies of responses were collapsed intoother categories possessing similar meanings. The result was 11 categoriesthat were used in the analysis.

Three main findings emerged. First, the results for the arguments infavour of a multicultural society indicated that the highest frequency was forthe aspect of learning and cultural enrichment. Most of these participants(72%) argued that a multicultural society is a good thing because it enrichessociety, and allows one to learn about other ways of life and to improve anddevelop oneself (‘‘it is important for your general development’’). Multi-culturalism was thought to ‘‘open up your eyes’’, help one to develop an‘‘open attitude towards what you do not know’’, and to lead to a growingawareness of and sensitivity to the existence of different points of view and,consequently, of the relativity of one’s own worldview (‘‘knowing that one’sown culture is neither the only one nor the best one’’). Another argumentfrequently used (47%) was that multiculturalism prevents discriminationand racism and stimulates people to be more tolerant and respectful towardsothers. A further argument (44%) was that multiculturalism is positivebecause it stresses equality (‘‘people should have equal opportunities’’) andthe right of every person and group to ‘‘be oneself ’’ and to ‘‘live one’s ownlife’’ (‘‘everybody has a right to his own culture’’).

The second main result relates to the main arguments that people ingeneral may use against a multicultural society and in favour ofassimilation. Issues of (in)security, (lack of) safety, threat, and anxiety werementioned most often (62%). It was indicated that a multicultural societymay pose a threat to people and that assimilation of minorities brings asense of security, confidence, and control. The second most frequently usedargument (47%) concerned the stability of society. Multiculturalism wasthought to be problematic because it was considered to lead to socialtensions and conflicts, and in general to a lack of social order. The lack of ashared and clear set of values and norms would imply that you do not knowwhat is expected of you and what can be expected from others. A thirdargument (32%) was that multiculturalism would put the nation’s unity andstrength at risk. The fact of living in one and the same nation was seen toimply the necessity of assimilation by minorities rather than multi-culturalism.

Third, multidimensional scaling was used to analyse more closely theunderlying differences and similarities between categories. Two dimensionsaccounted for most of the variance. The first dimension concerned the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

distinction between arguments in favour of and against multiculturalism.The second dimension referred to a focus on society as a whole versus thaton the position of the majority ingroup. The former arguments emphasisedthe importance of a stable, cohesive, and unified society in which mutualunderstanding exist. The latter focused more on the threats faced by themajority group and its security, and also on the need for greater toleranceamong this group.

The endorsement of multiculturalism and minority rights

European multiculturalism has always been targeted at immigrants andminorities rather than the majority group (Joppke, 2004). Likewise, in theNetherlands, multiculturalism is typically seen as identity threatening forthe majority group and identity supporting for minority groups (VanOudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998). For minority groups, multiculturalismoffers the possibility of maintaining their own culture and obtaining highersocial status in society. Majority group members, on the other hand, may seeethnic minorities and their desire to maintain their own culture as a threat tocultural dominance, group identity, and status position. Following the socialidentity perspective, and other theories that emphasise the role of groupstatus and interests in the dynamics of intergroup relations (e.g., Blumer,1958; Bobo, 1999; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), it can be expected that groupsare more in favour of multiculturalism when they see gains for themselves.Hence, it is likely that multiculturalism appeals more to ethnic minoritygroups than to majority group members, who in turn endorse assimilationmore strongly.

The limited number of empirical studies on multicultural attitudesindicate that the general support for multiculturalism is not very greatamong majority groups in many Western countries. Apart from Canadawhere majority members have been found to favour multiculturalism (e.g.,Berry & Kalin, 1995), studies in other countries have found moderatesupport, such as in Australia (e.g., Ho, 1990) and the United States (e.g.,Citrin, Sears, Muste, & Wong, 2001), or low support, such as in Germany,Switzerland, and Slovakia (e.g., Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, &Obdrzalek, 2000; Zick, Wagner, van Dick, & Petzel, 2001). Studies in theNetherlands have shown that Dutch majority group members display amore neutral attitude towards multiculturalism and tend to favourassimilation (e.g., Arends-Toth & Van de Vijver, 2000; Breugelmans &Van de Vijver, 2004; Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998).

In our own studies we examined the endorsement of multiculturalrecognition and minority rights among majority and ethnic minority groupmembers. We used the Dutch version of Berry and Kalin’s (1995)Multicultural Ideology Scale. This version was developed by Arends-Toth

154 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

and Van de Vijver (2000) in their representative study of the Dutchpopulation. Studies examining the factorial structure of multiculturalism inmajority members have consistently found multiculturalism to be aunifactorial construct (see Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004) withsupport for minority group cultural maintenance (e.g., ‘‘Migrants should besupported in their attempts to preserve their own cultural heritage in theNetherlands’’) at one end and assimilation (‘‘Ethnic minorities should try to‘Dutchify’ as much as possible’’) at the other. In addition, studies foundsupport for the factorial similarity of the scale across majority and ethnicminority groups (Arends-Toth & Van de Vijver, 2003; Verkuyten & Brug,2004).

In eight different studies (see Verkuyten, 2005a; Verkuyten & Brug, 2004;Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002) amongadolescents and young adults we consistently found significant strongersupport for multiculturalism among ethnic minorities (predominantlyTurkish Dutch participants) than among the Dutch majority group. Thescores for the former group tended to be above the neutral mid-point of thescale whereas those of the latter were in the direction of favouringassimilation.

The results of these studies support intergroup theories, such as socialidentity theory and social dominance theory, that emphasise the importanceof status differences. It is not easy, however, to draw general conclusionsabout the influence of the status position of groups on attitudes towardsmulticulturalism or minority rights on the basis of research comparing amajority and a minority group. Apart from status, there are always manyother group characteristics (e.g., numerical size, culture and history) thatmay explain the differences found. For example, the stronger endorsementof multiculturalism among Turkish Dutch people might (in part) be due totheir more collectivist or group-oriented worldview, whereas assimilation,with its emphasis on civic identity, is more consistent with the individualistorientation of the Dutch. To examine these alternative interpretations, awhole array of groups and nations should be studied (Evans & Need, 2002;Scheepers, Gijsberts, & Coenders, 2002). Alternatively, an experimentalapproach can be taken, and in social psychology many experiments haveexamined the importance of group status and group size for intergrouprelations (see Ellemers & Barreto, 2001; Simon, Aufderheide, & Kampmeier,2001, for reviews). However, these studies are mainly concerned withminimal or very remote groups, and not with socially and culturallymeaningful ethnic and national groups. This is understandable becauseusing such real-world groups in an experimental design poses the problem ofhow to manipulate the majority –minority distinction. A possible solution isto use context framing (Levin, 2004) to make two different nationalsituations salient in which one group is an ethnic minority in one situation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

and a national majority in the other. However, such framing implies thatthe majority –minority manipulation is confounded with national context.Therefore, the perceptions of these group members should be comparedwith those of another group that, for example, is in a minority position inboth national contexts. In one study we used such a design because itallowed us to examine, in a more controlled way, the role of majority andminority positions in the endorsement of multiculturalism among realgroups in different national contexts.

In this study, conducted in the Netherlands, we focused on theendorsement of minority rights among two groups, Turks and Kurds, andin two national conditions, the Netherlands and Turkey (Verkuyten &Yildiz, 2006). Using an experimental, between-subjects design these twoconditions were randomly presented to 103 Turkish and 101 Kurdishparticipants (aged between 15 – 74 years) who emigrated from Turkey andlive in the Netherlands. These immigrant groups typically have a strongtransnational orientation in which they maintain continuing material, social,political, and sentimental links with Turkey (Verkuyten, 2005b). In theDutch national context both groups are ethnic minorities, whereas inTurkey the Turks are the majority group and the Kurds the most oppressedand numerically largest minority group.

Two versions of a questionnaire were divided randomly among theparticipants. One version was tailored to the Dutch situation and the otherto the situation in Turkey. The former questionnaire was labelled ‘‘TheNetherlands and Dutch society’’ (‘‘Turkey and Turkish society’’) and theintroduction explained that participation was requested for research onpeople’s views and attitudes towards Dutch (Turkish) society. The first pagewith questions was designed to emphasise the Dutch (Turkish) context. Forthe Dutch context, the participants were asked, for example, how long theyhad been living in the Netherlands, in which Dutch city they lived, whetherthey had relatives living in the Netherlands, and whether they felt at homeand liked living in the Netherlands.

