Attachment Styles

Attaching Cultures

The role of attachment styles in explaining majority

members’ acculturation attitudes

© 2009 Jacomijn Hofstra

This research was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO/ 014-21-500; PBB 9809).

Cover Design: Onno Hofstra

Layout: Lidewij Niezink

Printing: Offsetdrukkerij Ridderprint B.V., Ridderkerk

RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN

ATTACHING CULTURES The role of attachment styles in explaining majority members’

acculturation attitudes

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen

aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de

Rector Magnificus, dr. F. Zwarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen op

donderdag 2 juli 2009 om 14.45 uur

door

Jacomijntje Hofstra geboren op 21 april 1980

te Heerenveen

Promotores: Prof. dr. J.P.L.M. van Oudenhoven Prof. dr. K.I. van Oudenhoven- van der Zee

Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. dr. R. Goodwin Prof. dr. B. de Raad Prof. dr. A.J.R. van de Vijver

ISBN: 978-90-367-3864-4

Contents

Contents Chapter 1 General Introduction 7 Chapter 2 Development of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire 17 Chapter 3 Attachment Styles and Majority Members’ Attitudes

towards Acculturation Strategies of Immigrants: A Longitudinal Study

45

Chapter 4 Attachment Styles and Acculturation Attitudes of

Adolescent and Adult Majority Members 57

Chapter 5 Majority Members’ Attachment Styles, Personality

Traits and Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants

75

Chapter 6 General Discussion 103 References 115 Appendices 131 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) 141 Dankwoord (Acknowledgements) 147

CHAPTER 1

General Introduction

When I was about 15 years old, I had a heated discussion with friends about immigrants and asylum seekers. One friend was -in my eyes- remarkably negative about people with a different cultural background. She said for instance that the Netherlands were too lenient towards immigrants: immigrants should be forced to give up their heritage culture in order to be permitted to stay in the Netherlands. Besides, she argued that the Netherlands were much too helpful to asylum seekers: they had more luxurious rooms in the asylum seekers’ centres than the average Dutch in their homes. I was very disappointed in her and reacted furiously, also because I had friends with a non-Dutch background, and held a long speech about why I absolutely did not agree with her. After my plea, another friend suggested that I should become a lawyer. That did not happen, I became a social psychologist, but my passion for the subject never decreased. Watching television, reading the newspaper or talking to others, I often wondered why some people think positively about cultural diversity and others negatively. So, when I got the chance to study the (correlates of) attitudes of Dutch majority members towards people with different cultural backgrounds, I seized this opportunity with both hands. With my research, I hope to contribute to better relations between majority and minority members in the Netherlands.

In the following sections, I give some background information about immigrants in the Netherlands, and I describe my research questions and the theories I used in my research.

Immigrants in the Netherlands

The number of immigrants in the world has increased substantially in the last few decades. According to the United Nations, in 1960 75 million people lived outside their country of birth. This number has increased to 191 million people in 2005 (United Nations, 2006). Also in the Netherlands, the number of immigrants is higher than ever before. Currently, 3.2 million immigrants (that is: people who were born outside the Netherlands, or of whom at least one of the parents was born in another country) live in

8 Chapter 1

the Netherlands, which is 19.7% of the total Dutch population (Statistics Netherlands, 2008a).

In the last 60 years, three important immigration waves have contributed to this high number of immigrants, and momentarily a new wave of immigrants is being formed. The first wave consisted of immigrants from the former Dutch colonies of Indonesia and Surinam (between 1945-1980) who came to the Netherlands after their countries became independent. Next, on the initiative of the Dutch government, in the 50’s and 60’s many immigrants from Mediterranean countries, such as Spain, Greece, Italy, Turkey and Morocco came to the Netherlands as ‘guest workers’, as there was a shortage of low-skilled laborers in the industrial sector. In contrast to what was expected, especially guest workers from Turkey and Morocco did not leave the country after a few years of work, but they stayed and their families from their home country came over to live with them. The third wave (from the mid 80’s onwards) was formed by refugees and asylum seekers from countries that are or were politically unstable, such as former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan. Finally, in the last couple of years, a fourth immigration wave is being formed. Since several eastern European countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary joined the European Union in 2004 and 2007, many immigrants from these countries come to the Netherlands to find a job. The number of these immigrants continues to increase.

As a consequence of these immigration streams, Dutch society faces the task to incorporate different cultural groups in society. This is not an easy task, as is proven by the tensions that exist in the Netherlands between various cultural groups. In Dutch media and politics, nowadays the adaptation of immigrants to Dutch society is subject of heated debates.

Research Questions

The present dissertation focuses on the perspective of Dutch majority members (native host society members) on immigrants’ acculturation. More precisely, I studied the attitude of Dutch majority members towards the acculturation of immigrants to the Dutch society. Secondly, the influence of an important individual variable, attachment style, on these acculturation attitudes of majority members is examined. Is there a link between our general style of relating to other people and the attitudes we have towards acculturation strategies of immigrants? Knowledge about relations between attachment styles and the acculturation attitudes of Dutch majority members, can contribute to the improvement of the relations between host society members and immigrants. As

General Introduction 9

attachment styles can be influenced by for instance parents, they might provide the basis for interventions aimed at improving intercultural contacts.

Acculturation

As the Netherlands become increasingly multi-cultural, the cultural context of Dutch society is changing for immigrants as well as for majority members. The process that individuals undergo in response to a changing cultural context is known in the literature as acculturation. The anthropologists Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936) were the first to describe this process, and they stated that acculturation comprises of “those 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” (p.149). Later, Graves (1967) coined the term psychological acculturation which refers to changes experienced by an individual whose cultural group is collectively experiencing acculturation.

Over the years, several models which describe the acculturation process have been developed. Although acculturation is a process of mutual influence between two cultural groups, the first acculturation models focused primarily on the acculturation experience of immigrants, as their culture was assumed to change the most (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). Of these models, Berry’s model (e.g., Berry, 1990; Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989) of psychological acculturation of immigrants is the most widely used model. Thus far, acculturation models presumed that immigrants move along a continuum over time with cultural maintenance and adoption of the host culture as opposite ends of the dimension. So, these models argued that immigrants progressively let go of their original culture as they adapt to the host culture (e.g., Gordon, 1964).

Berry, however, regarded cultural maintenance and adoption of the host culture as two separate and independent attitudinal dimensions. This implies that one can very well adapt to the host culture and at the same time maintain one’s original culture. This bi-dimensionality of Berry’s model and its convenient arrangement of the acculturation strategies described along the two dimensions, made that many researchers used this model of acculturation in their studies. Below, the model is described in more detail.

According to Berry (e.g., 1997), immigrants have to deal with two issues in their daily encounters with majority members in the host society. On the one hand, immigrants have to decide whether or not it is valuable to maintain their traditional culture. On the other hand, immigrants have to decide whether or not it is valuable to have positive relations with the larger society. Combinations of reactions to the two issues yield the

10 Chapter 1

following four acculturation attitudes, later called strategies (Berry, 1997) (see Figure 1.1): integration (both maintenance of original culture and positive relations with the host culture are important to the immigrant); assimilation (only positive relations with the host society are of value); separation (only maintenance of the heritage culture is seen as important); and marginalization (neither positive relations with the host society nor maintenance of heritage culture is important). Berry notes that these strategies are not discrete and static: immigrants may switch from one strategy to another.

Figure 1.1

Classification of Acculturation Strategies (e.g., Berry, 1997).

Is it considered to be of value to maintain one’s

identity and characteristics?

Yes No

Yes Integration

Assimilation Is it considered to be of value to

maintain relationships with the

larger society? No Separation Marginalization

For a long time, Berry’s model has dominated the field of acculturation research.

However, the model has met some criticism such as the emphasis on immigrants’ acculturation orientations. Researchers came to recognize that the acculturation orientations of the majority members, partly influence the use of certain acculturation strategies by immigrants (e.g., Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998). For instance, one can easily imagine that immigrants who perceive negative attitudes of majority members towards contact with them, may not want to participate in the society and consequently choose for separation. Although Berry did acknowledge this influence of majority members’ acculturation orientations, his research primarily focused on immigrants. A model based on Berry’s model that clearly takes the acculturation orientations of both immigrants and majority members into account is the Interactive Acculturation Model of Bourhis et al. (1997). This model describes how different combinations of the preferred acculturation strategies by both groups can result in either consensual, problematic or conflictual relational outcomes. In the present dissertation I only focused on the attitudes of majority members towards acculturation strategies of immigrants. As Berry’s model does acknowledge the


influence of majority members’ acculturation orientations and has been used in other research on majority members’ orientations (e.g. Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998), I decided to use Berry’s acculturation model in the present dissertation.

Besides examining how majority members value the different strategies, it is important to know what factors influence these acculturation attitudes. This knowledge can be used for developing interventions aimed at improving the relations between host majority members and immigrants. Through the years, acculturation attitudes of majority members have been related to various factors, such as cultural distance, perceived threat, and intergroup anxiety (e.g., Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzálek, 2000; Rohmann, Florack, & Piontkowski, 2006; Ward & Masgoret, 2006). Yet, the influence of personality factors on acculturation attitudes of majority members has hardly been studied up to now (see Bakker, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee, 2004, for application of attachment theory to the acculturation of immigrants). In the present dissertation, I introduce attachment styles as a relevant individual difference factor to the field of acculturation research. In the following section, attachment theory and its link with acculturation attitudes are discussed.

Attachment

John Bowlby is the pioneer of attachment theory, which he published in the trilogy “Attachment and Loss” (1969/1982; 1973; 1980). His work on attachment started roughly six decades ago, as he wondered why the mother is so important to the child in the first few years of life. His studies eventually led to his pioneering assumption that the strong bond between the child and its mother has its roots in evolution theory. Because the attachment bond makes the child seek proximity to the caregiver in order to get protection in times of stress, the child has a heightened chance of survival.

Based on the reactions of the caregiver to proximity seeking behavior of the child, three attachment styles were distinguished in early attachment research (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). A secure attachment style is developed when children perceive their caregiver as available and responsive. In contrast, children develop an ambivalent or avoidant style when they perceive their caregiver as either inconsistently responsive or unavailable and not responsive. These mental representations of the relationships with the caregivers are also called internal working models of relations.

Bowlby has identified two key aspects of these internal working models. Firstly, model of self, that is the self is seen as worthy of love and support or not; and secondly model of others, that is others are seen as trustworthy or not. These working models are believed

12 Chapter 1

to function as a framework to interpret experiences with others, thereby affecting later relationships. For instance, individuals with a secure working model of relations seek and expect encouraging and satisfying experiences with old and new social partners. Because of these expectations, they behave in a positive and open way which elicits these satisfying experiences. Consequently, these individuals will continue to be securely attached. This continuing effect of attachment styles on relationships, made attachment researchers to extend their studies to adults. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) for instance, developed a theoretical model of attachment which has proven to be applicable to adults (Feeney, 2002; Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994). They distinguished four attachment styles based on the two dimensions, model of self and model of others (see Figure 1.2) already put forward by Bowlby. I will further refer to the latter dimension as trust in others.

Figure 1.2

Bartholomew and Horowitz’ (1991) Theoretical Model of Attachment Styles.

Model of Self

Positive Negative

Positive Secure

Preoccupied

Model of Others /

Trust in Others Negative Dismissing

Fearful

A securely attached person has a positive image of the self and trusts others. Social

interactions are faced with confidence. In contrast, a fearfully attached person has a negative image of the self and distrusts others. Fearfully attached people avoid personal contacts. Dismissingly attached people have a positive image of the self, but they distrust others. These individuals do not have strong needs for social contacts. Finally, a preoccupied attached person has a negative image of the self, but he/she trusts others. Preoccupied people often wonder whether they are interesting or friendly enough to others.

Acculturation Attitudes and Attachment Styles

Why do I relate acculturation attitudes of majority members to their attachment styles? Attachment styles in adulthood have been found to be related to several aspects of


novelty seeking, such as level of curiosity (Johnston, 1999), social exploration, i.e. the desire to meet strangers (Green & Campbell, 2000), and the need for sensation and adventure (Carnelly & Ruscher, 2000). In addition to novelty seeking, research showed that attachment styles are also related to dealing with novelty, as indicated by for instance the reaction to strangers (Roisman, 2006) and the adjustment to new situations, i.e. the emotional and academic adaptation of first-year students to college life (e.g., Lapsley & Edgerton, 2002; Rice, FitzGerald, Whaley, & Gibbs, 1995). For majority members, the acculturation process also implies exploring new cultures, dealing with strangers and adapting to a new situation, that is different cultures. Therefore, we assumed the acculturation attitudes to be associated with attachment styles.

Overview of Chapters

A first aim of the present research project was to map the attitudes of Dutch majority members towards the acculturation of immigrants. A second aim was to examine the role of attachment styles in the acculturation attitudes of majority members. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 address these two objectives, using different measures for acculturation attitudes and different samples. In order to be able to examine the relation between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes, a third goal of the present dissertation was to develop a new instrument to measure attachment styles of adults. In Chapter 2 this instrument is presented. Below, the content of the different chapters is discussed in more detail.

Chapter 2

In Chapter 2, the development process of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ) is described. Previous instruments to measure attachment suffered from low internal consistencies; used only one item to measure attachment style; measured relationship-specific attachment; or categorized respondents into mutually exclusive attachment categories. I aimed to develop a reliable, multiple-item questionnaire which measures non-relationship specific attachment using continuous scales. First, I provide a historical overview of different approaches to the measurement of attachment that serves as the theoretical background for the development of the ASQ. Second, the internal structure, the stability, and the construct validity of the ASQ, which were measured among three groups of respondents with a total of N = 3533, are discussed.

14 Chapter 1

Chapter 3

In Chapter 3, a longitudinal study among Dutch university students on the way acculturation attitudes relate to attachment styles is presented. More precisely, the effect of attachment styles after a period of roughly one year on acculturation attitudes is examined. In order to measure the acculturation attitudes, a questionnaire was used with fictitious statements of immigrants of whom the cultural background was not specified, about their adaptation to the new culture (e.g., “I prefer to be with Dutch people, rather than with people from my own country”). Participants had to indicate whether they thought these statements to be desirable.

Chapter 4

Research on acculturation attitudes has mainly focused on adults and not on adolescents, whereas the latter are in an important phase in life in which attitudes towards and opinions about societal issues are formed. Therefore, Chapter 4 studied the acculturation attitudes of adolescents and compared these with the acculturation attitudes of a more representative sample of adults. The acculturation attitudes towards Surinamese immigrants were examined, as these immigrants form one of the largest immigrant groups in the Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands, 2008b). Different from Chapter 3, a scenario approach was used in this chapter to measure acculturation attitudes. The scenarios were fictitious newspaper articles about an integrating, assimilating, separating or marginalizing Surinamese immigrant. Participants had to read one of the four scenarios and had to give their responses to questions that measured their affective reaction to the scenario.

In addition to the affective reactions to the acculturation strategies, the estimated prevalence of the acculturation strategies used by immigrants was studied among adolescents and adults. This way, preferred acculturation strategies could be compared with perceived acculturation strategies.

Finally, the relations between attachment styles on the one hand and the affective reactions to, and the estimated prevalence of the acculturation strategies on the other hand were studied. Again, these relations were investigated among adults and adolescents.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 again investigated the attitudes of adult majority members (Dutch university students) towards acculturation strategies of immigrants using the scenario


approach as used in Chapter 4. However, in Chapter 5 a Moroccan immigrant was the main character in the scenarios. Just like Surinamers, Moroccans also constitute one of the largest groups of non-western immigrants in the Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands, 2008b). It is interesting to study the attitudes towards this group of immigrants as the Moroccan culture is very different from the Dutch culture, more so than the Surinamese culture. Additionally, Dutch majority members in general have more unfavorable attitudes towards Moroccan immigrants than towards Surinamese immigrants (Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2004).

Furthermore, the relations between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes were again investigated. To further test the relevance of attachment styles in acculturation research, the additional value of attachment styles beyond the Big Five personality traits and intercultural traits in predicting the attitude towards the acculturation strategies ánd the degree of contact majority members have with immigrants, was studied.

Chapter 6

In the final chapter, the results of the studies are summarized and further discussed. Besides, some practical implications are given.

As the chapters are written in such a way that they can be read independently, some overlap, particularly in the introduction sections, was unavoidable. Furthermore, it should be noted that the studies described in the following chapters were conducted in cooperation with several others. So, I use the term ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ when I refer to the researchers.

CHAPTER 2

Development of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire1

More than six decades ago, psychoanalyst John Bowlby started his influential work on the relationship between mother and child, and in particular on the question why the mother is so important to children. This question set the stage for several years of study on the strong tie between mother and child, the so-called attachment bond, which resulted in -amongst others- three books by Bowlby that would become known as the ground work of attachment theory: “Attachment and Loss” (1969/1982, 1973, 1980). During the years since Bowlby published his trilogy, research on attachment has flourished. Attachment has been studied in many fields of psychology, for example physiological, clinical, social, and developmental psychology and has been linked to a wide range of topics. Furthermore, studies on attachment have been conducted among people of every age period of life. In the last few decades, several instruments to measure attachment styles of children and adults have been proposed (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, for an overview). In the present study, we discuss a new instrument to measure attachment styles among adults, the Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ). The ASQ is a multi-item instrument that measures attachment of adults to others in general, based on the two-dimensional framework of Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991). First, attachment theory is presented. Next, a historical overview of different approaches that serves as the theoretical background for the development of the ASQ is provided.

Attachment Theory

Bowlby’s attachment theory states that during the first few years of life, children develop an attachment bond with the caregivers. This attachment bond serves an evolutionary function: it keeps the child close to the caregiver in times of stress which heightens its chance of survival. Bowlby distinguishes three features of the attachment

1 This chapter is partly based on Hofstra, J., & Van Oudenhoven, J.P. (2004). Hechtingsstijlen [Attachment styles]. In A.B. Dijkstra, J. Hofstra, J.P. van Oudenhoven, J.L. Peschar & M. van der Wal, Oud gedaan, jong geleerd? Een studie naar de relaties tussen hechtingsstijlen, competenties, EVLN-intenties en sociale cohesie. Amsterdam: Aksant; and Van Oudenhoven, J.P., Hofstra, J., & Bakker, W. (2003). Ontwikkeling en evaluatie van de Hechtingsstijlvragenlijst (HSL) [Development and evaluation of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ)]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 58, 95-102.

