100% Exams Flashcards
Score 100
Professor Rita Guerra
Intercultural contact and the dynamics of acculturation
Topics
- Intergroup contact
- Acculturation theory and Mutuality in acculturation
- Intergroup factors and acculturation
Intergroup contact
Intro;
Predjudice through contact (Allport, 1954, p. 281)
“Prejudice (…) may be reduced by;
- equal status contact between majority and minority groups on the pursuit of common goals. 2. contact is sanctioned by institutional support( effect greatly enhanced
- it is of a sort that leads to the perception of common interests &
- common humanity between the members of the two groups”
Effects of Contact
Contact between different cultural groups has positive
effects, provided certain conditions
effects
(SIIE) 4 conditions for positive effect of contact
Equal status in the contact situation
Shared goals
Intergroup cooperation (interdependence )
Institutional / authorities support
Types of Contact
Quantity : frequency of interaction (how often we meet, talk, shop, socialize with)
Quality: nature of interaction (how positive, negative, friendly, …)
contact definition
contact theory how
contact theory meaning
+ “meaningful” contact – prejudice
stronger when conditions are met
contact theory how
- Anxiety + knowledge - Threat + empathy, Changes group norms , Changes social categorization
contact theory how
Perceived inclusive norms + cross group friendships Classroom norms promoting tolerance & respect: children \+ positive attitudes ( Thijs, et al., 2014)
contact theory how
Changes social categorization:
from Us vs Them to inclusive WE
(Gaertner, Dovidio, Guerra, Hehman, & Saguy, 2016)
Contact Theory: whom /Status asymmetry
contact works better for;
1. majorities/high status groups
than for minorities
Contact Theory: when/ Typicality
less effective when
outgroup members seen as very
atypical of their group
(Binder et al., 2009; for a review see Brown & Hewstone, 2005
Contact Theory: when/Positive–Negative Asymmetry: -
contact increases prejudice / avoidance more so
than positive reduces it.
+ encounters more frequent than -
encounters
Contact Theory: when/Positive–Negative Asymmetry: -
Anger & anxiety: key factors explaining negative contact effects - contact: mobilized LGBT students for collective action vs + contact mobilized heterosexual students
Forms of Contact
“measures or interventions based on the principles of intergroup contact (Allport, 1954), but which do not involve a face-to-face intergroup interaction.” Segregated settings, scarce opportunities for contact Intractable conflicts
Extended contact
knowing that ingroup members have outgroup friend: + attitudes and
willingness to engage in contact
Sub type: Vicarious contact “direct
observation of a positive interaction
between ingroup and outgroup
members, …. acquire new responses,
or modify the existing ones”
Imagined Contact
“the mental simulation of a social interaction with an outgroup member”: + positive interactions, +
comfortable, - anxiety; + self-efficacy ”.
Imagined Contact
Imagining contact with Gypsy people, or
Japanese people: - dehumanization, +
support for human rights, + positive
behavioral intentions
E-Contact
“computer mediated contact involving an engagement of self in the intergroup relationship”
(White and Abu-Rayya, 2012(p. 598).
Synchronous/real time text-based interaction mediated by online technology.
a bridge between distal,
indirect forms of intergroup contact and direct, FtF intergroup contact
“Dual-Identity, Electronic-Contact” (DIEC):
Muslim & Christian students (religiously segregated schools), interacted text-only
chat forum, 8 weeks.
Worked together: how aspects of their religious beliefs/practices could help
create an environmentally sustainable Australia: - intergroup bias, - anxiety,
after 12 months
White et al.’s (2014)
Indirect Contact – limitations ?
EC
authority figure shared group membership emphasized little opportunity for direct contact repeated sessions / variety of contexts IC positive interaction not confirm negative stereotypes group membership salient elaborate / more vivid scrip
chicago definitin
acculturation is to be distinguished from culture change, of which it is
but one aspect, and assimilation, which is at times a phase of acculturation
phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with
subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups…
Berry, 2005
“The dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members.
At the group level, it
involves changes in social structures and institutions and in cultural practices.
At the individual level, it involves changes in a
person’s behavioral repertoire – psychological acculturation”
acculturation stress
The variation in and intensity of this stress rests heavily on the similarities or dissimilarities of the host culture and new entrants. e,g personal xters gender, age, sex education, skills n values langauge psychological spritual strenghts AND the political and social attitudes of the hots culture
Acculturation Defined
socialization: the
adoption of the
behavior patterns of
the surrounding culture
the process of assimilating new ideas into exhisting congnitive structure
Acculturation as assimilation
minorities expected to let go elements of their native culture, and adopt culture of their new country of settlement (Gordon, 1964)
2 measures of acculturation
Unidimensional approach: One-directional
irreversible process on single continuum:
adopting new values, beliefs, norms and bhvr of new pop
parts of the native culture are discarded, elements of
the mainstream culture are adopted
Bidimensional measure
Individuals can successfully develop competency within more than
one culture:
adherence to each of the 2 cultures
how do people acculturate
Two key questions:
- To what extent do people wish to maintain their heritage culture and
identity? - To what extent do people wish to have contact with those who are outside their group and participate with them in the daily life of the
larger society?
Cultural Maintenance / Contact-Participation how?
2 principles
the extend to which an individual/groups value and wish to maintain the xters of their cultural identity
Contact-Participation how?
the extend which an individuals value and seek to contact members outside their own grps and wish to participate in the daiaily life of the larger socitey
relationships sought among grps
intergration
seperation
assimilation
marginaliztion
attidudes of larger society
multiculturalism
melting pot
segration
Predict adaptation outcomes minority group members:
acculturative stress,
mental & physical health, wellbeing.
Best outcomes obtained with Integration,
worst outcomes with Marginalization,
Separation & Assimilation yielding
outcomes of intermediate favorability
acculturation in terms of values
VS acculturation in terms of culture
i.e., concern what is desirable,
identification with one’s own and other
cultural groups – biculturalism (Huynh, Nguyen, &
Benet-Martinez, 2011),
terms of culture
culture maintenance taps people’s
attitudes toward certain cultural
practices of their group
acculturation in terms of values
While contact taps intentions to
interact & form relationships with
members of the outgroup
(Ward & Kennedy, 1994, Bourhis et al., 1997)
Replace contact dimension:
measuring how much ethnic minority members
value culture adoption of dominant
ground
when is integration preferred
when defined in
terms of contact than in terms of culture
adoption
Berry’s model
- focused on immigrant perspective only
- Contact vs Culture Adoption
- i
Berry’s model
.ignores context and intergroup relations dynamics between migrant groups and receiving society (next
class)
.No “best” strategy (later today)
• acculturation strategy as a “choice”
53
Interactive Acculturation Model
Bourhis et al., 1997
proposes that relational outcomes are the product of the acculturation orientations of both the host majority and immigrant groups as influenced by state integration policies.
IAM Interactive Acculturation Model
harmonious/consensual, problematic, and conflictual relational outcomes between immigrants and members of the host community . likely to occur
CAM Concordance Acculturation Model
Harmonious: concordance positive &effective communication, positive intergroup attitudes, low stress, low discrimination.
CMA Concordance Acculturation Model
Harmonious: concordance positive &effective communication, positive intergroup attitudes, low stress, low discrimination.
CMA Concordance Types
Harmonious:
positive &effective communication, positive intergroup attitudes, low stress, low discrimination.
Problematic/Conflictual/ partial concordance
- communication; - stereotypes; discriminatory behaviors, acculturative stress