We examined whether the endorsement of minority rights differedbetween the two conditions and for the two groups. For measuring theendorsement of minority rights we used items such as ‘‘Minorities should beallowed to establish their own schools’’, ‘‘Minorities have the right toprotect and keep their own language’’, ‘‘National TV should broadcast moreprogrammes by and for minorities’’, and ‘‘Every cultural group should havethe right to express and propagate their beliefs’’. It was expected thatminority group members would support minority rights more strongly thanmajority group members. This means that the Turkish participants in theTurkish context were expected to be less in favour of minority rights thanthe Turks in the Dutch context, and also less in favour than the Kurdishparticipants in both national contexts. The latter three groups of

156 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

participants were not expected to differ in their attitude towards minorityrights.

Analyses revealed a significant difference in the endorsement of minorityrights and the results, shown in Figure 1, confirm the expectation.Separate analyses of the Dutch context indicated no significant differencebetween the Turks and the Kurds. Hence, in the context of the Netherlands,the Turkish and Kurdish participants endorsed minority rights equally.However, there was a clear group difference in the Turkish context where theTurks are the majority and the Kurds a minority. As expected, the Kurdswere more in favour of minority rights than were the Turks. We can alsolook at context differences for each ethnic group. As expected, the Turkswere less in favour of minority rights in Turkey than they were in theNetherlands. In contrast, the Kurds were significantly more in favour ofminority rights in Turkey than in the Netherlands. Hence, compared to theNetherlands, in the context of Turkey, the Turks were significantly less infavour of minority rights whereas the Kurds were more in favour of theserights.

Figure 1. The endorsement of minority rights (7-point scale) by two participant groups and two

national contexts. From Verkuyten and Yildiz (2006).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

These results indicate that the group position as well as the nationalcontext affects people’s views on minority rights. Cultural diversity andminority rights are typically seen as having more to offer to minority groups(Turks in the Netherlands and the Kurds in both countries) than tomajority groups (Turks in Turkey or Dutch in the Netherlands). For theminority groups, they present the possibility of maintaining their ownculture and a greater likelihood of parity in terms of social equality. For themajority groups, cultural diversity and minority rights are often seen asthreats to their dominant position and higher social status.

The results for the Kurds indicate that not only the group position butalso the national context is important for understanding people’s attitudetowards minority rights. Nations differ in many historical, political, andcultural ways, and so do the minorities present. In contrast to theNetherlands, in Turkey there are various national minorities that havebeen suppressed for centuries (Pettifer, 1998). For example, in trying tocreate a nation state based on Turkish identity, the Kurds have been thetarget of a longstanding assimilation policy. It was not until 2003 that theKurdish people officially gained the right to use Kurdish names, broadcastin their mother tongue, establish private language courses, and so forth.Hence, it is understandable that the Kurdish participants endorsed minorityrights more strongly in Turkey than in the Netherlands.

THE PERCEIVED NATURE OF MINORITY GROUPS

The social identity perspective argues that not only status positions areimportant for understanding the strategies that groups adopt to achieve adistinctive and positive social identity, but also beliefs about the nature ofthe groups concerned (Turner & Reynolds, 2001). Multiculturalism is aboutgroups and requires a conceptualisation of group characteristics. Among themany possible group differences, our research has focused on two perceivedgroup characteristics and their relationship to the endorsement of multi-culturalism. The first one is related to the distinction between voluntaryand involuntary immigrants. The second one concerns perceived groupessentialism.

Choice and lack of choice

In his influential book Multicultural citizenship, the political philosopherKymlicka (1995) makes a distinction between voluntary and involuntarygroups. He argues that not all minority groups have equal moral claims.Multicultural recognition and rights is an adequate demand for domesticgroups that were the original inhabitants, such as Indians, native Hawaiians,and the Inuit, or that have been historically wronged, such as descendants of

158 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

African slaves. Immigrants, however, are at the other end of the moralspectrum. They would have waived their demands and rights by voluntarilyleaving their country of origin. Self-determination implies a personalresponsibility for one’s situation and position. Choosing to leave involves aresponsibility to integrate into the new society, which is also in one’s owninterest. Kymlicka’s reasoning has been challenged (e.g., Parekh, 2000) andrests on the original context and intentions of minorities and immigrants(Barry, 2001).

However, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary is notuncommon and is also used for social scientific purposes (e.g., Ogbu, 1993).The distinction supposes a clear difference between personal choice and lackof choice, which is often factually difficult to make. There are also socialimplications involved. Individualistic interpretations that stress people’sown choice and responsibilities, or more situational interpretations thatemphasise people’s lack of choice, are two common discourses used to definecategories of ‘‘deserving’’ and ‘‘undeserving’’ in welfare debates, and toaccount for health and illness, unemployment, and poverty (see Augoustinos& Walker, 1995).

There is quite a debate about categories of refugees in which a distinctionbetween ‘‘real refugees’’ and ‘‘fortune seekers’’, ‘‘economic refugees’’, or‘‘ethnic profiteers’’ is made. These terms are used in different ways and indifferent contexts, but a main distinction underlying these differences seemsto be the one between, on the one hand, refugees who hardly have any otherchoice than to leave their home country, and on the other hand, refugeeswho do have a clear choice and just give it a try (Lynn & Lea, 2003). Thisdistinction is not only used to define categories of refugees but has also beenfound in talk about labour migrants who have been coming to WesternEuropean countries since the 1960s. For example, the idea of ‘‘personalchoice’’ has been used to make Turkish and Moroccan immigrants assumeresponsibility for their situation and to argue for the need for assimilation.In contrast, an emphasis on West European societies and industry recruitingthese people as labour migrants defines responsibilities for the majoritygroup (Verkuyten, 1997).

In our research, we have focused on the ways that immigrant categoriesare defined by Dutch majority group members and the implications of thesedefinitions for the evaluation of multiculturalism. In one study weconducted 71 in-depth interviews among adult participants (aged between22 and 71 years). In analysing the interviews we examined the discursiveconstruction of categories of immigrants and the rhetorical consequences ofthese constructions for the way people think about cultural diversity and theassimilation of immigrants. We found that stressing the ‘‘personal choice’’of immigration was related to a rejection of multiculturalism and anemphasis on assimilation (Verkuyten, 2005c, Study 1). In contrast, a focus


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

on ‘‘lack of choice’’ was related to a positive evaluation of multiculturalismand an emphasis on minority rights.

The analysis further showed that these interpretations were usedregardless of the particular immigrant groups that were being talkedabout; they were applied to asylum seekers, refugees, and Turkish andMoroccan labour migrants. Hence, in the context of discussing immigra-tion and multiculturalism the legal distinctions between asylum seekersand refugees and the differences with migrant labourers were notconsidered or deployed. This reflects the fact that in the Netherlandsmulticulturalism is predominantly discussed in terms of the categories ofethnically Dutch (‘‘autochthonous’’) and non-Dutch (‘‘allochthonous’’)people.

A second study was conducted in order to examine, in a more controlledand restricted way, the evaluative effects of the interpretative frameworks of‘‘personal choice’’ or ‘‘lack of choice’’ (Verkuyten, 2005c, Study 2). Thisstudy, among 76 ethnic Dutch first-year students at Utrecht University,examined whether an experimental manipulation of these two interpretativeframeworks in cover stories would affect the extent to which majority groupmembers endorse the importance of multiculturalism. The study had a 2(framework: ‘‘personal choice’’ or ‘‘lack of choice’’) by 2 (target group:Turks/Moroccans or refugees/asylum seekers) design. First, one of the twoframeworks was used for defining immigration: either an individualistic,‘‘personal choice’’ interpretation, or a more conditional, ‘‘lack of choice’’interpretation. Second, the two frameworks were used to explain theimmigration of migrant labourers (Turks/Moroccans) or of refugees andasylum seekers. No distinction between the latter two groups was made,because both terms have been found to be used interchangeably in publicdiscourse and everyday conversations (Verkuyten, 1997). As a dependentmeasure all participants were asked to answer questions on the importanceof multiculturalism using the Dutch version of Berry and Kalin’s (1995)Multiculturalism Scale. It was hypothesised that priming a ‘‘personalchoice’’ framework rather than a ‘‘lack of choice’’ framework would resultin a lowered endorsement of multiculturalism. Furthermore, it was expectedthat this effect would be found for both migrant labourers and refugees/asylum seekers as a target group.

Analysis of variance showed that there was a significant main effect forframework prime. Participants in the ‘‘personal choice’’ condition weresignificantly less in favour of multiculturalism than participants in the ‘‘lackof choice’’ condition. There was no significant main effect for target groupand there was also no significant interaction effect between ideology primeand target group. Hence, the target group (Turks/Moroccans vs refugees/asylum seekers) did not, either independently or in interaction with theframework prime, affect the endorsement of multiculturalism.