18 Chapter 2

bond with the caregivers (mostly the parents, and in particular the mother) which clearly describe the evolutionary benefits of attachment: proximity maintenance, secure base, and safe haven. With proximity maintenance is meant the child’s need for being close to the caregivers. A secure base is important for the exploration of the environment: the child feels safe enough to discover the world around him. A safe haven refers to knowing that there is someone you can rely on. These characteristics are closely intertwined. When the child is near the caregiver it feels safe enough to explore its environment, because it relies on the caregiver to pay attention to potential threats. In case a threatening situation does arise -for instance a stranger approaches the child- the explorative behaviour of the child stops and the child seeks proximity with the caregiver. In order to get the attention of and consequently the proximity with the caregiver in times of stress, the child shows attachment behaviour such as crying or vocalizing. When sufficient proximity is reached, the attachment behaviour stops.

Over time, the interactions with the caregiver -in particular the reactions of the caregiver to the proximity seeking behaviour of the child- are internalized into mental schemas or internal working models of relations (Bowlby, 1973). These internal working models contain expectations and beliefs about “whether or not the attachment figure is judged to be the sort of person who in general responds to calls for support and protection”; and, “whether or not the self is judged to be the sort of person towards whom anyone, and the attachment figure in particular, is likely to respond in a helpful way” (Bowlby, 1973, p.204). The first refers to a model of others, and the second refers to a model of self.

Bowlby stated that differential internal working models of relations lead to individual differences in attachment. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters and Wall (1978) were the first to study and to describe individual differences in attachment patterns. They distinguished three attachment patterns or styles. A secure attachment style is developed when children perceive their caregiver as available and responsive. In contrast, children develop a resistant/ambivalent or an avoidant style when they perceive their caregiver as either inconsistently responsive or unavailable and not responsive.

According to Bowlby (1973), the internal working models of the self and others and consequently the attachment styles, become increasingly resistant to change. The internal working models developed in childhood continue to guide for instance future relational choices and behaviour towards others, even in totally new contexts and with different people. Therefore, it is meaningful to study attachment styles of adults, and in the last few decades research on adult attachment has indeed flourished. In the present dissertation we used the model of adult attachment of Bartholomew and Horowitz

Development of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire 19

(1991). This model was the first to describe four adult attachment styles, based on the two dimensions model of self (positive versus negative) and model of others (positive versus negative) of the internal working models put forward by Bowlby (1973). The model will shortly be discussed in more detail.

Measurement of Attachment Styles

Through the years, several ways of measuring the concept of attachment have been proposed. The first studies on attachment were conducted by developmental and clinical psychologists and focused on the attachment patterns of infants. Observational methods, such as the Strange Situation of Ainsworth et al. (1978) and the Attachment Q-sort of Waters (1987, 1995) which will be discussed later, were developed to measure these attachment patterns of children to their caregivers. In the mid ‘80s of the past century, attachment research was extended to adults. Two lines of research on adult attachment can be distinguished, which both developed their own attachment instruments. The first line of research stems from developmental and clinical psychology, and focuses on the attachment relationship of adults with their parents. Interview methods, such as the Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1984, 1985, 1996) were developed to measure this type of attachment of adults. The second independent line of research stems from social and personality psychology. Researchers from this research tradition focused on attachment relations of adults outside the child-caregiver dyad. To study attachment relations among large groups of respondents, alternatives to the lengthy and costly interview method were required, and therefore several self-report instruments were developed (e.g., vignettes, Hazan & Shaver, 1987; and the Relationship Questionnaire, Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

In the next sections, we will discuss a few of the first attachment instruments developed in the two lines of attachment research, which formed the basis of later developed self-report instruments.

Observational Methods to measure Infant Attachment

Strange Situation The best-known studies on the classification of the different attachment patterns

among infants are observational studies in the laboratory (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Main & Solomon, 1986). These studies follow the Strange Situation paradigm for studying infant-parent attachment. This paradigm has for a long time dominated the field of attachment

20 Chapter 2

research. The Strange Situation procedure is developed to examine the balance between attachment and exploratory behaviour (secure-base behaviour) under conditions of increasing, though moderate, levels of stress among infants (12 to 20 months old). The following seven episodes -which all last about three minutes-, make up the Strange Situation procedure. First, the parent and child are together in a room; the child explores the new surroundings. Then, a stranger enters the room. The first separation episode follows: the parent leaves the room, and the child is alone with the stranger. Next, the parent returns and the stranger leaves the room, this is the first reunion episode. Subsequently, in the second separation episode the parent leaves the child alone in the room. After a few minutes, the stranger enters the room again. Finally, in the second reunion episode, the parent returns and the stranger leaves.

Trained observers classify the child in a certain attachment category based on the behaviour of the child to the parent in especially the two reunion episodes (see Ainsworth et al., 1978, for a detailed description of the classification procedure). Ainsworth et al. (1978), identified three types of attachment: secure, avoidant, and resistant/ambivalent. Secure children confidently explore the environment when entering the room; they miss the parent during separation and seek contact with and proximity to the parent when reunited. Avoidant children readily explore the environment; show minimal signs of distress when separated from the parent and they actively avoid and seek distance from the parent in the reunion episodes. Lastly, ambivalent children do not engage in exploration behaviour; are very distressed during separation from the parent; are not easily comforted when reunited with the parent and show both proximity seeking and proximity avoiding behaviour. Main and Solomon (1986, 1990) added a fourth attachment category disorganized/disoriented, as almost 15% of the children were not classifiable into the original three categories. The behaviour of disorganized/disoriented children appears to lack intentions or goals; it shows direct indications of fear, confusion and disorientation, such as for instance incomplete or interrupted movement and freezing.

Attachment Q-sort Disadvantages of research with the Strange Situation procedure are that it takes

place in a laboratory setting; it is an intrusive and stressful method for the child; and it is only designed for children between 12 and 20 months. Therefore, Waters (1987, 1995) developed the Attachment Q-sort, a less intrusive observational method to measure the quality of the secure-base behaviour of infants aged between 1 and 5 years in the home environment. The secure-base behaviour is defined as the smooth organization of and proper balance between proximity seeking and exploration. To operationalize this secure-


base behaviour of children, ninety items were developed which describe different types of attachment behaviours (a sample item is: “When child is bored, he goes to mother looking for something to do”). Trained observers or the parents sort the items into one of nine piles, ranging from most descriptive of the observed child, to least descriptive of the observed child. In the end, each pile eventually consists of ten items. Items in the first pile (most descriptive) are assigned a score of 9, items in the second pile receive a score of 8 and so on. Next, the Q-sort of the observed child is compared with a criterion sort (a description of a protypically secure child, developed trough the input of many experts on attachment), usually in the form of a Pearson correlation. So, this correlation reflects the degree of congruence between the individual and the criterion sort.

Interview Method to measure Adult Attachment

The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George, Kaplan, & Main, 1984, 1985, 1996) was originally developed to predict the child’s attachment type from the parents’ state of mind regarding the own attachment history. It was assumed that this state of mind of the parent affected their parenting behaviour and subsequently the attachment patterns of the parents’ children. The AAI is a semi-structured, hour-long protocol and consists of 18 questions which focus on the relationship of adults with their parents during childhood; the current state of mind regarding the influence of the experiences with the parents on the adults’ personality; the current relationship with the parents; and traumatic losses or experiences. The interviews are audio taped and later transcribed verbatim. Trained coders rate the transcript of the interview on various scales, concerning childhood experience (e.g. loving mother, rejecting mother etc.), present state of mind regarding attachment-related experiences (e.g. idealization, lack of memory etc.) and coherence of discourse and collaboration during the interview. Adult attachment classifications are primarily based on the scales coherence of the discourse when speaking about emotion-laden attachment-relevant experiences and collaboration with the interviewer (Hesse, 1999). People are classified as secure/autonomous if they cooperate with the interviewer in coherently speaking about early attachment experiences and if they clearly value attachment relations, regardless of the nature (positive or negative) of that relationship. Dismissing individuals tend to minimize the discussion about attachment-related experiences; they devalue attachment relations and they tend to give a positive impression about the caregiver, but later discussion about experiences with the caregiver contradict this positive image. People are classified as preoccupied if they are incoherent in their stories; tend to maximize the attention to attachment-related issues; and seem to be

22 Chapter 2

enmeshed in earlier attachment relations. Finally, unresolved/disorganized individuals have substantial lapses in their discourse when discussing potentially traumatic events, and have not resolved the feelings associated with these traumatic events. Several studies have shown that the parents’ classification using the AAI was associated with their infants’ attachment classification using the Strange Situation procedure. Parents who were classified as secure, dismissing, preoccupied or unresolved/disorganized tended to have children who respectively showed secure, avoidant, resistant/ambivalent (Ainsworth et al., 1978) and disorganized attachment behaviour (Main & Solomon, 1986, 1990) in the Strange Situation (see e.g. Van IJzendoorn, 1995, for a review).

Self-Report Instruments to measure Adult Attachment

Vignettes The social psychologists Hazan and Shaver (1987) were the first to apply

attachment theory to the study of adult relationships outside the infant-caregiver relationship. They argued that romantic love could be conceptualized as an attachment process (a process of becoming attached), experienced in different ways by different people because of the variations in attachment histories. Hazan and Shaver (1987) developed a single-item measure of attachment by translating Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) description of attachment patterns of children. The measure consists of three type-descriptions, or vignettes, which correspond to the secure, avoidant and anxious/ambivalent types (or: styles, as social psychologists usually call them). After reading the vignettes, respondents have to indicate which of the vignettes describes their feelings in a romantic relationship best. A disadvantage of this forced-choice method of Hazan and Shaver (1987) is that it implies that people can have only one attachment style. The method passes over all sorts of intermediate forms of attachment. To our opinion, it is possible that people can score high on for instance avoidant and anxious/ambivalent attachment, due to the overlapping negative model of others. Besides, the extent to which a certain attachment category characterizes a person cannot be established using this instrument. As a consequence, information about the individual difference variability which exists within each category cannot be obtained.

Furthermore, the determination of the attachment style of a person using only one item is assailable and does not allow to establish the internal reliability of the instrument. Therefore, Levy and Davis (1988) asked their respondents to indicate to what degree the three vignettes by Hazan and Shaver (1987) applied to them. However, also for this


measure the reliability cannot be calculated, as only one item was used per attachment style.

Relationship Questionnaire Bartholomew (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) compared

the three attachment types defined by the Adult Attachment Interview and the vignettes of Hazan and Shaver (1987) and concluded that the two methods differed in their description of the avoidant type (or dismissing type as it is called in the AAI). The dismissing attachment category in the AAI is characterized by the denial of attachment needs and striving for self-sufficiency; the avoidant attachment category of Hazan and Shaver’s measure is characterized by fear of being rejected when others come too close. Bartholomew suggested to distinguish two distinct forms of avoidant attachment: dismissing-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant. So, according to Bartholomew (1990), four attachment styles exist2. Besides, she showed that the four attachment styles can be placed in a two-dimensional scheme, based on Bowlby’s (1973) internal working models of relations (see Figure 2.1).

Combinations of the two dimensions, model of self and model of others result in the following attachment styles. The secure style: people with this style have a positive model of the self and do not doubt others; interactions with others are faced with confidence. The dismissing style: dismissing people are secure about themselves, but they refrain from personal contacts with others. Dismissing people strive for independence of others. The preoccupied style: preoccupied individuals strive for personal contact with others, but they have a negative image of the self. They anxiously seek acceptance and validation from others. The fearful style: people with this style doubt themselves as well as others. They avoid personal contacts out of fear of being hurt or deceived.

2 Main and Solomon (1986, 1990) and George, Kaplan and Main (1984, 1985, 1996) also distinguished four attachment styles: the secure, avoidant or dismissing, resistant/ambivalent or preoccupied, and disorganized style. However, the disorganized style has no match in the self-report instruments.

24 Chapter 2

Figure 2.1

Two-dimensional Model of Adult Attachment (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

Model of Self

Positive Negative

Positive Secure

Preoccupied

Model of Others

Negative Dismissing

Fearful

To measure Bartholomew’s four attachment styles, the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) was developed. This self-report instrument is an adaptation of Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) measure. It consists of four short descriptions of the four attachment styles (see Figure 2.2). Respondents have to indicate on a 7-point scale to which extent each description applies to their feelings and behaviour in close relations, such as relationships with peers. However, this kind of measurement still has the shortcoming that the internal reliability of the scales cannot be determined because of the use of only one item.

Figure 2.2

Descriptions of Attachment Styles as used in the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

Secure Preoccupied

It is relatively easy for me to become

emotionally close to others. I am comfortable

depending on others and having others depend

on me. I don't worry about being alone or

having others not accept me.

I want to be completely emotionally intimate

with others, but I often find that others are

reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am

uncomfortable being without close

relationships, but I sometimes worry that others

don't value me as much as I value them.

Dismissing Fearful

I am comfortable without close emotional

relationships. It is very important to me to feel

independent and self-sufficient and I prefer not

to depend on others or have others depend on

me.

I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to

others. I want emotionally close relationships,

but I find it difficult to trust others completely,

or to depend on them. I sometimes worry that I

will be hurt if I allow myself to become too

close to others.


To overcome the above-mentioned difficulties of categorizing respondents into

mutually exclusive attachment categories (as is the case with the instrument of Hazan and Shaver, 1987) and not being able to calculate the internal reliability of the attachment scales (as is the case with Bartholomew and Horowitz’ instrument), several researchers broke the type descriptions into several phrases that could be scored as items on a Likert-scale. For instance, Simpson (1990) and Collins and Read (1990) developed multiple-item questionnaires based on Hazan and Shaver’s vignettes. A multiple-item questionnaire that is based on the descriptions of the Relationship Questionnaire of Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), is the Relationship Scales Questionnaire of Griffin and Bartholomew (1994). A sample item is: “It is very important to me to feel self-sufficient”.

Attachment Styles Questionnaire

In the present dissertation, we wanted to measure adult attachment to others in general, using multiple items based on Bartholomew and Horowitz’(1991) model. The Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) of Griffin and Bartholomew (1994) would be the obvious instrument to use for that purpose. However, the RSQ suffers from low internal reliability of the scale for secure attachment (α = .41). Therefore, we aimed to develop a new reliable instrument, the Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ), to measure the four adult attachment styles, based on the theoretical model of Bartholomew (1990) and consequently on the RSQ of Griffin and Bartholomew (1994). In the next section, preliminary studies on earlier versions of the ASQ are discussed, followed by a description of the psychometric properties of the latest version of the ASQ.

Earlier Versions of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire

In a preliminary study among 366 psychology students (76% female; mean age 20.57 years) in which a 17-item version of the ASQ was used, Schrier and Van Oudenhoven (2001) found four factors which clearly corresponded with the four attachment styles. The subscales had reasonable to high internal consistencies, ranging from α = .64 for the dismissing scale to α = .80 for the fearful scale. Among a subgroup of the students who filled in the questionnaire for the second time after nine months (n = 133), stability coefficients of r = .55 for the secure style, r = .62 for the fearful style, r = .70 for the dismissing style, and r = .73 for the preoccupied style were found. As expected, the secure and to a lesser extent the dismissing style were positively related to

26 Chapter 2

an indicator of model of self, self-esteem, whereas the preoccupied and fearful style were negatively related to this indicator.

In a second study among three groups of students and a group of Dutch emigrants, slightly adjusted versions of the ASQ, consisting of 24 or 26 items were tested (Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003). Of the three groups of students (N= 790) almost 75% was female. The mean age was 21 years. Among the group of Dutch emigrants (N = 1011) 44% was female. The mean age was 61 years. The majority of the emigrants migrated to Canada, the United States of America, and Australia. The results of this study showed comparable internal consistencies (α’ s ranging from .62 to .85), stability coefficients (which were measured among one of the groups of students; Pearson’s correlations between .56 and .69) and pattern of relations between the attachment scales and self-esteem.

Latest Version of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire

In the present chapter we further developed the ASQ. We added nine new items to the previous 26-item version of the ASQ, so we started with an initial pool of 35 items. Eventually, we chose 24 items based on the results of a factor analysis (see Table 2.1). In order to be selected for the final version of the ASQ, the items had to meet three criteria. First, the items had to have a high loading (> .45) on the corresponding factor. Second, the items had to contribute to the internal reliability of the corresponding scale. Third, the items had to have face validity, that is the content of the items had to reflect the attachment style which they aimed to measure.

Next, we discuss the psychometric qualities of this latest version of the ASQ, that is the internal structure (factor structure and reliability), the stability, and the convergent construct validity (the relation between the attachment styles and some important constructs). With respect to the construct validity, we first studied the relations between the attachment styles and indicators of model of self. Based on Bartholomew and Horowitz’ (1991) model of attachment styles (see Figure 2.1) one can expect a positive relationship between the secure and dismissing style on the hand, and indicators of model of self on the other; and a negative relation between fearful and preoccupied attachment and indicators of model of self. Second, the relations between the attachment styles and indicators of model of others were examined. According to the model of Bartholomew and Horowitz, a positive relation between the secure and preoccupied style and indicators of model of others can be expected. The fearful and dismissing style are expected to be negatively related to indicators of model of others.


Furthermore, we studied the relations between the attachment scales of the ASQ with the scales of an other attachment measure, the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). The RQ consists of four short paragraphs, each describing one of the four attachment styles (see Figure 2). After reading the descriptions, the respondents are asked to indicate to what extent the description fits their feelings in close relations. The construct validity of the ASQ is satisfactory when the attachment scales assessed by the ASQ correlate highest with the corresponding descriptions of the RQ.

In addition to relations with indicators of model of self and model of others and the RQ, we expected relations between the attachment styles and indicators of social competencies, ways of dealing with frustrating situations (or Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect intentions [EVLN]; Hirschman, 1970; Farrell & Rusbult, 1992). Like attachment styles, these EVLN-intentions can roughly be described along the dimensions model of self or orientation towards the self and model of others or orientation towards others. People using exit when having a problem with someone, only take their own interests into account; people using voice take the interests of both parties into account; people using loyalty primarily focus on the interests of the other party; and people using neglect neither consider the own interests nor the interests of the other party. As attachment styles form the basis for effective social competencies (Waters & Sroufe, 1983), one might expect a connection between attachment styles and the reactions to frustrating situations.

For instance, a positive relation between secure attachment and the intention to use voice in a frustrating situation is expected. In the literature, voice is defined as an active and constructive reaction to conflicting interests and values in interpersonal relationships (e.g. Farrell & Rusbult, 1992; Rusbult, Zembrodt, & Gunn, 1982). It is an active reaction because an individual using voice is doing something about the relationship; it is a constructive reaction because it is intended to maintain or revive the relationship. Individuals who react with voice in frustrating situations try to solve the problem by taking the interests of both themselves and the other party into account. Secure attachment is also considered as a constructive way of relating to others, as it is characterized by a positive image of the self and of others. Interactions with others are faced with confidence. Therefore, it is plausible that the secure attachment style is positively related to voice. In addition, we expect negative relations between the secure attachment style and the less constructive and more passive ways of dealing with frustrating situations (exit, loyalty, and neglect).