160 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

These two studies show that evaluations of multiculturalism and theendorsement of minority rights are influenced by the way categories ofimmigrants are defined (see also Augoustinos & Quinn, 2003), and that thequestion of ‘‘choice’’ and voluntarism is a central issue. This suggests thatdistinctions made in the media, in policies, and by politicians, between, forexample, ‘‘real refugees’’ and ‘‘fortune seekers’’, can have importantimplications for intergroup relations in culturally plural societies. Hence,it should not come as a surprise that politicians tend to manipulate thesecategories, for example, to gain public support in elections.

Group essentialism

In examining the diverse literature on essentialism, N. Haslam, Rothschildand Ernst (2000) concluded that the concept has several discernibleelements or criteria, such as ideas about inductive potential, exclusivity,and necessary features (see also McGarty, S. A. Haslam, Hutchinson, &Grace, 1995; Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001). In two questionnairestudies of laypeople’s beliefs about social categories, Haslam andcolleagues found that the notion of essentialism can be divided into twodimensions (N. Haslam et al., 2000, 2002). The first is the extent to whichcategories are understood as natural or inherently different kinds, and thesecond is the extent to which categories are reified or perceived ashomogeneous and unified entities or ‘‘real things’’. Haslam et al. (2000)concluded that social categories may be essentialised in these two distinctways. However, they also found that there are social categories that arerelatively essentialised on both dimensions, such as ethnic and racialgroups.

Essentialist views of ethnic minority groups justify multiculturalism. Ingeneral, multiculturalism is morally and intellectually more acceptable ifethnic minorities are felt to be actual groups with certain inherent culturalcharacteristics. Multicultural approaches tend to equate ethnicity withculture and emphasise authentic cultural differences that should berecognised and respected (e.g., Parekh, 2000; Taylor, 1994). Members ofethnic and racial minority groups often resist stigmatisation by taking pridein their ‘‘essential’’ or authentic group identity. In doing so they tend toadopt the racial or cultural thinking that is at the root of their exclusion andoppression. Gitlin (1995, p. 164), for example, argued that ‘‘many exponentsof identity politics are fundamentalists – in the language of the academy,‘essentialists’.’’ And Wrong (1997, p. 298) claimed that ‘‘in basing itselfon relatively permanent groups . . . [multiculturalism] mirror[s] the veryprejudices it opposes’’. The ‘‘new essentialism’’ (Verdery, 1994) is a centralaspect of contemporary constructions of difference that are posited asinherent and imperative.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Ideas about the importance of cultural identity and group representationare more relevant when groups are perceived as more essentialist and entity-like. Hence, for ethnic minority groups, ingroup essentialism can beexpected to be related positively to the endorsement of multiculturalism. Incontrast, for the majority group, the perception of essentialist minoritygroups is more threatening. This perception may easily lead to a pattern ofcultural racism (Barker, 1981; Hopkins, Reicher, & Levine, 1997) in whichdifferent cultures are assumed to be incompatible and their existenceinherently problematic, leading to the rejection of multiculturalism in favourof assimilation of minority groups. Hence, for the majority group,ethnic outgroup essentialism can be expected to be related negatively tomulticulturalism.

We tested these predictions in a study among 758 Dutch majority andethnic minority adolescents between 15 and 18 years of age (Verkuyten &Brug, 2004). The results showed that the perceived essentialism of themajority group had no effect on multicultural attitudes. However, there wasan interaction effect between ethnic group and ethnic minority essentialism,which is shown in Figure 2. When ethnic minority groups were perceivedmore in essentialist terms, the Dutch (majority) participants were less infavour of multiculturalism. Hence, for the majority, essentialist beliefs aboutethnic minorities seem to be related to the rejection of cultural diversity andminority group rights. Homogeneous, unified, and coherent minority groups

Figure 2. Endorsement of multiculturalism (7-point scale) by perceived ethnic minority

essentialism for ethnic majority (Dutch) and minority (Turkish Dutch) groups. From Verkuyten

and Brug (2004). **p 5.01.

162 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

are probably seen as threatening (Abelson, Dasgupta, Park, & Banaji, 1998).In contrast, for the minority group participants, ethnic minority essentialismwas positively related to multiculturalism. Cultural essentialism is useful tochallenge assimilationist ideas and to argue for provisions and measures thatwill meet the uniqueness of one’s group’s culturally distinct practices andbeliefs. Furthermore, ‘‘groupness’’ is important for collective action andstrengthens the argument for the need for cultural diversity. Culturalessentialism is an important political tool for ethnic minorities, and it hasbecome increasingly difficult to challenge or ignore it (Hodgson, 2002;Morin & Saladin d’Anglure, 1997). Hence, essentialist beliefs about groups,such as in racism, don’t only rationalise and justify existing socialarrangements, they can also question and challenge these arrangementsand the status quo. Essentialism is not by definition oppressive, just as anti-essentialism is not by definition liberating (Verkuyten, 2003).

SOCIAL SYSTEM BELIEFS AND MULTICULTURALATTITUDES

In addition to status positions and beliefs about the nature of social groups,the social identity perspective argues for the importance of beliefs about thesocial system, such as legitimacy and stability (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).Perceived legitimacy and stability of the status system would affect people’sresponses and strategies for group differentiation.

Political scientists and (moral) philosophers have put forward variousintellectual and practical arguments for defending or challenging multi-cultural theories and policies (e.g., Barry, 2001; Kymlicka, 1995; Parekh,2000; Taylor, 1994). Vermeulen and Slijper (2003) show that there are threeclusters of core arguments underlying the debates on multiculturalism andminority rights: first, the importance and value of group identity andcultural diversity per se; second, social equality and equal opportunities;and third, social cohesion and stability. These latter two arguments can berelated to the sociostructural variables of legitimacy and stability asproposed by the social identity perspective.

Research has examined various correlates of multicultural attitudes, suchas demographic variables (gender, age, region, level of education), perceivedlife opportunities and economic conditions, interethnic friendships, andindividual difference variables such as authoritarianism, social dominance,and prejudice (e.g., Arends-Toth & Van de Vijver, 2000; Ho, 1990; Kosic,Mannetti, & Sam, 2005; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006; Zick et al., 2001).Our research has examined the role of beliefs about the nature of the socialsystem by examining the issue of (in)equality and the importance of socialcohesion and stability. In various studies we examined (combinations of)these notions in relation to the endorsement of multiculturalism and among


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

ethnic minority and majority group members. In doing so, we usedhierarchical regression analyses to determine which variables independentlyand in interaction with ethnic group (majority –minority) predicted multi-culturalism.

Equality

Multiculturalism is, typically, closely linked to the notion of equality and isseen as an important ideology and policy approach for addressing inequalityand structural discrimination. Hence, it can be expected that the perceptionof structural discrimination in society influences the endorsement ofmulticulturalism. That is to say, people who perceive more pervasivediscrimination towards ethnic minorities are probably more in favour ofmulticulturalism. This association can be expected for both majority groupand minority group participants. The role of perceived pervasive discrimi-nation was examined in four studies among adolescents and students (seeVerkuyten & Martinovic, 2006; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002; Verkuyten &Yildiz, 2006). In all four, a significant and positive association was found.For both groups more perceived structural ethnic discrimination waspositively associated with the endorsement of multiculturalism, but in onestudy the relationship was somewhat stronger for the minority than themajority group (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006, Study 1). In addition, in thestudy introduced earlier in which we framed, for Turkish and Kurdishparticipants, the Dutch and Turkish national context, only a main effect forperceived discrimination was found (Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2006). Thepositive association of discrimination with the endorsement of minorityrights was similar for both groups and in both national contexts.

These results suggest that the recognition of inequalities indicatingillegitimate status differences represents a more general argument foraccepting multiculturalism and endorsing minority rights. Equality andequal opportunities is a central issue in debates on multiculturalism andminority rights, and seems to affect people’s views in similar ways,independently of group position and national context. However, in all ofour studies it was also found that minority group members perceive higherlevels of pervasive ethnic discrimination than majority groups.

Cohesion and stability

Cultural diversity and multiculturalism is often contested on the basis ofconcerns for the unity and stability of the country (e.g., Huntington, 2004;Schlesinger, 1992). According to this view, diversity leads to new problems,increases the possibility of conflict, and weakens social cohesion andstability. Cultural differences can be perceived as a threat, and, as discussed

164 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

earlier, fear for the unity and stability of the country is a common andcentral argument used in everyday life to oppose multiculturalism(Verkuyten, 2004). However, the extent to which cultural diversity isconsidered a threat to social cohesion may differ between majority andminority groups. The majority group can be expected to emphasise socialcohesion and stability more strongly than the minority. In addition, for themajority group in particular, the emphasis on social cohesion and stabilitycan be expected to be negatively related to multiculturalism and positively tothe endorsement of assimilation.