In contrast, we expect the insecure styles to be negatively related to the intention to use voice, and positively to the intention to use exit, loyalty and neglect in frustrating

28 Chapter 2

situations. For instance, as the fearful attachment style is characterized by a negative image of the self and a negative image of others, one might expect that people scoring high on fearful attachment have the intention to choose neglect as this intention is characterized by not standing up for the own interests nor for the interests of others in conflicting situations.

As a final way to determine the construct validity of the ASQ, we explored the relations between attachment styles and the Big Five personality traits. The Big Five model is a well known empirically-based framework describing major individual differences in personality (see e.g. Digman, 1990; John, 1990; Goldberg, 1993). This model distinguishes five robust personality traits which are believed to form the basic structure of personality. Extraversion refers to the tendency to be outgoing, assertive and active; agreeableness refers to the tendency to be kind, trusting and trustworthy; conscientiousness refers to the tendency of being organized, dependable, perseverant and achievement-oriented; emotional stability refers to the tendency to remain calm in stressful situations. Intellect refers to the tendency to be creative, perceptive and to be independent of others. This last trait is also referred to as autonomy (Hendriks, 1996).

Shaver and Brennan (1992) were the first to study the relations between attachment styles and the Big Five traits and since then, many other researchers followed. Noftle and Shaver (2006) reviewed 11 studies using different methods of measurement of the attachment styles and the Big Five traits. On average, it appeared that secure attachment was consistently positively related to extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability and conscientiousness. A high score on negative model of self, which is characteristic of fearful and preoccupied attachment, was on average strongly negatively related to emotional stability. Finally, dismissing attachment was consistently negatively related to extraversion and agreeableness. In the present chapter, we studied how the attachment styles as measured with the ASQ relate to the Big Five traits. We expected to replicate the conclusions of the review study by Noftle and Shaver (2006), also because the correlations found between the Big Five traits and the attachment styles in the studies seem to fit the image of securely, fearfully, preoccupied and dismissingly attached individuals. For instance, people scoring high on secure attachment feel comfortable in social contacts as they are self-confident and perceive others as trustworthy and reliable, and therefore will be more socially outgoing or extraverted. People scoring high on preoccupied attachment have a negative image of the self and a positive image others; they seek acceptance and validation of others. Therefore, it is plausible that they will score higher on neuroticism (or lower on emotional stability).


Method

Respondents

The psychometric qualities of the ASQ were examined among three groups of Dutch respondents (in total N = 3533):

1. Students of psychology (n = 1960); 74% female, 26% male; mean age was 20.55 (SD = 4.10). The group of students is a combination of seven subsamples of students which are described in more detail in Appendix 1.

2. Adults (n = 1010); 55% female; mean age was 48.78 (SD = 13.07). The group of adults is a combination of six subsamples of adults (see Appendix 1). The adults were approached by the researchers and a few research assistants.

3. A group of Dutch emigrants mainly to Canada, Australia and the United States of America (n = 563); 46% female; mean age was 59.88 (SD = 14.67). See Bakker, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee (2004) for a more detailed description of the sample.

Instruments

Attachment styles were measured with 24 items (see Table 2.1). These items refer to attachment to others in general. The items were formulated based on the four vignettes as described by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) and the Relationship Scales Questionnaire by Griffin and Bartholomew (1993). The secure style was measured by seven items, such as “I find it easy to get engaged in close relationships with other people”. The scale for fearful attachment consisted of five items, a sample item is: “I feel uncomfortable when relationships with other people become close”. The preoccupied style was measured by seven items, such as: “I have the impression that usually I like others better than they like me”. Finally, the dismissing scale contained five items, such as: “I prefer that others are independent of me, and that I am independent of others”. All attachment items were measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Two items were mirrored. Scores on the scales were computed by summing up the scores on the items and dividing the sum score by the number of items of the scale. The internal consistencies of the scale will be discussed shortly.

In order to determine the construct validity of the scale, a number of related constructs were included. First, we measured model of self with Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item Self-Esteem Inventory (Cronbach’s α was .82 for subgroups 1, 6 and 7 of the students and subgroups 10 and 13 of the adults, see Appendix 1). A sample item is: “I think

30 Chapter 2

positively about myself”. Participants were asked to indicate the level of agreement with the items on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As a second way to measure model of self, a 6-item scale was used from the Adult Self-Perception Profile developed by Harter (1988). A sample item is: “I am happy about the way I live my life”. The internal reliability of this scale was .80 (for subgroup 9 of the adults, see Appendix 1). The answers were scored on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not true, that’s not the way I am) to 5 (true, that’s the way I am).

Second, we measured model of others using six self-constructed items reflecting image of others (α = .76 for subgroup 1 of the students) a sample item is “I like doing things with other people”. Answers could be given on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (NO! Not applicable to me) to 5 (YES! Totally applicable to me). Moreover, a scale consisting of seven items (α = .73 for subgroup 9 of the adults) reflecting trust in others which had proven to be a reliable instrument (see Dijkstra, Hofstra, Van Oudenhoven, Peschar, & Van der Wal, 2004) was used. A sample item is: “If somebody is friendly towards me, I become suspicious” (-). A 5-point scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Third, the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) was included (among subgroup 10 of the adults). This measure is an adaptation of the attachment instrument developed by Hazan and Shaver (1987). The RQ consists of four short paragraphs, describing the four attachment styles (see Figure 2.2). After reading the descriptions, respondents had to indicate on a 7-point scale the degree to which they resemble each of the four styles.

Fourth, we measured ways of dealing with frustrating events or EVLN-intentions: exit, voice, loyalty and neglect (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992; Hagedoorn, 1998; Hirschman, 1970). These intentions were measured using a self-constructed questionnaire which consisted of 19 items. Respondents were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) for each item to what extent they would react in such a way when faced with a problem with someone. A sample item of the five items of the scale measuring voice (α = .66 and .75 for subgroup 1 of the students and subgroups 8 and 9 of the adults respectively) is: “Together with the other party I think of a solution which is acceptable for both of us”. Exit (α = .85 and .79 for subgroup 1 of the students and subgroups 8 and 9 of the adults respectively) was measured with four items such as: “I do not associate with that person anymore”. The scale measuring loyalty (α = .75 and .81 for subgroup 1 of the students and subgroups 8 and 9 of the adults respectively) contained five items like: “Then, I believe that eventually everything will work out just fine”. Finally, a sample item of the neglect scale consisting of five items (α = .74 and .68 for subgroup 1 of the students


and subgroups 8 and 9 of the adults respectively) is: “Then, I do not care that much anymore”.

Finally, we measured the Big Five personality traits using the Five Factor Personality Inventory (Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999) which contains 20 items per scale, and a shortened version of this questionnaire which contains six items per scale. Extraversion (α = .87 and .86 for subgroup 4 of the students and subgroup 11 of the adults; .61 for subgroup 14, the emigrants, respectively) was measured by items such as: “Avoids company” (-) and “Likes to chat”. Sample items of the agreeableness scale (α = .82 and .76 for subgroups 1 and 11; and .56 for subgroup 14 respectively) are: “Takes others’ interests into account” and “Empathizes with others”. The scale measuring conscientiousness (α = .88 and .75 for subgroups 1 and 11; and .65 for subgroup 14 respectively) contained items like: “Does things according to a plan” and “Is well prepared”. Emotional stability (α = .87 and .86 for subgroups 1 and 11; and .62 for subgroup 14 respectively) was measured by items such as: “Readily overcomes setbacks” and “Panics” (-). Finally, the autonomy scale (α = .81 and .79 for subgroups 1 and 11; and .63 for subgroup 14 respectively) consisted of items like: “Can easily link facts together” and “Takes the lead”. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not applicable at all) to 5 (totally applicable) whether the items were applicable to them.

Results

Internal Structure

Factor Structure of the Scales Exploratory factor-analysis (oblimin principal components analysis) with a forced

4-factor solution showed four factors with Eigenvalues above 1.2, which clearly corresponded with the four attachment styles (see Table 2.1 for the items and the factor loadings). The four factors explained 49.27% of the variance. As can be seen from the table, all items had reasonably high factor loadings.

Reliability In Table 2.2 the results with regard to the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha)

of the four scales for the different groups of respondents are presented. The items of the four attachment scales completely correspond with the items as mentioned in Table 2.1. The attachment scales reached the minimum reliability level of .60 set by Nunnally (1978), except for the dismissing scale in the emigrant group. In general, we can conclude that the

32 Chapter 2

internal consistencies of the attachment scales are satisfying. Table 2.3 shows the scale inter-correlations of the attachment scales. The scales are not orthogonal. The inter-correlations support Bartholomew and Horowitz’ model: opposing styles in the model -the secure and fearful style, and the preoccupied and dismissing style- were negatively correlated. The inter-scale correlations between adjacent styles in the model are in line with other research on attachment styles (e.g. Tsagarakis, Kafetsios & Stalikas, 2007; Holmes & Lyons-Ruth, 2006).

Stability

A group of adults (n = 175) completed the ASQ twice with a one year interval, so we were able to calculate the stability of the attachment styles3. We calculated the stability coefficients of the attachment scales using Pearson correlations (see Table 2.2, last column). The stability coefficients ranged from .59 to .76. These coefficients are slightly higher than the ones that were found among the groups of students from the studies mentioned in the introduction section of this chapter. The lower stability of the attachment styles among students is understandable considering the phase of life of students: going to college and the transition from childhood to adulthood brings about many changes and insecurities. Moreover, our findings that the stability of the attachment styles is higher for adults than for students is in line with previous research by for instance Bowlby (1973) and Caspi (1998) who stated that the stability of personality characteristics increases with the age of the respondents.

3 The instrument used to measure the stability of the preoccupied scale was based on six of the seven items which we identified as items for the preoccupied style in the present chapter.


Table 2.1

Items of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire and their Factor Loadings on the corresponding Factors.

Secure attachment style

I feel at ease in emotional relationships. .60

I avoid close ties. -.62

I trust other people and I like it when other people can rely on me. .63

I find it easy to get engaged in close relationships with other people. .58

I feel at ease in intimate relationships. .73

I think it is important that people can rely on each other. .58

I trust that others will be there for me when I need them. .56

Fearful attachment style

I would like to be open to others, but I feel I can’t trust other people. .74

I would like to have close relationships with other people, but I find it difficult to fully

trust them. .78

I’m afraid that my hopes will be deceived when I get too closely related to others. .77

I am wary to get engaged in close relationships because I’m afraid to get hurt. .72

I feel uncomfortable when relationships with other people become close. .53

Preoccupied attachment style

I often wonder whether people like me. .82

I have the impression that usually I like others better than they like me. .59

I am often afraid that other people don’t like me. .80

I fear to be left alone. .60

I don’t worry whether people like me or not. -.68

I find it important to know whether other people like me. .68

I usually find other people more interesting than myself. .48

Dismissing attachment style

I feel comfortable without having close relationships with other people4. .49

It is important to me to be independent. .69

I prefer that others are independent of me, and that I am independent of others. .65

I like to be self-sufficient. .64

I don’t worry about being alone: I don’t need other people that strongly. .57

4 This item had comparable factor loadings on the dismissing (.49) and the secure attachment style (.53). We decided to place this item in the scale for dismissing attachment based on the face validity (this item reflects the dismissing style more than the secure style) and the contribution to the internal consistency (α of the dismissing scale rises from .58 to .62 when this item is included; α of the secure style rises with .75 to .77 when this item is included).

34 Chapter 2

Table 2.2

Internal Consistencies and Stability of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire.

Attachment Scales Students

(n=1960)

Adults

(n=1010)

Emigrants

(n=563)

Total group

(N=3533)

Stability

(n=175)

Secure .77 .73 .68 .75 .69

Fearful .81 .75 .78 .79 .76

Dismissing .60 .61 .59 .62 .59

Preoccupied .81 .80 .73 .80 .68

Construct Validity

Attachment Styles and Indicators of Model of Self and Model of Others To determine the construct validity, we first examined the relations between the

attachment styles on the one hand and indicators of model of self and model of others on the other hand among students and adults (see Table 2.4). Among both groups, the relations were largely in line with Bartholomew and Horowitz’ (1991) model. The secure attachment style correlated positively with self-esteem/self-perception, and image of others/trust in others, and the fearful style was negatively related to self-esteem/self-perception and image of others/trust in others.


Table 2.3

Correlations between the Four Attachment Styles.

Attachment scale 1. 2. 3. 4.

Students (n = 1960)

1. Secure -- -.57*** -.26*** -.22***

2. Fearful -- .19*** .42***

3. Dismissing -- -.16***

4. Preoccupied --

Adults (n = 1010)

1. Secure -- -.50*** -.26*** -.19***

2. Fearful -- .22*** .42***

3. Dismissing -- -.12***

4. Preoccupied --

Emigrants (n = 563)

1. Secure -- -.37*** -.12** -.19***

2. Fearful -- .31*** .59***

3. Dismissing -- .02

4. Preoccupied --

Note. **p < .01; ***p < .001.

As expected, the dismissing style correlated negatively with image of others.

However, no meaningful relationship was found between dismissing attachment and self-esteem/self-perception. Finally, preoccupied attachment was, as expected, negatively related to self-esteem/self-perception. Different from what Bartholomew and Horowitz’ (1991) model predicts, preoccupied attachment correlated negatively with trust in others. Probably, this distrust in others of preoccupied individuals reflects distrust based on a negative image of the self, rather than distrust based on presumed bad intentions of others. For instance, preoccupied attached individuals might not trust others during social contacts, as they can hardly believe that the others sincerely want contact with them.

36 Chapter 2

Table 2.4

Correlations between Attachment Styles, Self-Esteem/Self-Perception, and Image of Others/Trust in Others.

Model of Self Model of Others

Self-esteem

(Rosenberg)

Students

(n = 658);

Adults

(n = 516)

Self-perception

(Harter)

Adults

(n = 175)

Image of others

Students

(n = 379)

Trust in others

Adults

(n = 175)

Secure

Students .29*** - .50*** -

Adults .26*** .22** - .51***

Fearful

Students -.29*** - -.27*** -

Adults -.42*** -.35*** - -.55***

Dismissing

Students .08* - -.27*** -

Adults .04 -.01 - -.14

Preoccupied

Students -.43*** - -.01 -

Adults -.49*** -.57*** - -.30***

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001.


Attachment Styles and Relationship Questionnaire To further establish the validity of the four attachment scales of the ASQ,

correlations between these scales and another instrument to measure attachment styles, the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), were calculated among a group of 461 adults. As can be seen from Table 2.5, the attachment scales of the ASQ correlated highest with the corresponding vignette of the RQ. However, the correlations are moderate and the differences between correlations are not impressive. This can be the result of the low reliability of the RQ.

Table 2.5

Correlations between the Scales of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire and the Scores on the Vignettes of the

Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) among 461 Adults.

Vignette

Secure

Vignette

Fearful

Vignette

Dismissing

Vignette

Preoccupied

ASQ-Secure .32*** -.28*** -.28*** .07

ASQ-Fearful -.31*** .34*** .10 .23***

ASQ-Dismissing .16** -.07 .49*** -.21***

ASQ-Preoccupied -.33*** .27*** -.14** .34***

Note. ** p < .01; ***p < .001.

Attachment Styles and Reactions to Frustrating Situations Next, the relations between the attachment styles and the different ways of

reacting to frustrating situations were calculated among students and adults (Table 2.6). The pattern of relations between the variables was the same for both groups. As we expected, the secure style correlated positively with voice, the constructive reaction to conflicts. Besides, secure attachment was negatively related to the less constructive reactions exit, loyalty, and neglect. For the insecure attachment styles, the pattern is reversed. In line with our expectations, the fearful, dismissing and preoccupied styles correlated negatively with voice and positively with the less constructive reactions. However, the relation between these insecure styles and loyalty is weak or not significant. The relations between the dismissing style and the reactions to conflicts are inconsistent and therefore difficult to interpret.

38 Chapter 2

Table 2.6

Correlations between Attachment Styles and Reactions to Frustrating Situations among 379 Students and 218

Adults.

Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect

Secure

Students -.19*** .26*** -.23*** -.37***

Adults -.20** .31*** -.17* -.25***

Fearful

Students .18** -.19*** .10* .29***

Adults .20** -.29*** .08 .32***

Dismissing

Students .11* .01 .10 .15**

Adults .08 -.24*** -.01 .10

Preoccupied

Students .23*** -.19*** .04 .25***

Adults .14* -.16* .10 .18*

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001.

Attachment Styles and the Big Five Personality Traits As a final way of determining the construct validity of the ASQ we related the

attachment styles to the Big Five personality traits among students, adults and emigrants (see Table 2.7). In all three samples, the secure style correlated positively with extraversion, as we expected, and to a lesser extent positively with agreeableness and autonomy. The fearful style is negatively related to extraversion, and to lesser extent negatively to emotional stability and autonomy. The dismissing style is negatively associated with extraversion. Finally, the preoccupied attachment style is primarily negatively correlated with emotional stability, as predicted, and to a lesser extent with autonomy and extraversion. Our results are largely in line with the review study of Noftle and Shaver (2006).


Table 2.7

Correlations between the Four Attachment Styles and the Big Five Traits among Students (n = 450), Adults (n =

133) and Emigrants (n = 563).

Extraversion Agreeable-

ness

Conscien-

tiousness

Emotional

Stability

Autonomy

Secure

Students .42*** .18** .02 .20*** .17**

Adults .41*** .39*** .40*** .18 .22*

Emigrants .41*** .18** .03 .04 .12*

Fearful

Students -.33*** -.13* .03 -.33*** -.18**

Adults -.36*** -.19* -.23* -.34*** -.20*

Emigrants -.22*** -.09 .04 -.17** -.27***

Dismissing

Students -.14* -.08 -.04 .09 .17**

Adults -.28** -.02 -.17 .14 .10

Emigrants -.28*** -.03 .07 .22*** -.04

Preoccupied

Students -.24*** .04 .15** -.46*** -.37***

Adults -.19* .01 -.07 -.46*** -.30**

Emigrants -.13* -.10* -.04 -.37*** -.32***

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Group Differences in the Attachment Styles

Next, we were interested in whether the mean scores on attachment styles differed by group (students, adults and emigrants; see Table 2.8). As the three groups differed with respect to mean age (M = 20.55; M = 48.78 and M = 59.88, for students, adults and emigrants, respectively) we performed a MANCOVA, in which we controlled for the effect of age by entering it as a covariate. Group (students, adults, and emigrants) was entered in the analysis as an independent variable, and the four attachment styles as dependent variables. At the multivariate level, a significant main effect was found for age,

40 Chapter 2

F (4, 2859) = 33.00, p <.001, η2 =.04. Univariately, this effect could be attributed to the secure attachment style, F (1, 2862) = 21.33, p <.001, η2 =.01; the fearful style; F (1, 2862) = 58.74, p <.001, η2 =.02; and the dismissing style, F (1, 2862) = 80.08, p <.001, η2 = .03. Moreover, we also found a significant main effect for group, F (8, 5720) = 18.90, p <.001, η2 =.03. Univariately, this effect could be attributed to all four attachment styles, F (2, 2862) = 15.43, p <.001, η2 =.01 for the secure style; F (2, 2862) = 10.73, p <.001, η2 =.01 for the fearful style; F (2, 2862) = 15.48, p <.001, η2 = .01 for the dismissing style; and F (2, 2862) = 15.36, p <.001, η2 = .01 for the preoccupied style. So, after controlling for the effect of age, the effect of group on the means on the attachment styles was significant.