In two studies (Brug & Verkuyten, in press; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2006) wemeasured perceived social cohesion and stability with items such as ‘‘thestability of the country is weakened by minorities who maintain theircultures and habits’’, ‘‘a society that is composed of many different culturalgroups has more problems with its national unity than a society with onlyone or two cultural groups’’, and ‘‘minority organisations are not a threat tothe stability of the country (reversed)’’. In these studies, we found thatmajority group members did indeed endorse the importance of socialcohesion and stability more strongly than minority groups. That is to say,Dutch participants emphasised the importance of this issue more stronglythan ethnic minorities, and Turkish participants emphasised it more in thecontext of Turkey than in the Netherlands, and also more strongly thanKurdish participants in both national contexts. In addition, the morestrongly majority group participants stressed the importance of socialcohesion and stability, the less they were in favour of multiculturalism andthe more they favoured assimilation of minority groups. For the minoritygroups no significant associations between social stability and multi-culturalism were found.

GROUP IDENTIFICATION

Multiculturalism and minority rights are about groups and group identities.In the social identity perspective, the intensity of in-group identification is animportant factor to consider. There is considerable empirical evidence that,in an intergroup situation, those with high ingroup identification are morelikely to show group-level responses relative to the responses of lowidentifiers (see Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002). This is especially the casewhen group interests are at stake and the value of the group identity isthreatened.

The more minority group people identify with their ethnic ingroup, themore likely they are to consider it important to preserve their ownculture and to participate as group members in social and political life.The endorsement of multiculturalism and minority rights can be seenas a collective strategy for dealing with a negative group identity


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

(Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and ingroup identification is an important conditionfor collective action (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). Furthermore, multi-culturalism and minority rights challenge group-based hierarchy anddomination. For example, using samples from the United States and Israel,Levin, Sidanius, Rabinovith, and Federico (1998) found among ethnicminority group members a positive correlation between ingroup identifica-tion and ideologies that challenge the legitimacy of the status hierarchy (seealso Deaux, Reid, Martin, & Bikmen, 2006). Hence, for ethnic minoritygroups, a positive association between ingroup identification and theendorsement of multiculturalism and minority rights can be expected. Incontrast, for the majority group, a negative association can be predicted.The more majority group members identify with their own group the morethey can be expected to try to protect their group’s interests and statusposition, for example by emphasising assimilation. In their study, Levinet al. (1998) found for majority groups a negative correlation between groupidentification and ideologies that challenge the legitimacy of the statushierarchy (see also Sinclair, Sidanius, & Levin, 1998).

In almost all of our studies on multiculturalism we included measuresof ingroup identification (e.g., Verkuyten & Brug, 2004; Verkuyten &Martinovic, 2006; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2006).Questions that focus on the importance the participants attach to theirethnic identity were used. The questions are similar to items used in manysocial psychological studies (e.g., ‘‘My Turkish identity is an important partof my self ’’, ‘‘I identify strongly with the Turks’’, ‘‘Being Turkish is a veryimportant part of how I see myself ’’).

The findings across the studies are similar. In all studies, ethnic minoritygroups had higher ethnic ingroup identification compared to the majoritygroup. In addition, in all studies an interaction effect between ethnic groupand ingroup identification was found. For the minority groups, highergroup identification is consistently associated with stronger endorsement ofmulticulturalism and minority rights. This is also found in other countries,such as Germany (Simon, 2004). In contrast, for the majority group, highergroup identification is related negatively to multiculturalism.

A similar result was found in our study among Turkish and Kurdishparticipants in the framed national contexts of the Netherlands and Turkey(Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2006). With attitude towards minority rights as thedependent variable, the results revealed a significant three-way interac-tion effect between ethnic group, national context, and identification.Simple slope analyses indicated that ethnic identification tended to bepositively related to the endorsement of minority rights for the Turks inthe Dutch context, the Kurds in the Dutch context, and the Kurds inthe Kurdish context. However, for the Turks in the Turkish context therewas a negative association between identification and minority rights.

166 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

These results are shown in Figure 3. Hence, in minority situations a strongergroup identification predicted a more positive attitude towards minorityrights, whereas in a majority situation (Turks in Turkey) strongergroup identification was related to a less favourable attitude towards mino-rity rights.

Thus, in agreement with intergroup theories and social identity theory(Tajfel & Turner, 1979) in particular, the findings of our studies show thatthe effect of ethnic group on multiculturalism and minority rights wasmoderated by ingroup identification. High minority group identifiers weremore likely to favour cultural diversity and a multicultural society. Forthem, the possibility of maintaining their cultural heritage seems to beimportant in itself, and an emphasis on multiculturalism and minority rightsmay also represent a collective response to a negative group identity.In contrast, for the majority group, the more people identify with theiringroup, the more they seem to focus on the negative and threateningaspects of multiculturalism and minority rights.

Figure 3. The endorsement of minority rights (7-point scale) by the two participant groups, in

two national contexts, and for low and high group identifiers (median split). From Verkuyten

and Yildiz (2006). ap5 .08; *p5 .01; **p5 .01.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

CONSEQUENCES OF MULTICULTURALRECOGNITION

The endorsement of multiculturalism is important to examine because itindicates to what extent status positions and group understandings, as wellas notions of equality and social stability, affect people’s views on themanagement of ethnic and cultural diversity. The social psychologicalrelevance of multiculturalism, however, is that multiculturalism is expectedto have an influence on ethnic identity, self-feelings, and intergrouprelations. Multiculturalism would provide an ideological context in whichpeople can feel good about their group membership and themselves, anddevelop a positive attitude towards others. The multiculturalism hypothesisproposes that affirmation towards one’s ethnic group leads to a secure ethnicidentity, positive self-feelings, and higher levels of acceptance towards ethnicout-groups (e.g., Lambert & Taylor, 1990). There are a few experimentalstudies, including our own work (Verkuyten, 2005a), that found multi-culturalism to have a positive effect on intergroup relations (e.g., Richeson& Nussbaum, 2004; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000). I havereviewed this research elsewhere (Verkuyten, in press-a). Here I want tofocus on the consequences of multicultural recognition for groupidentification and self-feelings.

Group identification

Multiculturalism encourages group identities and tries to ensure that allcitizens can keep their identities and take pride in their ancestry and culture.In three studies we have examined the effect of multiculturalism on ingroupidentification of Dutch and Turkish Dutch student participants. Two ofthese studies used an experimental design, and one study examined changesover a 3-year period that was marked by dramatic political changesinvolving an increased public emphasis on assimilation. In all three studies,ethnic group identification was again measured using questions that focusedon the importance the participants attached to their ethnic identity.

In a first questionnaire study among 210 students, three experimentalconditions were used in a between-subjects design: multiculturalism,assimilation, and a ‘‘neutral’’ condition (Verkuyten, 2005a, Study 3). Ourthinking behind this experimental manipulation was that notions ofmulticulturalism and assimilation can be thought of as lay theories thatcan be activated temporarily (N. Haslam, Bastian, Bain, & Kashima, 2006;Levy, West, & Ramirez, 2005). Immigration and the presence of ethnicminority groups can be conceived of as valuable additions to society leadingto multicultural notions, but also as threats posed to the majority group andhampering upward social mobility of minorities, leading to assimilationist

168 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

thinking (Pratto & Lemieux, 2001). Consequently, whether multiculturalismor assimilationism is used as a framework for group identification maydepend on situational features that will make one or the other more salientand relevant. The experimental manipulations were induced in thequestionnaire first by its title, which was printed on the first page of thequestionnaire and repeated in italics and in bold at the top of every page ofthe booklet, as well as by a short introduction, and 10 attitude statements onmulticulturalism, assimilation, or a neutral topic, respectively.

For the Dutch group, the findings indicated that ethnic identificationtended to be higher in the assimilation condition than in the multiculturalone and the score in the neutral condition was in-between. For the TurkishDutch group, condition did not have a significant effect. However, in anadditional analysis comparing the multicultural condition with the othertwo, a significant difference was found. The Turkish participants scoredhigher on identification in the multicultural condition than in theassimilation and in the neutral condition. The results are shown in Table 1.

In a second study among 93 students, the same experimental manipula-tion was used for the conditions of multiculturalism and assimilation(Verkuyten, 2005a, Study 4). There was again a significant interaction effectbetween condition and ethnic group. Separate analysis indicated for theTurkish Dutch group that ethnic identification was significantly higher inthe multicultural condition than in the assimilation one. In contrast, for theDutch, ethnic identification was significantly higher in the assimilationcondition compared to the multicultural one (see Table 1).

Thus the results of both studies indicate that multiculturalism leads tostronger in-group identification among the minority group and weakeridentification among the majority group. In contrast, assimilation leads tostronger identification among the majority group and weaker identificationamong the minority group.