Further analysis showed that students and emigrants scored significantly higher on secure attachment than adults (p’s < .01). Next, students scored higher on fearful and preoccupied attachment than adults and emigrants (p’s < .01). In addition, emigrants scored higher on dismissing attachment than students and adults (p < .001).

Table 2.8

Mean Scores on the Four Attachment Styles for the Three Groups controlled for the Effect of Age.

Scales Students

(n = 1960)

Adults

(n =1010)

Emigrants

(n =563)

Secure 4.00a 3.84b 3.97a

Fearful 2.50a 2.27b 2.28b

Dismissing 3.23a 3.15a 3.35b

Preoccupied 2.93a 2.65b 2.67b

Note. Cell means with different subscripts (per row) differ significantly (p <.01).

In addition to studying the differences in means on attachment styles for the three

groups, we were also interested in whether the means on attachment styles differed for males and females (see Table 2.9). A MANOVA in which gender was entered as the independent variable and the attachment styles as the dependent variables, showed a significant main effect for gender, F (4, 3235) = 19.93, p < .001, η2 = .02. This effect could be attributed to the secure, dismissing and preoccupied attachment style, F (1, 3238) = 39.45, p < .001, η2 = .01; F (1, 3238) = 17.19, p < .001, η2 = .01; F (1, 3238) = 19.36, p < .001, η2 = .01, respectively. Further tests revealed that women scored higher than men on secure and preoccupied attachment, and lower than men on dismissing attachment (all p ´s < .001).


Table 2.9

Mean Scores on the Four Attachment Styles for Females and Males with Standard Deviations between Brackets.

Females

(n = 2263)

Males

(n = 1262)

Secure 4.00a (.56) 3.83b (.57)

Fearful 2.39a (.81) 2.39a (.78)

Dismissing 3.13a (.63) 3.35b (.67)

Preoccupied 2.89a (.78) 2.66b (.68)

Note. Cell means with different subscripts (per row) differ significantly (p <.001).

Discussion

The present research aimed to study the psychometric qualities of a new instrument to measure adult attachment styles. The development of the instrument seems to be -on the whole- successful. Factor analyses on our data showed four factors which clearly corresponded to the four attachment styles as put forward by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991). The reliability of the secure, fearful and preoccupied scales is reasonable to good. However, the internal consistency of the dismissing scale is moderate (α’s between .59 and .62). This may be due to the variability of the dismissiveness concept. Several motives can lead to being dismissing of others. One can be dismissing because one does not need others that strongly; one has a negative image of others; or one finds it handy to be self-sufficient. The items of the dismissing scale referred to the different motives, which could account for its lower internal consistency. It is important to realize that low reliability may also explain the in general weak relations between dismissing attachment and the other variables.

As could be expected, the stability of the attachment styles is lower than the stability of basic personality traits, like the Big Five, which is in general about .80 (Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999). However, the stability coefficients are reasonably high considering the length of the period between the two measurements, roughly one year. Even the dismissing scale had a stability coefficient of .59, despite the moderate internal consistency of the scale. The stability was the highest for the fearful attachment style.

The construct validity of the four scales is reasonable. As expected, the secure style correlated positively with indicators of model of self, that is self-esteem/self-perception, whereas the fearful and preoccupied style correlated negatively with these variables. We found one weakly-significant and two non-significant correlations between

42 Chapter 2

the dismissing style and self-esteem/self-perception. As indicated before, this might be attributed to the different motives which can lead to a dismissing style. Nevertheless, our results are in line with a study by Onishi, Gjerde and Block (2001) who also found that dismissing attachment did not significantly correlate with self-esteem. The dismissing style did have a significant negative relation with an indicator of model of others: Image of others. Negative image of others thus appears to be more defining for dismissing people than self-esteem. For the secure and fearful style we found, as predicted by Bartholomew and Horowitz’ model, positive and negative relations with image of others/trust in others, respectively. For the preoccupied style we found a negative relation with trust in others, which is different from the model of Bartholomew and Horowitz. As preoccupied people in general are afraid of being abandoned and of other people not liking them, it might be that preoccupied people come to distrust others. This distrust of others of preoccupied people might stem from their negative image of the self instead of supposed bad intentions of other people. Furthermore, the scales of the ASQ correlated highest with the corresponding scales of the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

In addition, the attachment styles appeared to be associated with reactions to frustrating situations in a predictable way. People scoring high on the secure style tend to solve conflicts in a constructive manner, that is taking the interests of the self and the other party into account. At the same time, they do not tend to react in a way in which the interests of the other party are neglected (exit and neglect), or in which the own interests are neglected (loyalty). People scoring high on fearful and preoccupied attachment tend to show a reversed pattern: they do not tend to react with voice, but with exit and neglect. The correlations between the dismissing style and the EVLN-intentions were less clear, although people scoring high on dismissing attachment somewhat tend to use the less constructive strategies.

Finally, the correlations between the attachment styles and the Big Five traits were in line with the expectations. People scoring high on secure attachment, showed high levels of extraversion, agreeableness and autonomy. These results fit the image of people with a positive model of the self and self-confidence during social interactions. Highly fearful individuals appeared to score low on extraversion, emotional stability and autonomy, which fits the image of people with a negative model of the self and a tendency to avoid social contacts out of fear of being hurt. People scoring high on dismissing attachment, showed low levels of extraversion. This result reflects the lower need for others which is characteristic of dismissing attachment. The preoccupied attachment style correlated negatively with emotional stability, autonomy and


extraversion. These results fit the image of people with a negative image of the self and a fear of being rejected by others in social interactions. Our results are largely in line with the results of Noftle and Shaver’s (2006) review study.

In the past years, Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998), recommended that adult attachment should be assessed by measuring two underlying factors or dimensions, anxiety and avoidance. Factor analyses on our data, however, showed four factors, in stead of two, which corresponded with Bartholomew and Horowitz’ (1991) attachment styles. In addition, the four attachment scales are clearly distinguishable, based on the correlations with self-esteem/self-perception, image of others/trust in others, the descriptions of the Relationship Questionnaire, the EVLN-intentions and the Big Five traits. So, we prefer, based on theoretical and empirical arguments, the measurement of four attachment styles instead of two dimensions.

A remarkable outcome of the present study is the differences between the three groups, students, adults and emigrants, in their mean scores on the attachment styles after controlling for the effect of age. First of all, the students scored higher on the fearful and preoccupied styles than both the adult and emigrant group. Although speculative, the differences between the groups might be attributed to the divergent phases in life. It is understandable that students, who are in a transition phase of entering adulthood and going to college which brings about many changes and insecurities, are more insecure about themselves and more focused on the question whether other people like them and find them interesting enough, than the more mature adults. Second, emigrants appeared to score higher on dismissing attachment than students and adults. The dismissing style is characterized by a certain degree of distrust of others. It could be that, because of the experiences and circumstances in an other country, emigrants get used to having less warm personal contacts, more aloofness towards others and keeping more distance from other people.

Generally, women and men differ on relational variables. Therefore, it is not surprising that we found gender differences with respect to attachment styles. Results showed that women are more secure in relations. Besides, women are more concerned about whether other people like them than men, as indicated by the higher score on preoccupied attachment. Moreover, males appeared to be more dismissing. This indicates that women are somewhat more socially oriented than men, which is in line with studies that for instance showed that women are more relationship oriented (Cross & Madson, 1997), and provide more social support than men (Wellman, 1992).

In future studies, a few things need to be addressed. First of all, the internal consistency of the dismissing scale is too low. More items for this subscale should be

44 Chapter 2

developed in order to improve the reliability. Second, a few items of the scale for fearful attachment are double-barrelled. Items that only consist of one statement will probably be clearer for the respondent and consequently the score on the fearful scale will better reflect the true score of the respondent. Future research could look more deeply into this issue. Also, more research is needed on the relations between the four attachment styles, particularly the dismissing style, and other theoretically relevant variables, for instance coping styles or number of friends.

Nevertheless, to our opinion, the Attachment Styles Questionnaire we presented in this chapter is a valid and reliable new instrument for measuring adult attachment to others in general.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Winny Bakker and Dick Barelds who generously gave access to the data of the emigrants, and one group of students and two groups of adults, respectively.

CHAPTER 3

Attachment Styles and Majority Members’ Attitudes

towards Acculturation Strategies of Immigrants: a

Longitudinal Study5

Over the last few decades, Dutch society has become multicultural. Currently, almost 20% of the Dutch population consists of immigrants. Of these immigrants, 54% are from non-western countries and approximately 21% originate from Muslim countries (Statistics Netherlands, 2008a). Consequently, dealing with ethnic and religious diversity has become an important task for today’s society and politics. Relevant questions in this regard are: What is the attitude of the host society towards immigrants? Do majority members want immigrants to assimilate into Dutch society or do they accept immigrants who maintain their cultural identity? Do individual differences play a role?

Past research has primarily focused on the influence of cultural factors (e.g., cultural distance) and social psychological factors (e.g., in-group bias) on the attitude of majority members towards immigrants and their acculturation strategies (see for example Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzálek, 2000). Much less research concentrated on individual difference variables. The present study examined the influence of attachment styles on the attitude towards immigrants’ acculturation strategies. Attachment styles have been little investigated in acculturation research (see for exceptions Bakker, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee, 2004; De Pater, Van Vianen, & Derksen, 2003). Yet, they are an important factor to examine because attachment styles are social interaction tendencies which influence several aspects of social functioning, such as social competencies, quality of relationships, social exploration (Green & Campbell, 2000), and the way in which we relate to other people (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, for an overview), such as strangers (Roisman, 2006). As acculturation implies exploring new cultures as well as dealing with strangers, we assumed that attitudes towards acculturation may at least to some extent reflect attachment styles. In the present study we examined the relationship

5 This chapter is based on: Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J.P., & Buunk, B.P. (2005). Attachment styles and majority members’ attitudes towards adaptation strategies of immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 601-619.

46 Chapter 3

between acculturation attitudes and attachment styles longitudinally among a sample of Dutch university students.

Attachment Styles

According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982), children develop an attachment bond with their caregivers during the first years of life. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) were the first who studied individual differences in attachment, and they distinguished three types of the attachment bond, or attachment styles. A secure attachment style is developed when children perceive their caregivers as available and responsive. In contrast, children develop an ambivalent or avoidant style when they perceive their caregivers as either inconsistently responsive or unavailable and not responsive. Numerous studies have shown the influence of individual differences in attachment in infancy on a great variety of domains in life, including relations with peers, friends, and siblings; competence in preschool and kindergarten; behavioral problems; and behavior towards unfamiliar adults (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, for an overview). The individual differences in attachment styles are the result of differences in internal working models of relationships with others. These internal working models, or mental representations of relations, are formed in childhood through the interaction with the caregivers. The internal working models become increasingly resistant to change and continue to guide future behaviors and attitudes at an older age. Therefore, it is meaningful to study attachment styles of adults. In the last few decades, starting with a study by Hazan and Shaver (1987), research on adult attachment has indeed flourished. The influence of adult attachment styles has been explored in relation to several variables, from reactions to bereavement (Fraley & Bonanno, 2004) to romantic relationship functioning (Brennan & Shaver, 1995); and from relationship with God (Beck & McDonald, 2004) to support giving and seeking in a stressful situation (Simpson, Rholes, Oriña, & Grich, 2002).

Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) developed a theoretical model of attachment styles (Figure 3.1), which has proven to be applicable to adults (e.g., Feeney, 2002; Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994). The model that is based on two dimensions distinguishes four, instead of the above mentioned three, attachment styles. The first dimension concerns, model of self, that is whether the self is seen as worthy of love and support or not; the second dimension refers to model of others, that is whether others are seen as trustworthy or not. We will further refer to the latter dimension as trust in others. The dimensions have previously been put forward by Bowlby (1973).

Attachment Styles and Majority Members’ Acculturation Attitudes: A Longitudinal Study 47

Figure 3.1

Classification of Attachment Styles according to Bartholomew en Horowitz (1991).

Model of Self

Positive Negative

Positive Secure

Preoccupied

Model of Others /

Trust in Others Negative Dismissing

Fearful

A securely attached person has a positive image of the self and trusts others. Social

interactions are faced with confidence. A fearfully attached person has a negative image of the self and distrusts others. Fearfully attached people avoid personal contacts. Dismissingly attached people have a positive image of the self, but they distrust others. Dismissing individuals do not have a strong need for social contacts. Finally, preoccupied attached people have a negative image of the self, but they trust others. These individuals often wonder whether they are friendly or interesting enough to others.

Acculturation Strategies

The major topic of the present chapter concerns the relationship between majority members’ attachment styles and their attitude towards acculturation strategies of immigrants. Acculturation strategies are used by immigrants to adapt to the host society. Berry (1997) distinguishes two dimensions in these strategies: the degree to which minority members wish to maintain their original culture, and the degree to which minority members wish to have contact with and participate in the host society. Combinations of these dimensions result in four strategies (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2

Classification of Acculturation Strategies (Berry, 1997).

Wish to maintain original culture

Yes No

Yes Integration Assimilation Need for contact with majority group

in society No Separation Marginalization

48 Chapter 3

Integrating immigrants wish to maintain their original culture and desire to

participate in the host society. Assimilating immigrants let go of their original culture and wish to join the host society. Separating immigrants strongly wish to maintain their original culture and avoid participating in the host society. Marginalizing immigrants neither have the need for maintaining their original culture nor for participation in the host society.

Immigrants are not totally free to choose the acculturation strategy they prefer. The use of certain acculturation strategies by immigrants partly depends on the reactions these strategies evoke among the majority members (Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998). Majority members usually prefer immigrants who resemble them and thereby exert pressure on immigrants to assimilate. Therefore, it is important to know the majority members’ attitudes towards acculturation strategies of immigrants.

Hypotheses regarding Attachment Styles and Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies of Immigrants

Securely attached people have a positive image of the self and they trust others; social interactions are faced with confidence. As a result they will not feel threatened by contact with other cultures or expressions of other cultures. Therefore, we expect that secure attachment will be positively related to all acculturation strategies, but in particular to integration of immigrants.

Fearfully attached people have a negative image of themselves and they distrust others. This distrust will be enhanced when fearfully attached people have to deal with people whose values they do not know, as is the case with integrating and separating immigrants. Therefore, we expect a negative relationship between fearful attachment and the attitude towards integration and separation. The distrust towards immigrants can be somewhat neutralized when immigrants make an accommodating step towards the host culture, i.e. when immigrants assimilate. We thus expect a positive relationship between fearful attachment and the attitude towards assimilation.

Dismissingly attached people have a positive image of themselves, but they distrust others. They tend to avoid social contacts. Therefore, we expect dismissing attachment to be positively related to the attitude towards separation of immigrants. Furthermore, we expect that dismissing attachment will be negatively related to the contact strategies integration and assimilation. We think that the relationship with integration will be particularly negative, because cultural barriers will complicate contact even more.


Preoccupied people have a negative image of themselves, but they trust others. They worry about being disliked by others. This concern will probably disappear when faced with immigrants who actively try to adapt to the host culture and thereby show that they want to participate in the host society. Therefore, we expect preoccupied attachment to be positively related with the attitude towards assimilation and negatively with the attitude towards separation. Because of their positive image of others, preoccupied people respect the maintenance of the own culture by immigrants. Therefore, we expect, in addition, a positive relationship between preoccupied attachment and the attitude towards integration. The hypotheses are summarized in Table 3.1. We did not formulate specific hypotheses about the relation between attachment styles and the attitude towards Marginalization as normally immigrants do not intend to choose this strategy but are often forced to it. Therefore, it is hard to make specific predictions.

Table 3.1

Summary of Hypotheses regarding the Relations between Attachment Styles and Attitudes towards Acculturation

Strategies of Immigrants.

Integration Assimilation Separation

Secure positive positive positive

Fearful negative positive negative

Dismissing negative negative positive

Preoccupied positive positive negative

In addition to studying the relationships between attachment styles and attitudes

towards acculturation strategies of immigrants, the present study again examined the construct validity, which is relations with indicators of model of self and trust in others, and the stability of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ).

Method

Respondents

A group of 177 first-year psychology students from the University of Groningen, in the Netherlands, took part in the study. The mean age was 20 years (SD = 2.7); 79% of the participants were female. The majority of the participants had the Dutch nationality (N = 169), eight participants were from non-Dutch descent (German: N = 7; Turkish: N

50 Chapter 3

= 1). The latter participants were excluded from the analyses regarding the attitudes towards acculturation strategies of immigrants, so the results were exclusively based on the attitudes of Dutch majority members. Of the participants in the sample, 51% (90 students) also participated in a follow-up study, roughly one year later.

Measures

Variables assessed at T1 Attachment styles were measured with 21 items. In this study a version of the

Attachment Styles Questionnaire was used that slightly differed from the version we presented in Chapter 2 (see Appendix 2 for the items we used in the present study). The secure style was measured by six items, such as: “I feel comfortable in emotional relationships”. The scale for fearful attachment contained five items, for example: “I would like to be open to others, but I feel I can’t trust other people”. The dismissing style was measured by five items, such as: “I like to be self-sufficient”. Finally, the scale for preoccupied attachment consisted of five items, for instance: “I’m afraid of being abandoned”. Answers could be given on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (NO!) to 5 (YES!). The internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) in this study were .70 for the secure style, .66 for the fearful scale, .55 for the dismissing scale, and .80 for the preoccupied scale, respectively. In Table 3.2 the means, standard deviations and inter-scale correlations for the attachment styles at T1 are presented.

Table 3.2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-scale Correlations for the Attachment Styles, Self-esteem and Distrust at

T1; N = 177.

M SD 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. Secure 4.14 0.53 -.55*** -.36*** -.18* .25** -.32***

2. Fearful 2.49 0.74 .22** .29*** -.30*** .42***

3. Dismissing 3.10 0.58 -.16* .12 .13*

4. Preoccupied 3.06 0.88 -.64*** .29***

5. Self-esteem 3.83 0.64 -.20**

6. Distrust 3.53 0.68

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01, ***p < .001.

In order to measure model of self we used Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item Self-Esteem

Inventory. A sample item is: “I think positively about myself”. Cronbach’s alpha for this


scale was .84. Participants were asked to indicate the level of agreement with the items on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

As an indicator of trust in others, the Interpersonal Trust Scale (Rotter, 1967) was used. Of this scale, only three items could be included, because the remaining items referred to very specific situations, e.g., “Shop-assistants give honest information about their products”. Because the three items were indicative of distrust rather than of trust, we preferred to call this scale the distrust scale. A sample item is: “Despite what people say, they are only interested in their own well-being”. A 5-point scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of the three items was low, α = .48.

Variables assessed at T2 Attachment styles were measured with the same instrument as used at T1. The

internal consistencies were .82 for the secure style, .75 for the fearful style, .69 for the dismissing style, and .77 for the preoccupied style.

In order to measure majority members’ attitudes towards acculturation strategies of immigrants we used a questionnaire with 21 fictitious but realistic statements of immigrants about their adaptation to the new culture. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (NO!) to 5 (YES!) whether they thought these statements to be desirable. The attitude towards integration was measured by four items (α = .68) such as: “I find it important to have contact with Dutch people, but also with people from my own country”. An example of one of the eight items (α = .71) we used to determine the attitude towards assimilation is: “I prefer to be with Dutch people, rather than with people from my own country”. The attitude towards separation was measured by five items (α = .76), such as: “I only have contact with people from my own country, I don’t have contact with Dutch people”. Finally, we measured the attitude towards marginalization with four items (α = .67). A sample item is: “I neither have many Dutch friends, nor many friends from my native country”.

Results

Gender and Age Differences

We first explored whether the scores on the scales differed by gender and age. Women scored higher than men on the scale for preoccupied attachment (M = 3.16, SD = 0.91 versus M = 2.78, SD = 0.64), F (1,150) = 4.92, p <.05. There were no age-related

52 Chapter 3

differences. Preliminary analyses between the variables under investigation, when controlling for gender, showed no substantial differences and therefore we decided to exclude this variable from subsequent analyses.

Stability of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire

We calculated the stability of the attachment styles using correlations. For all four attachment styles, the stability appeared to be acceptable: .61 for the fearful style, .56 for the secure style, .63 for the dismissing style and .69 for the preoccupied style.

Construct Validity

Consistent with Bartholomew and Horowitz’ model (1991), the secure attachment style correlated positively with self-esteem and negatively with distrust, and the fearful attachment style correlated negatively with self-esteem and positively with distrust (see Table 3.2). Dismissing attachment was, as expected, positively related to distrust. However, the -positive- relation between dismissing attachment and self-esteem was not significant. Preoccupied attachment, as expected, appeared to be negatively related to self-esteem. Different from what the model predicts, but not surprisingly, the preoccupied attachment style was positively associated with distrust. As said earlier, preoccupied people in general have a negative image about the self and worry whether other people like them. As a consequence of this fear of being disliked, they may come to distrust others.

Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies

The mean scores on the scales measuring the attitude towards the acculturation strategies showed that participants in general appreciated the integrating immigrants the most (M = 4.06, SD = 0.61), followed by assimilating immigrants (M = 3.38, SD = 0.47), marginalizing immigrants (M = 2.21, SD = 0.62), and separating immigrants (M = 2.20, SD = .63). The mean scores on the scales differed significantly (ps < .001), except for the mean scores on marginalization and separation.


Attachment Styles and Majority Members’ Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies of Immigrants

We were interested in the relationship between attachment styles as measured at T1 and attitude towards acculturation strategies as measured at T2 (see Table 3.3)6. As expected, secure attachment was positively related to the attitude towards integration. Besides, fearful attachment correlated positively with the attitude towards assimilation. Furthermore, dismissing attachment was negatively related to the attitude towards integration. The preoccupied attachment style, finally, correlated positively with the attitude towards marginalization.

Table 3.3

Correlations between Attachment Styles (T1) and Majority Members’ Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies of

Immigrants (T2); n = 90.

Integration Assimilation Separation Marginalization

Secure .18† -.02 .04 -.07

Fearful -.05 .22† -.08 .06

Dismissing -.23† -.02 -.07 -.08

Preoccupied .07 .16 -.05 .22*

Note. The correlations, about which hypotheses were formulated, were tested one-sidedly; *p < .05,

two-tailed; †p < .05, one-tailed.

To examine how the attitudes towards the acculturation strategies could be

predicted from the attachment styles, we performed a series of stepwise regression analyses with the attachment styles as independent variables and the attitudes towards the acculturation strategies as dependent variables (Table 3.4). Results showed that dismissing attachment predicted a negative attitude towards integration: the more dismissingly attached, the more negative the attitude towards integration. Fearful attachment appeared to be a significant predictor of the attitude towards assimilation: the higher the score on the fearful attachment scale, the more positive the attitude towards assimilation. Moreover, preoccupied attachment predicted a positive attitude towards marginalization: the higher the score on the preoccupied scale, the more positive the attitude towards marginalization. The attachment styles did not predict the attitude towards separation.

6 The cross-sectional correlations (at T2) between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes showed roughly the same pattern as the longitudinal relations. Only the correlation between fearful attachment and attitude towards assimilation was much weaker and non-significant.

54 Chapter 3

Table 3.4

Stepwise Regression of the Acculturation Attitudes (T2) on the Attachment Styles (T1); n = 90.

Variable B SE B β

Integration

Model 1

Dismissing -0.24 0.11 -0.23*

Assimilation

Model 1

Fearful 0.14 0.06 0.24*

Marginalization

Model 1

Preoccupied 0.16 0.08 0.22*

Note. R² = .05, for model 1 (Integration); R² = .06, for model 1 (Assimilation); R² = .05 for model 1

(Marginalization). * p < .05.

Discussion

The present study showed that the respondents, regardless of their attachment style, appreciated integration by immigrants the most. This is a remarkable finding. Previous research has shown that majority members prefer assimilation by immigrants (Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998; Verkuyten & Thijs, 1999). This difference in preference for the acculturation strategies may be due to the fact that -in contrast to the present study- the immigrants in the previous studies were Muslims. The Islamic culture is very different from the Dutch culture and is considered as threatening by a substantial part of the Dutch population. Therefore, the respondents in the former studies possibly had a preference for assimilation of the -Muslim- immigrants. In the questionnaire we used, the cultural background of the immigrants was not specified, so cultural differences were not emphasized. Consequently, the respondents may have reacted most positively to the integration strategy. Moreover, a general problem with questionnaires as we used, in which the four strategies are offered simultaneously, is that integration will probably be chosen because it is the most socially desirable strategy. To reduce this social desirability effect, a scenario approach (see also Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998) can be used to measure the attitude towards immigrants’ acculturation strategies in which every respondent has to judge only one scenario about an immigrant who uses only one


acculturation strategy. This way, the respondents do not have the possibility to compare the strategies, and thus social desirability may play a less significant role. In the following chapters we will use the scenario-approach in which the cultural background of the immigrants is specified.

Is attachment a factor to consider in acculturation research? The answer to this central question of the present chapter seems, to a certain extent, to be positive. We found evidence for a positive relation between the secure attachment style and the attitude towards integration. Furthermore, the higher the respondents scored on the styles characterized by distrust of others, fearful and dismissing attachment, the more positive their attitude towards assimilating immigrants and the more negative their reaction to integrating immigrants. Preoccupied attachment was positively related to the attitude towards marginalization of immigrants. Preoccupied attached people are insecure about themselves and they often wonder whether they are liked by other people. Therefore, they may identify more with marginalizing immigrants who are also wary to approach others.

The relationships between the attachment styles and the attitudes towards acculturation strategies of immigrants are low to moderate. This might be attributed to the abstract character of the questionnaire measuring the attitudes towards the acculturation strategies. First of all, the cultural background of the immigrant was not specified; it could either be a western or a non-western immigrant. Secondly, the respondents had to react to statements of immigrants about acculturation. Probably, it is easier to react to immigrants who show concrete forms of acculturation, like what happens in a scenario-approach which will be used in the following chapters.

Moreover, there is more reason to expect the correlations between the concepts to be stronger for immigrant samples, because the choice for a certain acculturation strategy has greater consequences for immigrants than for majority members: immigrants have to decide to what extent they are going to adapt to the host society; majority members do not. Because of this difference in relevance, majority members might have less strong opinions about the acculturation strategies. Support for this statement was found in a study by Van Oudenhoven and Hofstra (2006) among Chinese, Turkish, and Surinamese immigrants in the Netherlands: the significant correlations between the two concepts which ranged between .26 and .49 were indeed stronger than the ones we found in the present study.

In addition to the relationship between attachment styles and attitudes towards acculturation strategies of immigrants, we were interested in the psychometric qualities of the attachment styles questionnaire. The stability and construct validity of the attachment

56 Chapter 3

styles were satisfactory. For the dismissing style however, we did not find a significant positive correlation with self-esteem. This can be attributed to the complexity of the concept. Dismissiveness consists of a need to be independent from others on the one hand, and of a wariness to approach others on the other hand. This ambiguity was also expressed in the items of the dismissing scale, which could account for the low correlations between dismissing attachment and self-esteem. Nevertheless, our results are in line with studies by Onishi, Gjerde, and Block (2001) and Schrier and van Oudenhoven (2001) who also found that dismissing attachment did not significantly correlate with self-esteem. The dismissing style did correlate significantly with the scale measuring negative image of others. Image of others thus appears to be more defining for dismissing people than self-esteem. For the preoccupied attachment style we found, in contrast to what could be expected based on the model of Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), a positive relation with distrust. Preoccupied people in general are afraid of being abandoned and that other people do not like them. Therefore, it might be that preoccupied people come to distrust others.

It needs to be noted that, as our sample consisted only of students, without further study we cannot generalize our results to other groups. Nevertheless, this group of respondents is interesting as they are in a transition phase of life. Going to college and the passage from adolescence to adulthood brings about many changes and insecurities. Our study shows that attachment styles, even in this transition phase, are reasonably stable and can predict the attitude towards acculturation strategies of immigrants after a period of one year. We expect the relations to be stronger among samples of respondents who are not in a stage of transition.

To conclude, the present study gave us the first proof of a link between attachment styles and the way people think about acculturation strategies of immigrants. The results imply that attachment styles of individuals can provide the basis for interventions aimed at improving contacts between immigrants and the host society. As attachment styles are not as stable as other personality characteristics, like for instance the Big Five personality traits (Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999), there is room for change. In order to change the attitude towards immigrants in a positive direction, for instance a training for insecurely attached persons to improve image of self and trust in others, could be given at schools.

CHAPTER 4

Attachment Styles and Acculturation Attitudes of

Adolescent and Adult Majority Members7

In the last few decades, the demographic composition of the Dutch population has become increasingly heterogeneous. Currently, one in five people living in the Netherlands is of non-Dutch descent. More than half of these are from non-western countries, primarily from Turkey, Surinam and Morocco (Statistics Netherlands, 2008a). Consequently, the cultural context in the Netherlands has changed not only for immigrants, but also for majority members (the native host society members): both groups have to deal in their daily lives with cultures different from their own. The process that individuals undergo in response to a changing cultural context is known as acculturation. Acculturation is a process of mutual influence between immigrants and majority members. However, for a long time researchers have focused primarily on immigrants as the acculturation experience was considered to have the greatest influence on immigrant groups (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). In recent years, as the percentage of immigrants in receiving societies increased, and their influence on the host culture became more visible (e.g. in many societies the Festival of Fast breaking, an Islamic tradition, is becoming an important holiday), acculturation researchers began to stress the importance of taking the acculturation experiences of the receiving host societies into account as well (e.g., Berry, 1997; Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997). Because of the increasing impact of immigrants and their cultures, host societies and majority members started to think more consciously about the influx and acculturation of immigrants.

The present study focused on these acculturation attitudes of Dutch majority members. More specifically, we studied the affective reactions of majority members to and their estimated prevalence of acculturation strategies of Surinamese immigrants. Surinamers form one of the largest non-western immigrant groups in the Netherlands.

In addition, the influence of an important individual variable, attachment style, on the acculturation attitudes of majority members is examined. Previous studies have

7 This chapter is based on: Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J.P., & Van der Zee, K.I. (2009a). Attachment Styles and acculturation attitudes of adolescent and adult majority members. Manuscript submitted for publication.

58 Chapter 4

already shown that attachment styles are related to affective reactions to acculturation strategies of immigrants (see for example Hofstra, Van Oudenhoven, & Buunk, 2005; Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). Attachment styles are developed in childhood and influence later social functioning (e.g. Elicker, Englund, & Sroufe, 1992), such as the way one relates to unknown persons and adapts to new situations (Roisman, 2006; Lapsley & Edgerton, 2002).

Remarkably, research on acculturation attitudes and their relations with attachment styles has focused mainly on adults and not on adolescents, whereas the latter group is in an important phase in life in which attitudes towards and opinions about societal issues are formed. Furthermore, in adolescence, the exploration issue which is characteristic of attachment, is of particular importance. For instance, at the psychological level, the formation of an own identity is the central task (e.g. French, Seidman, Allen, & Aber, 2006; Kroger, 2000). Exploring different attitudes and behaviors, defining and redefining oneself and gradually distancing oneself from parental control and forming new social relations are hallmarks of adolescence (Craig & Baucum, 2002). These tasks can bring about many insecurities. Especially for adolescents who are not securely attached and are not confident when facing social interactions, the task of establishing new social relations, particularly with new cultural groups, might be difficult. For these reasons, we thought it is important to study the acculturation attitudes and their relations with attachment styles among a sample of adolescents and to compare these outcomes with the acculturation attitudes and the relations with attachment styles among a sample of adults.


A widely used model to describe acculturation strategies of immigrants has been developed by John Berry. Berry (1997) states that immigrants are faced with two questions when they enter a new society: “Is it valuable to retain one’s culture of origin?”, and “Is it valuable to have positive relations with the larger society?”. Combinations of the answers to these dichotomous questions result in four strategies. Immigrants who wish to participate in the host society and at the same time wish to maintain their heritage culture are classified as integrating immigrants. Assimilating immigrants do not feel the need for cultural maintenance, but wish to join the host society. Separating immigrants do not desire to participate in the host society, but experience a strong desire for cultural maintenance. Finally, marginalizing immigrants neither have a strong need for cultural maintenance nor for contact with the host society.

Attachment Styles and Acculturation Attitudes of Adolescent and Adult Majority Members 59

The use of a certain acculturation strategy by immigrants is the result of the interplay between immigrants’ and host majority members’ acculturation orientations (e.g. Bourhis et al., 1997; Van Oudenhoven, Prins & Buunk, 1998). For instance, the use of strategies which are characterized by the maintenance of immigrants’ culture can depend on the extent to which immigrants feel accepted by the majority members (Moghaddam & Taylor, 1987). Immigrants who perceive negative affective reactions to their cultural group may not want to participate in the host society and consequently choose to separate, whereas immigrants who perceive positive reactions by the host society may choose to integrate or assimilate. Thus, knowing how majority members value the different strategies is important. In addition, it is important to know how majority members perceive the actual acculturation behaviour of immigrants. Majority members might react positively to the integration strategy, but may perceive immigrants to behave in a way that differs from this strategy. Comparing preferred acculturation strategies with perceived acculturation strategies can give us more insight into processes that come into play in intercultural contact than by assessing preferences for acculturation strategies alone (see also e.g. Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998; Zagefka & Brown, 2002). For instance, Piontkowski, Rohmann and Florack (2002) found that if the preferred and perceived acculturation strategy mismatch on both the contact and the cultural maintenance dimensions, as for instance the integration and marginalization strategy, or the majority members prefer marginalization and the immigrants are perceived as to prefer an other strategy, majority members perceive a high level of threat by immigrant groups and a low level of enrichment. So, besides affective reactions to acculturation strategies, we also studied the estimated prevalence of the acculturation strategies used by immigrants.

Hypotheses regarding Acculturation Attitudes: Affective Reaction to and Estimated Prevalence of Acculturation Strategies

Previous studies in the Netherlands showed that adult majority members preferred that immigrants use acculturation strategies which imply contact with the host society, like assimilation and integration (e.g., Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998; Hofstra et al., 2005). In their study in Germany on the affective reactions of adolescent majority members towards immigrants’ acculturation, Pfafferott and Brown (2006) found that adolescents also preferred integration as a strategy among immigrants, followed by assimilation. Therefore, in line with these studies we expect that adult and adolescent majority members prefer immigrants to have contact with the host society, thus endorsing the integration and assimilation strategy (Hypothesis 1).

60 Chapter 4

Whereas Van Oudenhoven et al. (1998) and Pfafferott and Brown (2006) found that majority members preferred the ‘contact strategies’, their results showed that adults and adolescents perceived that most immigrants endorse the strategies which entail maintenance of the original culture, i.e. separation and integration. Accordingly, we hypothesize that adults and adolescents perceive most immigrants to use the integration or separation strategy (Hypothesis 2a).

In spite of these resemblances in preferred and perceived acculturation strategies between adults and adolescents, they may differ in their actual estimations of the prevalence of the acculturation strategies. For instance, a critical facet of adolescence is the development of one’s identity. Especially during this time period many forms of identity, including ethnic identity, become salient (e.g., Erikson, 1968; Marcia, Waterman, Matteson, Archer, & Orlofsky, 1993; Phinney, 1989). Ethnic identity is defined as the individual’s sense of self in terms of membership of a particular ethnic group (e.g. Phinney, 1990), and includes several aspects such as self-identification, feelings of belongingness and commitment to a group, a sense of shared values, and attitudes towards ethnic groups. Forming an ethnic identity is considered as a critical developmental task for adolescents, particularly in complex modern societies (Marcia et al., 1993). Adolescents become more aware of the significance associated with group differences and as a result, adolescents begin to segregate themselves by ethnicity (Tatum, 1997) which might result in less interactions with other groups. This subgroup formation and consequently less intergroup interactions, might lead adolescents to perceive a higher percentage of immigrants using the separation and marginalization strategies which are characterized by none or little contact with the host society, and fewer immigrants endorsing the contact strategies, integration and assimilation, as compared to adults (Hypothesis 2b).