TABLE 1Mean scores and SD for ethnic identification by experimental condition and for the

Turkish Dutch and Dutch participants

Experimental condition

Multiculturalism ‘‘Neutral’’ Assimilationism

Study 1

Turks (N¼ 110) 3.52 (.54) 3.23 (.56) 3.36 (.66)

Dutch (N¼ 110) 2.73 (.51) 2.84 (.49) 2.92 (.54)

Study 2

Turks (N¼ 47) 4.40 (.51) 4.03 (.58)

Dutch (N¼ 46) 3.33 (.57) 3.74 (.59)

Two studies from Verkuyten (2005a).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

In addition to experimental research, it is important to examine multi-culturalism and group identification in a real-life changing political context.Societies change continuously and in numerous ways, also in relation tobeliefs, ideologies, and practices concerning the management of ethnicdiversity. Existing social psychological research predominantly examinespeople’s reactions and responses in experimental settings at one particularmoment in time. In general, the potential importance of political, economic,and social changes is acknowledged, but this has not led to many analyses ofintergroup issues over time (see Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). There are,for example, studies that show historical changes in white American racialstereotypes and prejudices (see Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986). However,studies on historical changes are not easy to interpret because of themany social, political, and economic differences between periods, aswell as the differences in samples, methods, and measures (see Devine &Elliot, 1995).

In our study we examined the extent to which, in 2001 – 2003, ethnicallyDutch (N¼ 329) and Turkish Dutch (N¼ 222) participants identified withtheir ethnic ingroup (see Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005). We used a cross-sectional design with three measure points (autumn of 2001, 2002, and 2003)of ethnic identification among Dutch and Turkish Dutch late adolescentsand young adults. In the Netherlands, this period was marked by dramaticpolitical changes involving the political arrival and rise of the charismaticPim Fortuyn and his murder just 9 days before the general elections of15 May 2002 (see Pennings & Keman, 2003; Van Praag, 2003).

Fortuyn’s ideology combined various things, but above all he spokeagainst multiculturalism and attacked what he called the yoke of politicalcorrectness and the problems this had caused with ethnic minority groups.He explicitly rejected the idea of multiculturalism, pleading instead forassimilation and emphasising national identity and pride. He argued thatimmigration and multiculturalism meant the abolition of Dutch identity.For Fortuyn the problems of a multicultural society had mainly to do withIslam. He had a fiercely negative position on Islam, which he argued was abackward religion that seriously threatened Dutch society and culture. Heargued that ‘‘cold war against Islam is unavoidable’’ and defined Muslims asa ‘‘fifth column’’ (see Pels, 2003). This stance against multiculturalism andIslam became very popular and attracted many votes (see Van der Burg,2003). Although not all political parties agreed with this, almost all startedto accept the idea that multiculturalism had failed and that it had actuallycaused interethnic tensions and problems of social cohesion. Althoughthe official retreat from multiculturalism had already been going on for anumber of years (Joppke, 2004), multiculturalism now became highlycontroversial and assimilation was increasingly favoured (see alsoScroggins, 2005).

170 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Social identity theory argues that under identity-threatening circum-stances people will try to restore a positive and distinct collective identity.Hence, the political changes described led us to the prediction that,compared to 2001, in 2002 the Dutch as well as the Turkish Dutchparticipants would show higher ingroup identification.

The results were in agreement with these expectations for the two groupsof participants. The analysis of the data from three time periods(2001 – 2003) showed significant changes in ethnic group identification(Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005). As expected, the Dutch and theTurkish-Dutch participants showed higher ingroup identification in 2002compared to 2001. The difference between 2002 and 2003 was notsignificant. Hence, for both the Dutch and the Turkish Dutch groups,ingroup identification became stronger in 2002 than in 2001. These resultssuggest that ethnic group identification is affected by the broader politicaland ideological context on issues of cultural diversity.

The self-esteem argument of multiculturalism

In his essay ‘‘The politics of recognition’’, the philosopher Taylor (1994, p.26) argues for ‘‘recognition’’ because ‘‘. . . misrecognition shows not just alack of due respect. It can inflict a grievous wound, saddling its victim with acrippling self-hatred. Due recognition is not just a courtesy we owe people.It is a vital human need’’. And his British colleague Parekh (2000, p. 8)argues that ‘‘we appreciate better than before that culture deeply matters topeople, that their self-esteem depends on others’ recognition and respect’’.Multiculturalism would be necessary to counter the implicit culturalimperialism in society in which minority groups have to conform to theseeming neutral norms of the majority that lead to low self-esteem and alack of self-respect (Young, 1990).

The idea that acceptance and recognition of cultural diversity is crucialfor self-feelings because of its service to group identity is, according toBurnet (1995), the multiculturalist assumption. This self-esteem argumentfor multiculturalism is also put forward in social psychology (e.g., Berry,1984; Fowers & Richardson, 1996; Tajfel, 1981) and plays an important rolein public and institutional debates on multiculturalism and education andacademic achievement.

The self-esteem argument states that the acceptance and recognition ofcultural identities leads to more positive self-feelings. Based on socialidentity theory, Branscombe, Schmitt, and Harvey (1999) developed theirrejection – identification model. The model states that prejudice anddiscrimination have costs for psychological well-being, but that these costsare suppressed by increased ingroup identification. The model has receivedquite some empirical support, including from studies that have examined


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

self-esteem among racial and ethnic minority groups (see Schmitt &Branscombe, 2002). Several other studies with various ethnic groups,including majority groups, have also found positive associations betweenethnic identity and self-esteem (e.g., Lorenzo-Hernandez & Ouellette, 1998;Martinez & Dukes, 1997; Negy, Shreve, Jensen, & Uddin, 2003). Thus, thereare good reasons as well as strong evidence for a positive associationbetween ethnic identity and self-esteem.

A multicultural perspective provides the political recognition and theideological justification for affirming one’s ethnic identity and for valuingethnic differentiation positively. Such a perspective is particularly importantfor individuals who have developed a strong ethnic identity, for examplethrough parental socialisation (e.g., Knight, Bernal, Garza, Cota, &Ocampa, 1993; Thornton, Chatters, Taylor, & Allen, 1990). Such anidentity manifests itself in a generalised readiness to be concerned aboutsociety’s recognition of cultural differences and the value of ethnic groups.This leads to the expectation that ethnic group identification moderates therelationship between multiculturalism and self-esteem. It seems likely thatmulticulturalism is related to self-esteem for high ethnic group identifiers butnot for low group identifiers. Issues of cultural recognition and ethnic groupvalue are more important for high identifiers than they are for lowidentifiers, and can thus be expected to affect the self-esteem of the formerbut not the latter.

We tested this idea in two experimental between-subjects questionnairestudies among 521 student participants (Verkuyten, 2006). The effect ofmulticultural recognition (ethnic categorisation) was examined in compar-ison to colour-blindness (de-categorisation) and common nationality(re-categorisation). The experimental manipulations induced by the ques-tionnaire were set up by following the procedure outlined by Wolsko et al.(2000) that has also been used by Richeson and Nussbaum (2004).We manipulated multicultural, colour-blind, and common national identitybeliefs by providing participants with a one-page statement that endorsedone of these three approaches to inter-ethnic relations. Subsequently,participants were asked to make a list of five reasons why multiculturalism(or colour-blindness, or common nationality) is an adequate approach togroup relations. They were then presented with a list of responses thatostensibly had been provided by previous participants, and were asked toencircle the responses similar to their own. To assess global self-esteem weused Rosenberg-like self-esteem measures.

The results of both studies were quite similar and provide support for theself-esteem argument for multiculturalism, but also put this argument intoperspective. Within the multicultural condition ethnic identification waspositively and significantly associated with self-esteem for both the TurkishDutch and the Dutch participants. This indicates that multiculturalism, with

172 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

its emphasis on acceptance and recognition of category memberships,provides a context in which people with a strong ethnic identity can feelgood about themselves. However, it is also a context in which people with alow level of group identification feel less positive about themselves.

In the colour-blind condition, ethnic identification was not associatedwith self-esteem. In this condition, the emphasis is on individual differencesand personal identities rather than on the recognition and acceptance ofethnic group differences. In such an ideological framework, personalcharacteristics and not ethnic group identity are the relevant contingencyon which to base one’s global self-esteem. Self-esteem was also higher in thecolour-blind condition compared to the other two conditions, in which theimportance of group identities was emphasised.