Attachment Styles

In addition to studying the affective reaction to and the estimated prevalence of acculturation strategies, we examined the influence of attachment styles on these outcome variables. The attachment theory of John Bowlby (1969/1982) states that children develop an attachment bond with their caregivers which keeps them close to them in times of stress. This helps children to form an image of themselves and of others. The experiences with the caregivers are internalized into working models, or mental representations of relations. These working models are based on two dimensions, a model of self, that is the self is seen as worthy of love or not; and a model of others or trust in others,


that is others are seen as trustworthy or not. According to Bowlby, the internal working models become increasingly resistant to change and continue to guide future behaviors and attitudes at an older age. Therefore, it is meaningful to study attachment styles of adults. In the last few decades, starting with a study by Hazan and Shaver (1987), research on adult attachment has indeed flourished. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) developed a theoretical model of attachment styles, which proved to be applicable to adults (e.g. Feeney, 2002; Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994). Based on Bowlby’s dimensions, model of self and trust in others, the model distinguishes between four attachment styles. A securely attached person has a positive image of the self and trusts others. Social interactions are faced with confidence. A fearfully attached person has a negative image of the self and distrusts others. Fearfully attached people avoid personal contacts. Dismissingly attached people have a positive image of the self, but they distrust others. Dismissing individuals do not have a strong need for social contacts. Finally, preoccupied attached people have a negative image of the self, but they trust others. These individuals wonder whether they are friendly or interesting enough to others.

Attachment theory is a promising theory to incorporate in acculturation research as attachment style refers to how people approach unknown others and adapt to new situations (e.g. Roisman, 2006; Lapsley & Edgerton, 2002) which become particularly relevant in intercultural contexts when people have to deal with (people from) cultures other than their own.

Earlier Research on Attachment Styles and Acculturation Variables

A first study on the relationship between attachment styles and acculturation variables was conducted among Dutch adult emigrants, of which the majority moved to Canada and the United States (Bakker, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee, 2004). Results showed that a secure attachment style was related to better psychological and socio-cultural adjustment in the country of settlement, whereas ambivalent and dismissing attachment were negatively related to psychological and sociocultural adjustment, respectively.

In two studies (Hofstra et al., 2005, see Chapter 3 of the present study; Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006) the study by Bakker et al. (2004) was extended among adult majority members in the Netherlands. We examined how the four acculturation strategies were valued by majority members and how attachment styles and affective reactions to acculturation strategies of immigrants were related. In both studies, integration and assimilation proved to be the most valued strategies, followed by

62 Chapter 4

separation and marginalization. Furthermore, we found a consistent positive relation between the secure attachment style and the affective reaction to integration of immigrants. It appeared that the fearful and dismissing styles were negatively related to the affective reaction to integration and positively to the affective reaction to the other three strategies. The results with respect to the preoccupied style were less consistent.

In the present study we tried to replicate the relations between attachment styles and affective reactions to the acculturation strategies. The present study differs from the previous studies in two aspects. First, the affective reactions to the acculturation strategies and its relations with attachment styles are examined among adults ánd among adolescents, so we were able to compare the results of both samples. Second, we examined the estimated prevalence of the acculturation strategies and its relations with attachment styles, again among both samples.

Hypotheses regarding Attachment Styles and Affective Reactions to Acculturation Strategies

Securely attached people have a positive image of the self and they trust others; social interactions are faced with confidence. As a result they will not feel threatened by contact with other cultures and expressions of other cultures. Therefore, we expect that secure attachment is positively related to the affective reaction to all acculturation strategies. Moreover, in line with our previous findings we particularly expect a positive relation of secure attachment with the affective reaction to integration (Hypothesis 3a).

Considering the more inconsistent findings regarding the relations between the insecure attachment styles and the acculturation strategies, we have less straightforward hypotheses about these relationships. However, we did find that in the previous studies both fearful and dismissing attachment were negatively related to the affective reaction to integration. Fearful attachment is characterized by a negative self-image and distrust of others. This distrust of others will increase when fearfully attached people have to deal with people who express other cultural values than their own, as is the case with integrating immigrants. So, we therefore expect the fearful style to be negatively related to the affective reaction to integration (Hypothesis 3b). Dismissingly attached people have a positive self-image, but they distrust others. They tend to avoid social contacts. We think that this is even more so when others have a different cultural background. Therefore, we also expect to find a negative relation between dismissing attachment and the affective reaction to integration (Hypothesis 3c). In addition, one could expect a positive relation


between dismissing attachment and separation, as separation implies that there is no contact between majority members and immigrants (Hypothesis 3d).

Hypotheses regarding Attachment Styles and Estimations of Prevalence of Acculturation Strategies

According to Bowlby (1980), the working models, model of self and trust in others, function as filters which ‘color’ social experiences. Individuals with a secure working model of relations seek and expect encouraging and satisfying social interactions. These expectations lead secure people to behave in a positive, open way which elicit these satisfying experiences. In contrast, based on previous experiences, individuals with insecure working models expect less satisfying relations with others and are therefore less open to others. This way, there is a smaller chance that they will develop a satisfying relation with others. So, the working models may work as self-fulfilling prophecies. Moreover, people tend to overestimate the extent to which others share their opinions and behavior. This is known as the false-consensus effect (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). Thus, for instance people who have many social contacts, estimate the extent to which others have social contacts as higher than people who do not have many social contacts. Following these lines of reasoning, we expect that people scoring high on secure attachment which is characterized by confidence in social interactions, observe that more immigrants endorse the contact strategies of assimilation and integration and that fewer immigrants separate or marginalize (Hypothesis 4a). In contrast, we expect that people scoring high on the insecure styles which are characterized by avoiding personal contacts (fearful and dismissing) or a wariness to approach others (preoccupied), observe that immigrants do not have much contact with the host society. Consequently, we expect a negative relationship between the insecure styles and the estimated prevalence of integration and assimilation and positive relations between the insecure styles and the estimated prevalence of the separation and marginalization strategy (Hypothesis 4b).

Method

Respondents and Procedure

Two samples of Dutch majority members filled out the questionnaire. The first of these samples consisted of 200 adolescents with a mean age of 14.33 years (SD = 0.47; age range from 14 to 15 years; 52% male, 48% female; the majority attended higher

64 Chapter 4

secondary education); the second group was a random sample of 456 adults with a mean age of 45 years (SD = 9.81; age range from 25 to 66 years; 43% male, 57% female; about 44% of the group had higher vocational or university education). The respondents all participated in a large scale study on societal cohesion in the Netherlands and were approached by the researchers and a few research assistants.

In the adolescent sample, we asked about the country of birth of the participants themselves and of their mother and father. Participants were included if they, and both of their parents were born in the Netherlands (n = 189); or if one of them (the participant or one of his/ her parents) was born in a western country (n = 11) and the other two were born in the Netherlands. In the adult sample only participants who were born in the Netherlands, and/or whose parents both had the Dutch nationality were included. All participants were citizens of the Netherlands.

Instruments

We measured attachment styles with questionnaires that highly resembled the Attachment Styles Questionnaire which we discussed in Chapter 2. In the adolescent sample, 16 items of the ASQ were used, with three additional items. In the adult sample, 17 items of the ASQ were used, with two additional items (see Appendices 3 and 4 for all items).

In the adolescent sample, the attachment items were formulated in a slightly different, more easy way as compared to the items for the adults. The attachment scales for the two groups were constructed in such a way that corresponding attachment styles were measured by the same items as much as possible. We used five items to measure secure attachment. A sample item for the adolescents is: “I feel at ease with children who care about me”; the corresponding item for the adult group is: “I feel at ease in close relationships”. Fearful attachment was measured by five items like “I am afraid to tell much about myself” in the adolescent group, and with items like “I am afraid to tell personal things about myself” in the adult group. The dismissing scale consisted of four items, for example: “I find it unpleasant when others want something from me, I also prefer to go my own way” in the adolescent group; the corresponding item for the adult group is: “I prefer that others are independent of me, and that I am independent of others”. Finally, preoccupied attachment was measured by five items, a sample item for both groups is: “I am afraid of being abandoned”. Answers could be given on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Following Fraley and Waller (1998), respondents were not classified into one attachment category but received scores on all


four attachment scales. Table 4.1 shows the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) of the attachment scales and the inter-scale correlations for the two groups. The attachment scales reached the minimum reliability level of .60 set by Nunnally (1978), except for the dismissing scale which might be attributed to the ambiguity of the concept –it consists of a need to be independent and of wariness to approach others- which was also expressed in the items of the dismissing scale.

Table 4.1

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients and Inter-correlations for the Attachment Scales for

Adolescents and Adults.

Attachment

scale M SD α 1. 2. 3. 4.

Adolescents (N = 200)

1. Secure 4.53 .51 .72 -- -.41*** -.32*** -.15*

2. Fearful 1.92 .67 .69 -- .38*** .46***

3. Dismissing 2.71 .70 .58 -- .13

4. Preoccupied 2.40 .90 .83 --

Adults (N = 456)

1. Secure 3.80 .58 .68 -- -.58*** -.28*** -.21***

2. Fearful 2.46 .66 .70 -- .29*** .26***

3. Dismissing 3.05 .66 .52 -- -.07

4. Preoccupied 2.46 .72 .77 --

Note. *p < .05; ***p < .001.

We measured the majority members’ attitudes towards acculturation of immigrants using

a scenario approach in which the scenarios were ostensibly presented as newspaper articles (see also Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998). In both groups, each respondent had to read one of four fictitious fragments of an article about an immigrant from Surinam, a former Dutch colony in the northern part of South America. The Surinamese main character showed behavior that was either typical of an integrating, assimilating, separating or marginalizing immigrant. The four scenarios are presented in Appendix 5.

After reading the scenario, the respondents first answered on a 5-point scale how important the main character in the scenario considered his original culture, and how important it was to him to have contact with the host society. We used these questions as manipulation checks. Next, the respondents had to answer five questions on a 5-point scale, measuring their affective reaction to the person in the scenario (α = .83 and .88 for the

66 Chapter 4

adolescents and the adults, respectively). A sample item is: “How positive do you find Jamy’s thoughts and behavior?”. Finally, we asked the respondents to estimate the prevalence of the acculturation strategy which the main character in the scenario endorsed. The respondents had to choose one of the following options: 1 (0-20%), 2 (21-40%), 3 (41-60%), 4 (61-80%), 5 (81-100%). The two dependent variables, affective reaction to the acculturation strategies and the estimated prevalence of the strategies, appeared to be significantly related in the marginalization-condition (r = .32, p < .05) among the adolescents, and in the integration (r = .24, p < .05), assimilation (r = .35, p < .001), and separation-condition (r = -.34, p < .001) among the adults. Despite the fact that the two dependent variables are significantly related in some conditions, the correlations point at sufficient independence to justify regarding them separately.

Results

Gender and Age Differences

We first explored whether the scores on the scales differed by gender and age. Among the adolescents, girls scored higher than boys on the scale for secure attachment (M = 4.70, SD = 0.35 versus M = 4.37, SD = 0.57), F (1, 197) = 23.50, p <.001, lower than boys on the dismissing scale (M = 2.51, SD = 0.67 versus M = 2.89, SD = 0.68), F (1, 192) = 14.91, p <.001; and higher than boys on the affective reaction to the separation scenario (M = 3.09, SD = 0.44 versus M = 2.58, SD = 0.63), F (1, 48) = 11.20, p <.01.

Among the adults, women scored higher than men on the preoccupied scale (M = 2.55, SD = 0.74 versus M = 2.35, SD = 0.69), F (1, 453) = 8.70, p <.01, higher than men on the affective reaction to the integrating immigrant (M = 4.20, SD = 0.37 versus M = 4.00, SD = 0.52), F (1, 112) = 6.37, p <.05; and lower than men on the estimated prevalence of the marginalization strategy (M = 1.39, SD = 0.69 versus M = 1.76, SD = 0.93), F (1, 107) = 5.55, p <.05. Besides, we found negative correlations between secure and preoccupied attachment on the one hand, and age on the other hand (r = -.17, p < .01; and r = -.22, p < .001 respectively). Since controlling for the effects of gender and age did not change our results, we decided to exclude these variables from subsequent analyses.


Acculturation Attitudes

Manipulation Check Subsequently, we tested whether our manipulation of the acculturation strategies

used by the main character in the scenario had been successful in the two samples. Therefore, among both groups we conducted ANOVAS with the two questions regarding the perceived importance of cultural maintenance and contact with the host society as the dependent variables and scenario as the independent variable. Results showed that among the adolescent group there were highly significant differences between the scenarios with regard to perceived cultural maintenance, F (3, 195) = 117.43, p < .001 and perceived amount of contact with the host society, F (3, 195) = 320.52, p < .001. The main character in the assimilation and the marginalization scenario was perceived as to assign much less importance to cultural maintenance (respectively, M = 1.45 and M = 1.55), than the main character in the separation and integration scenario (respectively M = 4.10 and M = 2.78, p < .001).

Additionally, the main character in the assimilation and integration scenario was seen as to have more contact with the host society (respectively M = 4.62 and M = 3.55, p < .001) than the main character in the separation and marginalization scenario (respectively M = 2.02 and M = 2.02). The same pattern was found among the adult sample. Participants perceived that the assimilating and marginalizing immigrant assigned much less importance to maintenance of the original culture (respectively, M = 1.40 and M = 1.26), than the separating and integrating immigrant (respectively, M = 4.29 and M = 3.03, p < .001), F (3, 450) = 440.08, p < .001. Finally, the adult participants perceived the assimilating and integrating immigrant to have more contact with the host society (respectively, M = 4.28 and M = 3.27, p < .001), than the separating and marginalizing immigrants (respectively, M = 2.13 and M = 1.98), F (3, 450) = 339.43, p < .001. Among both samples the separating immigrant was perceived as to assign significantly more importance to cultural maintenance than the integrating immigrant, and the assimilating immigrant was seen as to have significantly more contact with the host society than the integrating immigrant. It is understandable that one estimates the level of contact of an immigrant who has adopted one’s cultural values as higher than the level of contact of an immigrant who maintains his original culture. Likewise, the level of cultural maintenance of an immigrant who does not want contact with the host society will be estimated as higher than the level of cultural maintenance of an immigrant who does want to have contact with the host society. As the immigrants using strategies characterized by high

68 Chapter 4

level of contact with the host society (or: high level of cultural maintenance) were indeed seen as to have more contact (or: assign more importance to maintenance of culture) than the immigrants using low contact (or: low cultural maintenance) strategies, we can conclude that our manipulations worked successfully.

Affective Reactions to and Estimated Prevalence of Acculturation Strategies Next, we were interested in the appreciation of the acculturation strategies and the

estimated prevalence of the strategies for the adolescent and adult group. To that end, we calculated the mean scores on the affective reaction to the scenarios and the estimated prevalence of the acculturation strategies (Table 4.2). A MANOVA with group (adolescents and adults) and scenario (integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization) as independent variables and affective reaction and estimated prevalence as dependent variables was conducted. At the multivariate level, a significant main effect was found for scenario, F(6, 1254) = 98.79, p < .001, η2 = 0.32. Univariately, this effect could be attributed to both affective reaction and estimated prevalence, F(3, 627) = 244.86, p < .001, η2 = 0.54, and F(3, 627) = 28.80, p < .001, η2 = 0.12. Further analysis showed that all mean scores on the affective reactions to the four scenarios differed significantly from one another (all p’s <.001). Overall, in line with our hypothesis, participants appreciated the integrating immigrant the most, followed by the assimilating immigrant, the separating immigrant and the immigrant using the marginalization strategy immigrant. Furthermore, all the estimated prevalences of the strategies also differed significantly from another, except for the estimated prevalence of the separation and integration strategy. Participants believed that as we expected, most immigrants separate or integrate, followed by assimilation and marginalization. We did not find a significant main effect for group. However, we did find a significant two-way interaction effect, F (6, 1254) = 2.62, p <.05, η2 = 0.01, which could be attributed to the estimated prevalence of the acculturation strategies, F(3, 627) = 3.02, p < .05, η2 = 0.01. Further analyses showed that this effect could be attributed to different estimations of the prevalence of the marginalization strategy across the two groups, F(1, 155) = 5.01, p < .05, η2 = 0.03. More specifically, the adolescents estimated the prevalence of the marginalization strategy higher than the adults (M = 1.94 for adolescents versus M = 1.57 for adults, p < .05). So, our hypothesis was partly confirmed.


Table 4.2

Means and Standard Deviations on the Affective Reactions to and the Estimated Prevalences of the Four

Acculturation Strategies for Adolescents and Adults.

Adolescents Adults

Affective Reaction

Strategy M SD n M SD n

Integration 3.97 .51 49 4.13 .43 113

Assimilation 3.81 .66 46 3.64 .65 122

Separation 2.85 .59 50 2.75 .70 104

Marginalization 2.37 .51 48 2.44 .44 109

Estimated Prevalence

Strategy M SD n M SD n

Integration 2.56 1.13 49 2.90 1.11 113

Assimilation 2.17 .99 46 2.07 .97 122

Separation 2.85 1.1 50 2.69 1.18 104

Marginalization 1.94 1.12 48 1.57 .83 108

In sum, whereas the participants preferred acculturation strategies which imply

contact with the host society (integration and assimilation), they perceive that most immigrants endorse the strategies which entail maintenance of the original culture (integration and separation). Moreover, adolescents and adults do not differ in their appreciation of the four acculturation strategies. Finally, as compared to adults, adolescents perceive that more immigrants marginalize.

Attachment Styles and Affective Reactions to and Estimated Prevalence of Acculturation Strategies

Next, we considered the assumption of the present study that the affective reactions to the acculturation strategies and the perceptions of the prevalence of the strategies is influenced by attachment style. In order to examine these relationships, we calculated the correlations between the concepts which are presented in Table 4.3. Interestingly, we only found significant relations of attachment styles with affective reactions to acculturation strategies among the adult sample. More specifically, as predicted, it appeared that the secure attachment style was significantly positively related

70 Chapter 4

to the affective reaction to integration. Fearful attachment was indeed negatively related to this strategy. Moreover, the dismissing attachment style correlated positively with the affective reaction towards separation, as expected. Finally, we found a negative correlation between preoccupied attachment and the affective reaction to separation. People scoring high on preoccupied attachment might not like immigrants who separate as they might consider that as a rejection of the host culture.

Table 4.3

Correlations between Attachment Styles and Affective Reactions to and Estimations of Prevalence of the

Acculturation Strategies for the Adolescent and Adult Group.

Adolescents Integration

(n = 49)

Assimilation

(n = 46)

Separation

(n = 50)

Marginalization

(n = 48)

AR EP AR EP AR EP AR EP

Secure .06 -.17 -.02 .03 -.05 .09 -.12 -.36**

Fearful .10 -.07 .11 -.01 .09 .23 -.27+ .05

Dismissing .04 .16 .20 -.03 .01 .32* -.22 .13

Preoccupied .12 -.36** .06 .23 .06 -.11 -.12 -.10

Adults Integration

(n = 113)

Assimilation

(n = 122)

Separation

(n = 104)

Marginalization

(n = 108)

AR EP AR EP AR EP AR EP

Secure .25** .22** .03 .07 .14 -.16 .09 -.24**

Fearful -.29** -.16* -.09 -.11 -.14 .24** -.02 .28**

Dismissing -.03 -.18* -.03 -.04 .23** .19* .12 .14

Preoccupied .01 -.15 -.09 .04 -.30** .01 -.07 .14

Note. AR = Affective Reaction; EP = Estimated Prevalence; * p < .05; **p < .01; +p < .10, two-

tailed. Predicted results (in bold) were subjected to one-tailed tests.

Regarding the estimated prevalence of the acculturation strategies, we did find

significant relations with the attachment styles among the adolescent as well as the adult sample which were all in line with our predictions. In both samples the secure attachment style appeared to be negatively related with the estimated prevalence of the marginalization strategy. So, the higher the score on secure attachment, the lower the perceived percentage of marginalizing immigrants. Moreover, the dismissing attachment style correlated positively with the estimated prevalence of the separation strategy among both the adolescent and the adult sample.


In spite of the resemblances in correlations between attachment styles and estimated prevalences between adolescents and adults, there were also differences. For instance, among the adults, the secure attachment style was positively related to the perception of the prevalence of the integration strategy. With regard to the fearful attachment style, we found positive relations with the estimated prevalence of the separation and marginalization strategies, and a negative correlation with the estimated prevalence of the integration strategy. Further, it appeared that a higher score on the dismissing attachment style is related to a more negative perception of the endorsement of the integration strategy. Finally, among the adolescents, the preoccupied attachment style was negatively related to the estimated prevalence of the integration strategy.

Discussion

In the present study we wondered whether adolescents and adults differed in their acculturation attitudes. Regarding the affective reaction to the acculturation strategies we can conclude that they do not. It appeared that integration of immigrants was the most preferred strategy for Dutch adolescent and adult majority members. This result is in line with our previous studies about the acculturation attitudes of Dutch majority members (Hofstra et al., 2005; Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). This consistent pattern is interesting because other studies in the Netherlands have shown that assimilation was preferred over integration (Van Oudenhoven, 2002; Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998; Verkuyten & Thijs, 1999). The difference in preferences for the acculturation strategies could be attributed to the fact that we studied the affective reaction to a Surinamese immigrant, in contrast to the other studies in which the attitude towards an immigrant from an Islamic country was studied. Surinam has been a Dutch colony for more than three centuries, and consequently the Surinamese culture has been strongly influenced by the Dutch culture. Moreover, it was often found that Dutch majority members appreciate Surinamese immigrants more than immigrants from for instance Turkey and Morocco (e.g. Hraba, Hagendoorn, & Hagendoorn, 1989; Verkuyten, Hagendoorn, & Masson, 1996; Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2004). As a result, Dutch majority members might be more positive about cultural maintenance of Surinamese immigrants than of Islamic immigrants.

Intriguingly, whereas the two groups preferred the acculturation strategies that are both characterized by contact with the host society, integration and assimilation, they perceived that most immigrants endorse the strategies which are both characterized by maintenance of the original culture, integration and separation. Regarding their

72 Chapter 4

preferences, it seems that for majority members, the ‘contact dimension’ is most important. This is understandable as majority members might perceive immigrants who want to have contact with them as appreciating the majority members and their culture. However, majority members think that for immigrants the ‘cultural maintenance’ dimension is more important. This is a realistic estimation, as several studies have indeed shown that immigrants want to cherish their original cultures (e.g. Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998; Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzálek, 2000; Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2003). So, majority members accurately perceive what immigrants want.

Additionally, as compared to adults, adolescents perceived a larger percentage of immigrants endorsing the marginalization strategy. This might be related to generational differences as was stated earlier in the introduction. During adolescence, children start to differentiate themselves and their friendships along ethnic lines (Tatum, 1997). Adolescents from different ethnic backgrounds tend to stick together (Marcia et al., 1993). The perception of adolescents that, as compared to adults, more immigrants marginalize, may simply reflect life at schools and during leisure activities where students of different ethnic backgrounds form subgroups and do not interact that much with other groups. Moreover, at schools and in school classes it is directly clear whether one belongs to a group or not; in adult life this is harder to notice. Furthermore, the false-consensus effect, that is the tendency of people to overestimate the extent to which others share their opinions and behaviors (Ross et al., 1977), may also play a role here: adolescent majority members who might form a subgroup do not interact that much with adolescents from a different ethnic background and consequently perceive them to not having contact with the host society. In addition, as the number of immigrants at schools is still not that high, it could be that adolescents do not perceive immigrants to cling to their own group but perceive them not to belong to any group which is characteristic for marginalizing immigrants.

An important question of the present study was whether attachment styles are related to affective reactions to and estimated prevalence of acculturation strategies. In general, we replicated our previous results regarding attachment styles and affective reaction to acculturation strategies, but only among the adults. Again, we found that the secure attachment style was positively related to the attitude towards integration, and that the fearful style was negatively related to this strategy. Moreover, also in line with previous findings, dismissing attachment correlated positively with the affective reaction to separation. Finally, the preoccupied style appeared to be negatively related to separation. Furthermore, besides relations with affective reactions to the strategies, the present study showed that attachment styles are also related to the perception of the


occurrence of the acculturation strategies. The secure attachment style was positively related to the estimated prevalence of the integration strategy and negatively to the estimated prevalence of the marginalization strategy. In general, the pattern for the insecure styles was reversed. Thus, the way one relates to others influences the way one perceives the behaviour of others.

Attachment styles influence our behavior in new, unknown situations and the way we approach unfamiliar others (Lapsley & Edgerton, 2002; Roisman, 2006). Because contacts between majority members and immigrants imply interactions with unfamiliar others in a new situation, we expected attachment styles to be related to the affective reactions towards the acculturation of immigrants. Among the adults, these relations were indeed significant. Different from what was expected, among the adolescents we did not find significant relations between attachment styles and the affective reaction to acculturation strategies. This lack of significant relations might be attributed to the abstract level of the scenarios to which the respondents had to react. Apparently, attachment styles at a younger age do play a significant role in the affective reactions to others that are interpersonally close to the individual and in the behaviour in concrete conflicting situations, but may not strongly influence intergroup attitudes towards more abstract members of out-groups.

It must be noted that among the adolescents attachment styles did relate significantly to the estimated prevalences of the acculturation strategies. Among the adult sample we also found stronger relations between attachment styles and the estimated prevalence than between attachment styles and the affective reaction to the acculturation strategies. Perhaps the measurement of the estimated prevalence or perceived acculturation strategy is more concrete and less susceptible to social desirability and therefore elicits more clear and outspoken answers which in turn lead to more significant relations.

In a study among immigrants from China, Turkey and Surinam we found stronger relations between their attachment styles and affective reactions to acculturation strategies than in the present study (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). This is understandable, as the immigrants had to react to a member of their own in-group which may have been regarded as reflecting indirectly upon themselves. Therefore, it is plausible that the immigrants’ reactions to the scenarios are more strongly related to an other measure which calls for self-reflection, like the attachment styles questionnaire, than the affective reactions to the scenarios of the majority members of the present study. The majority members had to react to an out-group members’ acculturation problem which they do

74 Chapter 4

not experience themselves. Because of this difference in identification with the main character, majority members might have less outspoken opinions about the strategies.

A strength of the present study is that we used a scenario-approach to measure the reactions of majority members towards acculturation strategies. An advantage of this method is that, as compared to questionnaires, the possibility of socially desirable answers is reduced. It is easier for participants to react in a socially desirable way to global questions about their acculturation attitudes than to a concrete and realistic scenario. In order to further reduce social desirability effects, we used a between-subjects experimental design in which participants were randomly assigned to one of the four scenarios about the acculturation strategies. This way, they could not compare the strategies and consequently react more positively to one strategy because it is believed to be more socially desirable than the other strategies. Additionally, the use of a scenario-approach may have reduced common method variance.

Our study had a few limitations. First, we only assessed the attitudes of the majority members towards immigrants and not their real behavior. Future studies could for instance also measure how much actual contact majority members have with immigrants from different countries. Second, we used a cross-sectional research design to study the influence of age on acculturation attitudes and attachment. For future studies it would be preferable to conduct a longitudinal study.

The present study showed that both adolescents and adults preferred integration of immigrants and perceived that most immigrants endorse this strategy. This is a promising result as many researchers have found that for immigrants the integration strategy is the most preferred and most adaptive strategy, and that this strategy is related to positive intergroup relations (Ward, Bochner & Furnham, 2001; Pfafferott & Brown, 2006; Zagefka, & Brown, 2002). In addition, the secure attachment style appeared to be positively related to the affective reaction to and estimated prevalence of this integration strategy. Thus, increasing the level of attachment security might be a good starting point for interventions aimed at positively influencing intercultural interactions.

CHAPTER 5

Majority Members’ Attachment Styles, Personality

Traits and Attitudes towards and Contact with

Immigrants8

As a consequence of globalisation, information technology and welfare amongst others, people increasingly come into contact with other cultures than their own. For instance, tourists travel around the world to discover other countries and cultures; international students and expats temporarily live abroad. For these groups, the confrontation with another culture is of short duration. A group for which the confrontation with a new culture is more pervasive, are immigrants: they leave their own countries with the intention to build up a new life elsewhere and stay there for a long time. The adjustment of immigrants to the host society, or the acculturation of immigrants, has been studied frequently. Acculturation is known as the process that individuals undergo when they are confronted with a changing cultural context. According to Redfield, Linton and Herskovits acculturation comprises of “those 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” (1936, p. 149). Thus, acculturation is a process of mutual adaptation of people with different cultural backgrounds, for instance immigrants and native host society members. However, as the cultural pattern of immigrants was believed to change the most during intercultural contact, at first acculturation researchers primarily focused on the experiences of this group. Recently, as the number of immigrants worldwide increased, researchers now also recognize that immigration brings about changes in the cultural patterns of the receiving societies as well (e.g., Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997). For instance, in the Netherlands 5% of the population originates from Muslim countries nowadays and consequently Islamic values and traditions gradually pass through in Dutch society.

8 This chapter is based on Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J.P., & Van der Zee, K.I. (2009b). Majority members’ attachment styles, personality traits and attitudes towards and contact with immigrants. Manuscript in preparation.

76 Chapter 5

So, in recent years the acculturation experience of the receiving societies also became a topic of interest. For instance, what is the attitude of majority members (native host society members) towards immigrants? How much contact do majority members actually have with immigrants? And which individual difference variables influence the attitude of majority members towards and their degree of contact with immigrants? These questions are addressed in the present study. We focused on the predictive value of attachment styles, and compared this with the predictive value of two other individual difference variables, the Big Five personality traits and intercultural traits.

Attachment styles are individual difference variables which are formed in childhood during interactions with significant others (e.g., Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) and they are found to influence the development of a sense of security about the self and the world and of the ability to confidently explore the environment. Research has shown that attachment styles in adulthood are also linked to exploration-related issues, such as thrill and adventure seeking (Carnelley & Ruscher, 2000), level of curiosity (Johnston, 1999), social exploration, e.g the desire to meet strangers (Green & Campbell, 2000) and the reaction to strangers (Roisman, 2006). Dealing with immigrants implies dealing with strangers and exploring new cultures and situations. Therefore, we assumed attachment styles to be related to attitudes towards and degree of contact with immigrants.

Research has already shown that attachment styles of majority members are related to the attitude towards acculturation strategies of immigrants (Hofstra, Van Oudenhoven, & Buunk, 2005; Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006, Hofstra, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee, 2009a). Yet, in order to be relevant in acculturation research, attachment styles not only have to be related to attitudes towards acculturation of immigrants, but also must have additional value in explaining variance in the attitudes beyond other individual difference factors. Therefore, we compared the predictive value of attachment styles to the predictive value of a widely used psychological framework, the Big Five personality traits. In addition, we compared the influence of attachment styles against the influence of intercultural traits which are specifically tailored to effectively dealing with intercultural encounters and to intercultural success (e.g., Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001). Do attachment styles explain a unique portion of the variance in the attitude towards acculturation strategies, or is this predictive value already covered by the Big Five traits or the intercultural traits?

To further test the value of attachment styles in the domain of majority-immigrant relations, we examined the relation between attachment styles and the degree of contact majority members have with immigrants. Does a certain attachment style lead to more

Majority Members’ Attachment Styles, Personality Traits, Attitudes towards and Contact with Immigrants 77

intercultural contacts? Again, we compared the influence of attachment styles on the degree of contact with immigrants to the influence of the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits. In the next sections, we will describe the variables used in the present study.


Berry (1997) distinguished four different strategies which immigrants use to adapt to the host society. These so-called acculturation strategies differ along two underlying dimensions: the degree to which one wishes to maintain one's heritage culture and the degree to which one wishes to have contact with the host society. Combinations of these dimensions result in the following strategies. Integration of immigrants is characterized by a wish to participate in the host society and at the same time a wish to maintain their heritage culture. Assimilation occurs when immigrants do not feel the need for cultural maintenance, but wish to join the host society. Separating immigrants do not desire to participate in the host society, but experience a strong desire for cultural maintenance. Finally, marginalization is the strategy immigrants use when they neither participate in the host society nor wish to maintain their original culture. The usage of a certain acculturation strategy is influenced by the orientation of the host society and its majority members (e.g., Bourhis et al., 1997). The assimilation strategy, for instance, can only be pursued by immigrants if majority members are willing to let immigrants participate in the society.

In the present study we focused on these attitudes of majority members towards acculturation strategies of immigrants. More specifically, we studied the attitude of Dutch majority members towards acculturation strategies of Moroccan immigrants. We have chosen for Moroccan immigrants as they constitute one of the largest groups of non-western immigrants in the Netherlands, together with immigrants from Turkey and Surinam (Statistics Netherlands, 2008b). Besides, it is interesting to study the attitudes towards acculturation strategies of Moroccan immigrants as the Moroccan culture is very different from the Dutch culture and a substantial part of the Dutch population consider it as threatening. Prior research on the attitudes towards several groups of immigrants in the Netherlands, showed that Dutch majority members perceived most social distance towards immigrants from Islamic countries (e.g., Hraba, Hagendoorn, & Hagendoorn, 1989; Verkuyten, Hagendoorn, & Masson, 1996). Moreover, Dutch majority members generally think most negatively about immigrants from Morocco as compared to other groups of immigrants (Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2004). Previous research in the Netherlands on attitudes towards immigrants from Islamic countries has shown that Dutch majority

78 Chapter 5

members preferred immigrants from Islamic countries to let go of their original culture, thus to assimilate (Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998; Van Oudenhoven & Eisses, 1998). This is understandable, as when immigrants assimilate, they adopt the cultural values of the host society and thus become more like the majority members. The Similarity-Attraction hypothesis states that in general, people are more attracted to people who are similar to them than to people who are dissimilar, as similarity reduces insecurity about one’s opinions and beliefs which leads to positive feelings about the self (Byrne, 1971; Duck & Barnes, 1992; Hogg, Cooper-Shaw, & Holzworth, 1993; Newcomb, 1961). In intercultural encounters, similarity in cultural values may also reduce insecurity, because it confirms that one’s beliefs and values are correct (Byrne & Clore, 1970). Therefore, in the present study, we also expect that Dutch majority members prefer assimilation by Moroccan immigrants over integration and separation (Hypothesis 1).

We decided not to measure the attitude of majority members towards marginalization as this a strategy which is not actually chosen by immigrants, but often forced upon them (e.g. Berry, 1997; Van Oudenhoven, 2002).

Attachment Styles

According to the theory of Bowlby (1969/1982), attachment styles refer to people’s tendencies of relating to others. The theory further posits that there are individual differences in these tendencies. For instance, some people feel at ease in close relationships, whereas others fear that their hopes will be deceived when they get too closely related to other people. Similarly, some people fear to be left alone, whereas others do not worry about being alone, as they do not need others that strongly. These individual differences in approaching others (or: attachment styles) are the result of differences in internal working models, or mental schemas, of relationships with others. Internal working models are developed in childhood through the internalisation of experiences with caregivers and are conceived to consist of two key components: a model of self and a model of others or trust in others. These working models become increasingly stable and are believed to function as a framework to interpret experiences with other people, thereby affecting subsequent relationships. Therefore, in the last few decades attachment theory has become an important theoretical framework in the study of adult relations. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) distinguished four adult attachment styles, based on the dimensions model of self and trust in others. If a person has a positive image of the self and he/she trusts others, that person is categorized as securely attached. Securely attached people feel comfortable in close relationships. People are classified as


fearfully attached if they have a negative self model and they do not trust others. Fearfully attached individuals tend to avoid social contacts. A dismissing attachment style is characterized by a positive model of the self and a distrust of others. Dismissingly attached individuals like to be independent of others. Finally, preoccupied attached people have a negative image of the self, but they trust others. These individuals for instance fear to be left alone.

Attachment Styles and Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies of Immigrants

Previous studies have shown that attachment styles of adults are related to their attitudes towards acculturation strategies of immigrants (e.g., Hofstra, et al., 2005, 2009a). In the present study, we were interested in whether we could replicate the earlier findings. Besides, we examined the additional value of attachment styles in predicting acculturation attitudes above the Big Five traits and intercultural traits. But first, how are attachment styles of majority members related to attitudes towards acculturation strategies?

Our previous studies have shown a consistent pattern of relations between the attitude towards the integration strategy and the attachment styles. The secure attachment style appeared to be positively related to the attitude towards integration among students (Chapter 3) and among a representative group of adults (Chapter 4). Additional evidence for this positive relation was found among a group of immigrants in the Netherlands (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). This positive relation between the secure style and the attitude towards integration makes sense as of the attachment styles and the acculturation strategies, both the secure attachment style and the integration strategy are the most ‘healthy or beneficial’ ones. Both secure attachment and integration are characterized by a constructive attitude towards the self, or the own culture, and towards others, or other cultures, respectively. Research has shown that, as compared to the other styles and strategies, the secure attachment style and the integration strategy prevail across cultures (e.g., Schmitt, et al., 2004; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006) and have various positive correlates. For instance, as compared to insecurely attached individuals, securely attached individuals have better relations with friends, peers, and family; have less behavioural problems; and score higher on well-being and psychological health (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, for a review). Immigrants endorsing the integration strategy were found to have for instance fewer psychological and behavioural problems (e.g., Berry et al., 2006), and superior health (Curran, 2003) than immigrants pursuing the other ways of

80 Chapter 5

acculturating. Moreover, the integration strategy is related to positive intergroup relations (Zagefka & Brown, 2002).