In the common national identity condition, but only in Study 1, there wasfor the Turkish Dutch an association between ethnic identification and self-esteem. The Turkish Dutch participants with a high ethnic identificationreported more positive self-esteem. For the Dutch, no association betweenethnic identification and self-esteem was found. These results indicate that acommon group identity affects minority and majority groups differently.For ethnic minority members, an emphasis on a common national identity isimportant if they are to feel included as part of society. However, anemphasis on a common national identity can also be threatening to thedistinctiveness and value of ethnic minority group identity.

This has been found in several studies on the effects of common ingroupsfor intergroup relations (e.g., Crisp, Stone, & Hall, 2006; Hornsey & Hogg,2001). Compared to the majority group, minority groups will be less able tosee themselves as prototypical members of a superordinate or commonnational in-group (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). In reaction to this threat,one possible response for minority group members is to increase their ethnicidentification, which serve to protect self-esteem. An ethnic identity givesa sense of belongingness and meaning within a context in which a super-ordinate category is considered important. In contrast, for the Dutchparticipants, the common national context is not threatening to their ethnicidentity as they can see themselves as prototypical of the common nationalidentity. In this context, their ethnic identity is not threatened and thereforedoes not have an effect on their self-esteem. However, this interpretationneeds further examination because in our second study no such effect for theethnic minority participants was found.

DISCUSSION

Recognising and accommodating diverse ethnicities, religions, languages,and values is ‘‘an inescapable feature of the landscape of politics in the 21stcentury’’ (United Nations Development Programme, 2004, p. 1). Questions


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

of multiculturalism and minority rights give rise to lively and importantdebates in many countries and in many spheres of life. Diversity andminority rights are considered desirable and necessary, but they are alsochallenged for being inequitable and a threat to social cohesion and nationalidentity.

The social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987)emphasises that people’s collective psychology as group members is sociallystructured and always functions in a social context. Although variousalternative interpretations for some of our findings on multiculturalrecognition and minority rights are possible, the social identity perspectiveoffers an integrated account for the findings and theoretical arguments.People try to achieve a distinctive and valued social identity, but thistendency does not explain how and when people show, for example, socialcompetition or rather consensual, multicultural, recognition (Rubin &Hewstone, 2004). The social identity perspective argues that status positions,the intensity of ingroup identification, beliefs about the nature of groups,and collective theories and beliefs about the social system, are all importantfactors to consider when examining group identities and intergrouprelations. This chapter has discussed the relevance of these factors forunderstanding the endorsement of multicultural recognition and minorityrights, and for examining the effects of multiculturalism on groupidentification and self-feelings. Taken together, the findings support thesocial identity perspective and argue against a ‘‘mechanistic’’ reading of thisperspective in which only a need for positive self-evaluation or ingroupidentification is considered, independently of the nature of group identitiesand the way that the social system and the intergroup situation isunderstood (Turner, 1999; Turner & Reynolds, 2001).

The findings of our research also point to some practical implications anddilemmas surrounding a multicultural society in which group identities areemphasised and affirmed. Multiculturalism, for example, has different thingsto offer to minority and majority groups that differ in status and powerposition. Therefore, it is understandable that ethnic minority and majoritygroups evaluate multiculturalism differently. For the former, it offers thepossibility of maintaining their cultural heritage and upward social mobility.For the latter, multiculturalism is often seen as a threat to one’s way of life,cultural dominance and higher social status (Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998).

In addition, high ethnic minority group identifiers are more likely tofavour cultural diversity and a multicultural society. For them, thepossibility of maintaining cultural heritage seems to be important in itself,and an emphasis on multiculturalism may also represent a collectiveresponse to a negative group identity. In contrast, for the majority group,identification is negatively related to multiculturalism. The more Dutchpeople identify with their ingroup, the more they seem to focus on the

174 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

negative and threatening aspects of multiculturalism. For ethnic minorities astrong group identity is consistent with multicultural ideals, but for majoritygroup members there seems to be a contradiction. For them an emphasis onDutch identity corresponds more to ideas about assimilation rather thanmulticulturalism. However, this relationship might be different in immigrantcountries such as Canada, the United States, and Australia that are largelycomposed of immigrants and (in part) cultural diversity is a definingcharacteristic of the nation. In most European countries there is ahistorically established majority group and cultural diversity is not a self-defining aspect of the nation. Thus, the way that the nation is understoodmight have implications for minority groups and for accommodatingdiversity.

These results can be evaluated differently depending on the stance taken.Ethnic group identification and essentialist group beliefs of minority groups,for example, may be viewed as part of the development of group cohesionand collective action necessary to transform social reality. However, it mayalso be viewed as part of a process of closure and group boundary reificationleading to separatism and conflicts. For ethnic minority groups, multi-culturalism may further enhance an already strong ingroup orientation,which can have consequences for social cohesion and stability in society.And for majority group members, the importance attached to socialcohesion and stability is negatively related to the endorsement ofmulticulturalism.

However, for both majority and minority group members and in differentnational contexts, ethnic discrimination is positively related to theendorsement of multiculturalism and minority rights. Hence, the existenceof inequality and discrimination seems a more general legitimising argumentfor supporting multiculturalism. Majority group members, however, acceptand acknowledge the existence of structural ethnic discrimination much lessthan do minority groups.

Future directions

For social psychologists studying multiculturalism and related topics thereare various challenges and possible directions for increasing our under-standing. As examples, I will briefly discuss three issues that seem interestingand worthwhile to pursue in future studies: intragroup processes, themeaning of religion, and forms of multiculturalism.

First, perspectives such as social identity theory, social dominance theory,and system justification theory are centrally concerned with intergrouprelations. The focus is on relations between groups that differ in position,status, or power. Research on multiculturalism also tends to focus onintergroup issues in which minority group acceptance, recognition, and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

positive evaluation are key terms. However, multiculturalism has importantintragroup implications. Group identities are fundamentally shaped byinteractions with co-ethnics and by discourses about ethnic and culturalauthenticity (Verkuyten, 2005b). Individuals negotiate their ethnic self-definitions in relation to ingroup members and by using variouscharacteristics, such as language, values, beliefs, and cultural practices.Ethnic minority group membership involves crucial issues of ingroupacceptance and support as well as ingroup obligations and pressures.

Multiculturalism has been criticised for supporting and justifyingconservatism and fundamentalism, potentially harmful practices, illiberalinternal rules, and in-group oppression, particularly of women and children(e.g., Barry, 2001). The acceptance and right of cultural maintenance can,for example, mean the maintenance of the dominant position ofauthoritarian and orthodox fathers. This can seriously undermine the rightof exit from the community of minority members who do not wish to submitto illiberal practices. Hence, it is necessary that social psychologicalexaminations of multiculturalism consider intragroup processes. Theseprocesses should not be ignored, and the need to take them into account isincreasingly being emphasised by social psychologists (e.g., Deaux &Martin, 2003; Rubin & Hewstone, 2004; Reicher, 2004). It is also consistentwith claims that the ingroup is psychologically primary (e.g., Brewer, 2001;Yzerbyt, Castano, Leyens, & Paladino, 2000).

Second, religion is key issue for social psychologists to address.Discussions about multiculturalism and groups’ rights often subsume thequestion of religion under those of cultural diversity, or explicitly excludereligion from the politics of recognition (Taylor, 1994). Questions ofmulticulturalism and minority rights, however, are increasingly questions ofreligious diversity and religious group rights. This is illustrated by theRushdie affair in Britain, the headscarf controversy in France, and debatesin other countries, including the Netherlands (see Scroggins, 2005), aboutIslamic schools, female circumcision, and other practices, values, andclaims. This means that it is important to understand the nature of religiousidentity. Unfortunately social psychology has not paid much attentionto this identity (but see, for example, Allport & Ross, 1967; Argyle &Beit-Hallahmi, 1975; Seul, 1999; Verkuyten, in press-b).

However, language and culture differ from religion in that one can mastermore than one language and internalise more than one culture, whereasreligious identity is exclusive (Zolberg & Long, 1999). Cross-cuttingmemberships and dual identities are possible as among bilinguals andbiculturals, but it is not possible to be a ‘‘Christian Muslim’’ or a ‘‘HinduJew’’. Religion is about convictions and divine truths, and for mostobservant believers, the core of the religious identity is non-negotiable,making the idea of religious changes or adaptations an oxymoron. Religion

176 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

unifies a community of believers around a consensus of moral values andtruths. Religious differences are increasingly being seen as contradictoryand insurmountable. The Dutch majority considers particular practices ofMuslims morally wrong and Muslim immigrants reject the correspondingpractices of the Dutch (e.g., Phalet, Van Lotringen, & Entzinger, 2000). Arecent nationwide survey showed that 50% of the Dutch as well as 50% ofthe Turks and Moroccans consider the Western and Muslim ways of life asopposites that do not go together (Gijsberts, 2005). However, religiousidentities also are not fixed givens, but are constructed in different ways, forexample, in the context of negotiating intergroup relations and organisingcollective action (e.g., Kahani-Hopkins & Hopkins, 2002).

Third, multiculturalism is a multifaceted construct that can be examinedin various ways. We have focused on multicultural recognition and minorityrights. However, it is also possible and important to examine people’s viewson actual multicultural policies and practices. Social psychological studiestend to focus on multiculturalist beliefs or the extent to which minoritygroups should be supported in their attempt to preserve their own identityand culture. People are asked about general principles, and sometimes adistinction between domains is made, such as the private and public ones.The focus is less often on policy implementations or specific measures andconcrete practices. However, most conflicts in multicultural societies areabout specific policies and practices, and there can be a considerable gapbetween principle and implementation.

There are also important national, group, organisational, and institu-tional differences. Countries, for example, have different histories, differentminorities groups, different political cultures, and different immigration andintegration policies (see Baubock, Heller, & Zolberg, 1996; Rex & Singh,2004). Additionally, the perceptions of immigrant and native-born minoritygroups may differ (Deaux et al., 2006), and industrial organisations differ inmany ways from non-profit organisations or educational settings. Hence,multicultural attitudes and policies in one country or context can have adifferent meaning in another country or context, and something that worksin one situation does not necessarily work in another. For social psychology,this means that it is more appropriate to concentrate on when and whyspecific effects occur, rather than on which model of dealing with culturaldiversity is correct.

Conclusion

Multiculturalism is concerned with complex issues that involve manyquestions and dilemmas. There are clear promises and there are importantpitfalls. Considering the psychological and social importance of ethnic andracial identities, a focus on groups and group differences is understandable


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

and, to a certain extent, useful. It can, however, also lead to a situation inwhich these identities become overwhelming or unidimensional, and society,outgroups, and ingroups oblige people to place this particular identity in theforefront of their minds and make it central in their behaviour. The result isthat an ethnic minority group member is categorised by the well-intendinggovernment who wants to respect him or her, by malicious (neo)racistswho want to stigmatise him or her, and by political co-ethnic representativeswho want to mobilise him or her (Vermeulen & Slijper, 2003).

Multiculturalism is about the delicate balance between recognisingdifferences and developing communalities, between differential treatmentand equality, between group identities and individual liberties. There aredifferent kinds of diversity and different forms of multiculturalism that try toaccommodate cultural differences. Some differences are relatively easy toaccept and to recognise, but others go against moral convictions andbasic premises of society. There are limits to pluralism and moral diversity,as there are limits to tolerance and what is acceptable. The debate onthe way to manage cultural diversity continues, and I have tried to showthat social psychologists can and should make a contribution to thesedebates.

REFERENCES

Abelson, R. P., Dasgupta, N., Park, J., & Banaji, M. R. (1998). Perceptions of the collective

other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 243 – 250.

Alba, R. D., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration.

International Migration Review, 31, 826 – 874.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientations and prejudice. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432 – 443.

Arends-Toth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2000). Multiculturalisme: Spanning tussen ideaal en

werkelijkheid. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychology, 55, 159 – 168.

Arends-Toth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of

Dutch and Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 249 – 266.

Argyle, M., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). The social psychology of religion. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Augoustinos, M., & Quinn, C. (2003). Social categorisation and attitudinal evaluations: Illegal

immigrants, refugees or asylum seekers? New Review of Social Psychology, 2, 29 – 37.

Augoustinos, M., & Walker, I. (1995). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London:

Sage.

Barker, M. (1981). The new racism. London: Junction Books.

Barry, B. (2001) Culture and equality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Baubock, R., Heller, A., & Zolberg, A. R. (Eds.). (1996). The challenge of diversity: Integration

and pluralism in societies of immigration. European Center Vienna: Avebury.

Berry, J. (1984). Multicultural policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis. Canadian

Journal of Behavioral Science, 16, 353 – 370.

Berry, J., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the

1991 national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 301 – 320.

178 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Bissoondath, N. (1994). Selling illusions: The cult of multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto,

Canada: Penguin.

Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1,

3 – 7.

Bobo, L. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach

to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445 – 472.

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive

discrimination among African Americans: Implication for group identification and well-

being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135 – 149.

Breugelmans, S. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Antecedents and components of majority

attitudes toward multiculturalism in the Netherlands. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 53, 400 – 422.

Brewer, M. B. (1997). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Can research inform

practice. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 197 – 211.

Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict: When does ingroup

love becomes outgroup hate? In R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, &D.Wilder (Eds.), Social identity,

intergroup conflict and conflict reduction (pp. 17 – 41). New York: Oxford University Press.

Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brug, P., & Verkuyten, M. (in press). Society models for cultural diversity: Attitudes among

ethnic minority and majority youth in the Netherlands. Youth and Society.

Burnet, J. (1995). Multiculturalism and racism in Canada. In J. Hjarno (Ed.), Multiculturalism

in the Nordic societies (pp. 43 – 50). Copenhagen, Denmark: TemaNord.

Citrin, J., Sears, D. O., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (2001). Multiculturalism in American public

opinion. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 247 – 275.

Crisp, R. J., Stone, C. H., & Hall, N. R. (2006). Recategorisation and subgroup identification:

Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 32, 230 – 243.

Deaux, K., & Martin, D. (2003). Interpersonal networks and social categories: Specifying levels

of context in identity processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 101 – 117.

Deaux, K., Reid, A., Martin, D., & Bikmen, N. (2006). Ideologies of diversity and inequality:

Predicting collective action in groups varying in ethnicity and immigrant status. Political

Psychology, 27, 123 – 146.

Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton

trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1139 – 1150.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Historical

trends and contemporary approaches. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice,

discrimination, and racism (pp 1 – 34). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2001). The impact of relative group status: Affective, perceptual

and behavioral consequences. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of

social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 324 – 343). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of

Psychology, 53, 161 – 186.

Entzinger, H. (2003). The rise and fall of multiculturalism: The case of the Netherlands. In C.

Joppke & E. Morawska (Eds.), Toward assimilation and citizenship: Immigrants in liberal

nation states (pp. 59 – 86). London: Palgrave.

Evans, G., & Need, A. (2002). Explaining ethnic polarization over attitudes towards minority

rights in Eastern Europe: A multilevel analysis. Social Science Research, 31, 653 – 680.

Fowers, B. J., & Richardson, F. C. (1996). Why is multiculturalism good? American

Psychologist, 51, 609 – 621.

Gijsberts, M. (2005). Opvattingen van autochtonen en allochtonen over de multi-etnische

samenleving. In Jaarrapport integratie 2005. The Hague: SCP/WODC/CBS.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Ginges, J., & Cairns, D. (2000). Social representations of multiculturalism: A faceted analysis.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1345 – 1370.

Gitlin, T. (1995). The twilight of common dreams: Why America is wracked by cultural wars.

New York: Henry Holt.

Gutman, A. (Ed.). (1992). Multiculturalism and the ‘‘politics of recognition’’. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not

like other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1 – 36.

Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Psychological essentialism, implicit

theories, and intergroup relations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 63 – 76.

Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113 – 127.

Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with

prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87 – 100.

Ho, R. (1990). Multiculturalism in Australia: A survey of attitudes. Human Relations, 43,

259 – 272.

Hodgson, D. (2002). Introduction: Comparative perspectives on the indigenous rights

movement in Africa and the Americas. American Anthropologist, 104, 1037 – 1049.

Hopkins, N., Reicher, S., & Levine, M. (1997). On the parallels between social cognition and

‘‘new racism’’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 305 – 329.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup

differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242 – 256.

Huntington, S. (2004). Who we are: The challenges to American national identity. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Joppke, C. (2004). The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy. British

Journal of Sociology, 55, 237 – 257.

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the

production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1 – 27.

Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (Eds.). (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives

on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.

Kahani-Hopkins, V., & Hopkins, N. (2002). ‘‘Representing’’ British Muslims: The strategic

dimensions to identity construction. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 288 – 309.

Knight, G. P., Bernal, M. E., Garza, C. A., Cota, M. C., & Ocampa, K. A. (1993). Family

socialization and the ethnic identity of Mexican American children. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 24, 99 – 114.

Kosic, A., Mannetti, L., & Sam, D. L. (2005). The role of majority attitudes towards out-group

in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 29, 273 – 288.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Lambert, W. E., & Taylor, D. M. (1990). Coping with cultural and racial diversity in urban

America. New York: Praeger.

Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and

religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25, 31 – 48.

Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing

ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19,

373 – 404.

Levy, S. R., Chin, C., & Hong, Y. (2006). Lay theories and intergroup relations. Group

Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 5 – 24.

Levy, S. R., West, T. L., & Ramirez, L. (2005). Lay theories and intergroup relations: A social-

developmental perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 189 – 220.

180 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Lorenzo-Hernandez, J., & Ouellette, S. C. (1998). Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and values in

Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, and African Americans. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

28, 2007 – 2024.

Lynn, N., & Lea, S. (2003). ‘‘A phantom menace and the new apartheid’’: The social

construction of asylum-seekers in the United Kingdom. Discourse and Society, 14, 425 – 452.

Martinez, R. O., & Dukes, R. L. (1997). The effects of ethnic identity, ethnicity, and gender on

adolescent well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 503 – 516.

McGarty, C., Haslam, S. A., Hutchinson, K. J., & Grace, D. M. (1995). Determinants of

perceived consistency: The relationship between group entativity and the meaningfulness of

categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 237 – 256.

Morin, F., & Saladin d’Anglure, B. (1997). Ethnicity as a political tool for indigenous peoples.

In C. Govers & H. Vermeulen (Eds.), The politics of ethnic consciousness (pp. 157 – 193).

London: Macmillan.

Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici

(Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3 – 69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup

relations: Reactions to intergroup differences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3,

158 – 174.

Negy, C., Shreve, T. L., Jensen, B. J., & Uddin, N. (2003). Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and

ethnocentrism: A study of social identity versus multicultural theory of development.

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 333 – 344.

Oakes, P. J. S., Haslam, A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, UK:

Blackwell.

Ogbu, J. (1993). Differences in cultural frame of reference. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 16, 483 – 506.

Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. London:

MacMillan.

Pels, D. (2003). De geest van Pim: Het gedachtegoed van een politieke dandy [The influence of

Pim: The ideology of a political dandy]. Amsterdam: Anthos.

Pennings, P., & Keman, H. (2003). The Dutch parliamentary elections in 2002 and 2003: The

rise and decline of the Fortuyn movement. Acta Politica, 38, 51 – 68.

Pettifer, J. (1998). The Turkish labyrinth. London: Penguin Books.

Phalet, K., Van Lotringen, C., & Entzinger, H. (2000). Islam in de multiculturele samenleving:

Opvattingen van jongeren in Rotterdam [Islam in the multicultural society: Attitudes of youth

in Rotterdam]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Ercomer.

Pionkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzalek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation

attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 24, 1 – 26.

Pratto, F., & Lemieux, A. F. (2001). The psychological ambiguity of immigration and its

implications for promoting immigration policy. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 413 – 430.

Reicher, S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political

Psychology, 25, 921 – 945.

Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation: Categorisation, contestation and mobilization.

London: Sage.

Rex, J., & Singh, G. (Eds.). (2004). Governance in multicultural societies. Aldershot, UK:

Ashgate.

Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-

blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417 – 423.

Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social

dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology,

25, 823 – 844.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Sampson, E. E. (1993). Identity politics: Challenges to psychology’s understanding. American

Psychologist, 48, 1219 – 1230.

Scheepers, P., Gijsberts, M., & Coenders, M. (2002). Ethnic exclusionism in European

countries: Public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived

ethnic threat. European Sociological Review, 18, 17 – 34.

Schlesinger, A. M. Jr. (1992). The disuniting of America. New York: Norton.

Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). Meaning and consequences of perceived

discrimination in advantaged and privileged social groups. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone

(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 167 – 199). London: Wiley.

Schnabel, P. (2000). De multiculturele illusie: Een pleidooi voor aanpassing en assimilation [The

multicultural illusion: A plea for adaptation and assimilation]. Utrecht, The Netherlands:

Forum.

Scroggins, D. (2005). The Dutch –Muslim cultural war. The Nation, 27 June, 21 – 25.

Seul, J. R. (1999). ‘‘Ours is the way of God’’: Religion, identity, and intergroup conflict. Journal

of Peace Research, 36, 553 – 569.

Shelton, J. N. (2000). A reconceptualization of how we study issues of racial prejudice.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 374 – 390.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and

oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Simon, B. (2004). Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. Oxford, UK:

Blackwell.

Simon, B., Aufderheide, B., & Kampmeier, C. (2001). The social psychology of minority –

majority relations. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social

psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 303 – 323). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Sinclair, S., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (1998). The interface between ethnic and social system

attachment: The differential effects of hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating

environments. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 741 – 757.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),

Differentiation between groups (pp. 27 – 60). London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. (1981). The social psychology of minorities. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Human groups and

social categories: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 309 – 343).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &

S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33 – 47). Monterey, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism:

Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25 – 73). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Thornton, M. C., Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., & Allen, W. R. (1990). Sociodemographic and

environmental correlates of racial socialization by Black parents. Child Development, 61,

401 – 409.

Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorisation

theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context,

commitment, content (pp. 6 – 34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering

the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup

relations: Theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell

handbook in social psychology: Vol. 4. Intergroup processes (pp. 133 – 152). Oxford, UK:

Blackwell.

United Nations Development Programme (2004). Human development report 2004: Cultural

liberty in today’s diverse world. New York: United Nations.

182 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Van der Burg, W. (2003). How the LPF fuelled discontent: Empirical tests of explanations of

LPF support. Acta Politica, 38, 89 – 106.

Van Knippenberg, A. (1989). Strategies of identity management. In J. P. Van Oudenhoven &

T. Willemsen (Eds.), Ethnic minorities: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 59 – 76).

Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority

members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28,

995 – 1013.

Van Praag, P. (2003). The winners and losers in a turbulent political year. Acta Politica, 38,

2 – 22.

Verdery, K. (1994). Ethnicity, nationalism, and state-making. In H. Vermeulen & C. Govers

(Eds.), The anthropology of ethnicity: Beyond ‘‘Ethnic Groups and Boundaries’’ (pp. 33 – 58).

Amsterdam: Spinhuis.

Verkuyten, M. (1997). ‘‘Redelijk racism’’: Gesprekken over allochtonen in oude stadswijken.

[‘‘Reasonable racism’’: Talking about ethnic minorities in the inner city]. Amsterdam:

Amsterdam University Press.

Verkuyten, M. (2003). Discourses about ethnic group (de-)essentialism: Oppressive and

progressive aspects. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 371 – 391.

Verkuyten, M. (2004). Everyday ways of thinking about multiculturalism. Ethnicities, 4, 53 – 74.

Verkuyten, M. (2005a). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and

majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88, 121 – 138.

Verkuyten, M. (2005b). The social psychology of ethnic identity. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Verkuyten, M. (2005c). Immigration discourses and their impact on multiculturalism: A

discursive and experimental study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 223 – 241.

Verkuyten, M. (2006). The self-esteem argument for multiculturalism: An examination among

ethnic minority and majority groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Verkuyten, M. (in press-a). Multiculturalism and group evaluations among minority and

majority groups. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup relations: An integrative

developmental and social psychological perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Verkuyten, M. (in press-b). Religious group identification and inter-religious relations: A study

among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.

Verkuyten, M., & Brug, P. (2004). Multiculturalism and group status: The role of ethnic

identification, group essentialism and protestant ethic. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 34, 647 – 661.

Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2006). Understanding multicultural attitudes: The role of

group status, identification, friendships, and justifying ideologies. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 30, 1 – 18.

Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). Multiculturalism among minority and majority adolescents in

the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 91 – 108.

Verkuyten, M., & Yildiz, A. A. (2006). The endorsement of minority rights: The role of group

position, national context, and ideological beliefs. Political Psychology, 27, 527 – 548.

Verkuyten, M., & Zaremba, K. (2005). Interethnic relations in a changing political context.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 375 – 386.

Vermeulen, H., & Slijper, B. (2003). Multiculturalisme in Canada, Australie en de Verenigde

Staten: Ideologie en beleid, 1950 – 2000 [Multiculturalism in Canada, Australia and the United

States: Ideology and policy, 1950 – 2000]. Amsterdam: Aksant.

Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology:

Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgements of groups and

individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 635 – 654.

Wrong, D. H. (1997). Cultural relativism as ideology. Critical Review, 11, 291 – 300.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Yzerbyt, V., Castano, E., Leyens, J-P., & Paladino, M-P. (2000). The primacy of the ingroup:

The interplay of entativity and identification. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.),

European review of social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 257 – 295). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism

and entativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5,

141 – 155.

Zick, A., Wagner, U., van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001). Acculturation and prejudice in

Germany: Majority and minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 541 – 557.

Zolberg, A. R., & Long, L. W. (1999). Why Islam is like Spanish: Cultural incorporation in

Europe and the United States. Politics and Society, 27, 5 – 38.

184 VERKUYTEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Stan

ford

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

53 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: A social identity perspective

Documents

Transcript of Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: A social identity perspective