Additional findings among the students (Chapter 3), the group of adults (Chapter 4) and the group of immigrants (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006) showed that the insecure styles (fearful, dismissing, and preoccupied) appeared to be either negatively related or not significantly related to the attitude towards integration.

Hence, in the present study we expect the secure style to be positively related to the attitude towards integration, and the insecure styles to be negatively related or unrelated to the attitude towards this strategy (Hypothesis 2).

Our previous studies consistently showed no significant relations between the secure attachment style and the attitudes towards the assimilation and separation strategy. The relations between the attitudes towards these strategies and the insecure styles showed a less clear-cut pattern. We found that the fearful attachment style was either positively related to the attitude towards assimilation among the students (Chapter 3), unrelated to the strategies among the adults (Chapter 4) or positively related to the attitude towards the separation strategy among a group of immigrants (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). Fearful attachment is characterized by distrust of others and a negative image of the self. This distrust might increase when fearfully attached individuals have to deal with people with a different cultural background. Fearfully attached majority members might be positive towards assimilation by immigrants, as when immigrants let go of their heritage culture, the distrust might be somewhat diminished. Fearfully attached immigrants, might have a positive attitude towards the separation strategy as this strategy implies little or no interaction with majority members which they distrust, and staying in the own familiar cultural group.

Regarding the dismissing attachment style, we found no significant relations with the attitudes towards assimilation and separation among the students (Chapter 3), a positive relation with separation among the adults (Chapter 4) and positive relations with assimilation and separation among the immigrants (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). Dismissingly attached individuals avoid approaching other people, as they do not have a strong need for social contacts; they like to be self-sufficient. Dismissingly attached majority members might have a positive attitude towards the separation strategy as separation implies that there is no contact between majority members and immigrants. A possible explanation for the positive correlations among the immigrants between the dismissing attachment style and the attitude towards assimilation and separation, might be that dismissing individuals prefer to deal with exclusively one group, either the own immigrant group (separation) or the host society members (assimilation), and


consequently only one set of cultural values and norms so they do not have to go back and forth between two different cultures.

Finally, for the preoccupied style we found no relations with the attitude towards assimilation and separation among the students (Chapter 3), a negative relation with the attitude towards separation among the adults (Chapter 4) and positive relations with the assimilation and separation strategies among the immigrants (Van Oudenhoven, & Hofstra, 2006). Preoccupied attached individuals are afraid of being disliked and rejected by others. Therefore, preoccupied attached majority members might not like immigrants who separate and thus avoid contact as they consider that as a rejection of the culture of the host society. Preoccupied attached immigrants on the other hand, might be positive towards separation as when one sticks to ones own familiar group and does not have contact with majority members, one cannot be rejected by the majority members. Also, when immigrants give up their own original culture and adopt the culture of the host society, and thus assimilate, the chance of being rejected by the host society is lower, and therefore preoccupied attached people might have a positive attitude towards the assimilation strategy.

In sum, no relations are expected between the secure attachment style and the attitude towards the assimilation and separation strategy. As the relations between the insecure styles and the attitude towards assimilation and separation show a less consistent pattern and seem to be influenced by a context variable like majority or immigrant status, we do not formulate hypotheses about these relationships and examine the relations in an exploratory way.

Additive Value of Attachment Styles in predicting Acculturation Attitudes

An important aim of the present study is to compare the influence of attachment styles on the reaction to acculturation strategies with the influence of two other individual difference variables, the well-known Big Five traits and intercultural traits which will be explained shortly. Are attachment styles able to explain variance in the attitude towards acculturation strategies beyond that explained by the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits? If attachment styles have additive value in predicting the attitudes towards acculturation strategies above the two other individual difference factors, we can conclude that attachment is a relevant variable in acculturation research.

82 Chapter 5

Big Five Personality Traits

The Big Five model is a well known empirically-based framework describing major individual differences in personality (see e.g., Digman, 1990; John, 1990; Goldberg, 1993). This model distinguishes five robust personality traits which are believed to form the basic structure of personality. Extraversion refers to the tendency to be outgoing, assertive and active; agreeableness refers to the tendency to be kind, trusting and trustworthy; conscientiousness refers to the tendency of being organized, dependable, perseverant and achievement-oriented; emotional stability refers to the tendency to remain calm in stressful situations. Intellect refers to the tendency to be creative, perceptive and to be independent of others. This last trait is also referred to as autonomy (Hendriks, 1996).

Despite the widespread acceptance of the Big Five framework, researchers have stated that a problem of the use of the higher-order Big Five personality traits is the loss of specificity in predicting real-world phenomena (e.g., Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen, Helmes, & Rothstein, 1995). Several studies showed that more narrow traits, specifically tailored to a criterion, predicted the criterion more successfully than the broader Big Five traits (Paunonen, 1998; Ashton, 1998; Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006). Research on attachment styles and the Big Five traits in relation to several outcomes, such as pro-social behaviour (Erez, Mikulincer, Van IJzendoorn, & Kroonenberg, 2008), relationship outcomes (Shaver & Brennan, 1992; Noftle & Shaver, 2006) and psychological and sociocultural adjustment (Bakker, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee, 2004) showed that attachment styles were better predictors of the outcome variables than the Big Five traits and that attachment styles explained variance in the outcome variables beyond the Big Five traits. These results were attributed to the specificity of the attachment styles. Attachment styles are tendencies of relating to others, and might therefore be more powerful in predicting outcomes in the interpersonal domain, than the Big Five traits. The Big Five traits are found to be related to outcome variables in several domains, including non-interpersonal domains. In the present study we regarded attachment styles as narrow constructs of personality in the interpersonal domain, and expected, also based on previous studies (e.g., Erez et al., 2008; Noftle & Shaver, 2006) that attachment styles explain variance in the attitudes of majority members towards the acculturation of immigrants beyond the Big Five traits (Hypothesis 3).


Intercultural traits

Besides the Big Five traits, we studied the predictive value of intercultural traits and compared this with the predictive value of attachment styles. What are these traits? In recent years, Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000, 2001) have identified five intercultural traits which are related to effectively coping with intercultural situations and to success in intercultural contexts. The first dimension is cultural empathy which is defined as the ability to empathize with the feelings, thoughts, and behaviours of members of different cultural groups. Open-mindedness refers to an open and unprejudiced attitude towards out-group members and towards different cultural norms and values. Social initiative is defined as a tendency to approach social situations in an active way and to take initiatives. The fourth dimension, emotional stability, refers to the tendency to remain calm in stressful circumstances. Finally, flexibility is characterized as the tendency to consider new and unknown situations as challenging and the ability to adjust one’s behaviour to the demands of new and unknown situations.

We expected attachment styles to be able to explain variance in the attitude towards acculturation strategies beyond the intercultural traits (Hypothesis 4). Attachment styles refer to a general tendency of approaching others; the intercultural traits are specifically tailored to actually dealing with intercultural contacts. Therefore, we think that attachment styles are stronger related to the attitudes towards acculturation strategies (or: the tendency of reacting to ‘strangers’) than the intercultural traits which are more tailored to predicting actual behaviour in intercultural settings.

Attachment Styles and Degree of Contact with Immigrants

So far, we focused on the relation between attachment styles, the Big Five traits and intercultural traits and the attitude towards immigrants’ acculturation strategies. To further study the relevance of attachment in the domain of majority-immigrant relations, we examined -in an exploratory way- the link between attachment styles and the degree of real contact majority members have with immigrants. Do attachment styles influence the degree of real contact with immigrants, in addition to the more general attitude towards immigrants? Attachment styles are social interaction tendencies which are related to several aspects of social functioning, such as the exploration of the environment, the reaction to strangers, and social competencies (for an overview see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Roisman, 2006). Therefore, we think it is plausible that attachment styles are linked to the amount of contact majority members have with immigrants.

84 Chapter 5

Additive Value of Attachment Styles in predicting Contact with Immigrants

Again, we examined the additional value of attachment styles in predicting the degree of contact with immigrants above the Big Five traits and intercultural traits. Bakker et al. (2004) showed that attachment styles of Dutch emigrants had incremental validity in predicting contact with fellow Dutch emigrants above the Big Five personality traits, which they attributed to the level of specificity of both individual difference variables. Attachment styles have been found to be stronger related to variables specific to the relationship domain, than the broader Big Five traits (see e.g., Shaver & Brennan, 1992). Therefore, we expect the attachment styles to explain variance in the degree of contact with immigrants beyond the Big Five traits (Hypothesis 5).

The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001) was developed as a measure of the five intercultural traits. A basic assumption underlying the MPQ is that the instrument has specific predictive value with respect to the adjustment to new and unknown intercultural situations. Research has shown for instance, that among expatriates higher scores on the traits have been related to better psychological, social and professional adjustment (Bakker, 2005; Van Oudenhoven, Mol, & Van der Zee, 2003). Among international students the intercultural traits have been linked to the degree to which they were successful in making contacts with the local people (Stronkhorst, 2005) and to the amount of perceived social support, an indicator of social interactions (Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002). We compared the predictive values of attachment styles and intercultural traits in the degree of contact with immigrants in an exploratory way, thereby assuming that intercultural traits might be stronger related to the degree of contact with immigrants than attachment styles. The intercultural traits are more tailored to predictions regarding behaviour in intercultural settings than attachment styles, which are more tailored to tendencies of relating to others.

Method

Respondents and Procedure

The sample consisted of 275 first-year psychology students from the University of Groningen in the Northern part of the Netherlands. They received credit points for their participation in the study. The mean age was 20.24 years (SD = 4.10, age ranged from 17


to 51); 75% of the respondents were female. Respondents were included if they and both of their parents were born in the Netherlands.

Instruments

Attachment styles were measured with the Attachment Styles Questionnaire which we presented in Chapter 2. The secure attachment style was measured by seven items, such as: “I think it is important that people can rely on each other”. Cronbach’s alpha (α) for this scale was .73. The fearful attachment scale consisted of five items (α = .84). A sample item is: “I would like to be open to others, but I feel I can’t trust other people”. To determine dismissing attachment we used five items (α = .61), for example: “I feel comfortable without having close relationships with other people”. Finally, the preoccupied attachment style was measured with seven items (α = .86), such as: “I have the impression that usually I like others better than they like me”. Respondents had to indicate on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) their level of agreement with the 24 statements regarding attachment to others. Following Fraley and Waller (1998), participants received scores on all four attachment scales and were not classified into one attachment category.

The Big Five personality traits were measured by the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI; Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999). The five subscales each consisted of 20 items. Extraversion (α = .87) was measured by items such as: “Avoids company” (-) and “Likes to chat ”. Sample items of the agreeableness scale (α = .82) are: “Takes others’ interests into account” and “Empathizes with others” . The scale measuring conscientiousness (α = .88) contained items like: “Does things according to a plan” and “Is well prepared”. Emotional stability (α = .87) was measured by items such as: “Readily overcomes setbacks” and “Panics” (-). Finally, the intellect/ autonomy scale (α = .79) consisted of items like: “Can easily link facts together” and “Takes the lead”. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not applicable at all) to 5 (totally applicable) whether the items were applicable to them.

We used the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001) to measure the intercultural traits. Respondents had to indicate on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (totally not applicable) to 5 (completely applicable) to what extent a certain statement was applicable to them. Cultural empathy was measured with 18 items (α = .88), like: “Takes other people’s habits into consideration” and “Understands the feelings of others”. The scale measuring open-mindedness contained 18 items (α = .86), such as “Is open to new ideas” and “Can easily start a new life”. Social initiative was

86 Chapter 5

determined by 17 items (α = .90 ), like “Makes contacts easily” and “Takes initiatives”. We measured emotional stability with 20 items (α = .90). A sample item is: “Gets upset easily”(-) and “Is self-confident”. Finally, the scale measuring flexibility consisted of 18 items (α = .85), such as: “Changes easily from one activity to another” and “Dislikes travelling” (-).

We used a scenario approach in order to measure the attitude towards acculturation strategies of immigrants (see also Van Oudenhoven, et al., 1998; Hofstra, et al., 2005, 2009a; Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). The scenarios were presented as fictitious news paper articles. Each respondent had to read one of three scenarios in which an immigrant from Morocco showed behaviour that was either typical of an integrating, assimilating or separating immigrant. Randomly, the main character was female or male9. Whereas the scenarios in our previous studies described the behaviour of the immigrant on a more general, abstract level, the presently used scenarios described the behaviour of the main character in three important specific domains: work, family life, and leisure activities. We believed that these new scenarios offer a more realistic description of the different strategies as used by immigrants in their daily lives. The three scenarios are presented in Appendix 6.

After reading the scenarios, the respondents had to answer on a 5-point scale two questions which served as manipulation checks: “How important is the Moroccan culture for Azedine?” and “How much contact does Azedine have with Dutch people?”. Next, their attitude towards the scenario was measured with seven items (α = .95). Sample items are: “How positive do you find Azedine’s thoughts and behaviour?” and “How sympathetic do you find Azedine?”. The respondents could give their answers on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not positive) to 5 (very positive). Finally, we asked the respondents to indicate on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 5 = very often) how often they have contact with immigrants.

The two dependent variables, affective reaction to the acculturation strategies and degree of contact with immigrants appeared to be marginally significantly related in the separation-condition (r = .22, p =.06).

9 Analyses showed that the results did not differ depending on the sex of the main character nor on the sex of the respondent, therefore we do not present separate analyses.


Results10

Acculturation Attitudes

Manipulation Check To test whether the manipulations of the scenarios had been successful, we

performed an ANOVA with scenario (integration, assimilation and separation) as the independent variable and the questions about contact with the host society and maintenance of the heritage culture as the dependent variables. It appeared that the immigrant in the assimilation and integration scenario was seen as to have more contact with majority members (M = 4.31 and M = 3.63, respectively) than the immigrant in the separation scenario (M = 2.05). The mean scores all differed significantly F (2, 271) = 347.38, p < .001. The immigrant in the separation and integration scenario was perceived as to assign more importance to maintenance of the heritage culture (M = 4.92 and M = 4.18, respectively) than the assimilating immigrant (M = 1.55). Again, the mean scores all differed significantly, F (2, 271) = 627.37, p < .001. The respondents estimated the amount of contact the immigrant had with the host society to be higher in the assimilation condition than in the integration condition. Moreover, the importance of cultural maintenance was estimated higher in the separation condition than in the integration condition. It is understandable that one estimates the level of contact of an immigrant who has adopted one’s cultural values as higher than the level of contact of an immigrant who maintains his original culture. Likewise, the level of cultural maintenance of an immigrant who does not want contact with the host society will be estimated as higher than the level of cultural maintenance of an immigrant who does want to have contact with the host society. As the immigrants using strategies characterized by a high level of contact with the host society (or: high level of cultural maintenance) were indeed seen as to have more contact (or: assign more importance to maintenance of culture) than the immigrants using low contact (or cultural maintenance) strategies, we conclude that our manipulations worked as planned.

Affective Reactions to the Acculturation Strategies In order to examine which acculturation strategy the respondents preferred, we

calculated the mean scores on the attitude towards the three scenarios. In contrast to

10 Since controlling for the effects of gender and age did not change our results, it was decided to exclude these variables from subsequent analyses.

88 Chapter 5

what was expected, the respondents reacted most positively to an integrating immigrant (M = 4.25), followed by an assimilating (M = 3.93) and finally a separating immigrant (M = 2.31). The mean scores all differed significantly, F (2, 270) = 373.61, p < .001.

Relations between Attachment Styles and Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies

Next, we tested our assumption that attachment styles are related to the attitude towards acculturation strategies. First, the correlations between the attachment styles and the attitude towards the acculturation strategies were considered (Table 5.1). As predicted, the secure attachment style correlated positively with the attitude towards an integrating immigrant. Also in line with our hypothesis, the dismissing style was negatively related to the reaction to integration and positively to the reaction to separation. In contrast to what was expected, the fearful style correlated negatively with the attitude towards assimilation.

To examine how the attitudes towards the acculturation strategies could be predicted from the attachment styles, we performed a series of simultaneous regression analyses. Results showed that the attachment styles explained 19% of the variance in the attitude towards integration, F (4, 84) = 4.88, p < .001, which has to be attributed to the secure style (β = .47, p < .001). With respect to the attitude towards the separation strategy, the attachment styles explained 11% of the variance, F (4, 74) = 2.25, p = .07. The secure and the dismissing style appeared to be significant predictors of the attitude towards this strategy (β = -.25, p = .06; β = .24, p < .05, respectively). The attachment styles were not predictive of the attitude towards the assimilating immigrant.


Table 5.1

Correlations between Attachment Styles, Big Five Traits, Intercultural Traits and the Attitude towards the

Acculturation Strategies.

Integration

n = 90

Assimilation

n = 104

Separation

n = 79

Attachment Styles

Secure .37*** .18 -.19

Fearful -.10 -.19* -.01

Dismissing -.18* -.02 .24*

Preoccupied .07 -.12 .02

Big Five Traits

Extraversion .22* .26** -.09

Agreeableness .20* .07 .06

Conscientiousness .06 .07 .27*

Emotional Stability -.12 .13 .12

Autonomy -.09 .11 .06

Intercultural Traits

Cultural Empathy .22* .10 -.04

Open-mindedness .06 -.07 .13

Social Initiative -.04 .23* -.24*

Emotional Stability -.11 .16 .10

Flexibility -.11 -.01 .03

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001, two-tailed. Predicted results (in bold) were subjected to one-

tailed tests.

Relations between Big Five Traits and Attitude towards the Acculturation Strategies

We also checked whether the Big Five traits were related to the attitude towards the acculturation strategies. From Table 5.1 it can be seen that extraversion and agreeableness were both significantly positively related to the reaction to an integrating immigrant. In addition, extraversion also appeared to be positively correlated with the attitude towards assimilation. Extraverted and agreeable people seem to be positive towards contact with people with a different cultural background. Finally, we found a positive correlation between conscientiousness and the reaction to the separation strategy.

90 Chapter 5

Conscientiousness has been found to be positively related to measures of rigidity (Musch, 2003; Von Zerssen, 1994). People who score high on rigidity tend to like having control and to stick to familiar principles and customs. Therefore, it could be that people who score high on conscientiousness might want immigrants to separate from society as that way the traditional arrangement of society is maintained.

Regression results showed that the Big Five traits together explained 15% of the variance in the attitude towards the integration scenario (p< .05), which had to be attributed to extraversion (β = .30, p < .05) and agreeableness (β = .28, p < .05). Of the variance in the attitude towards separation, 13% was explained by the Big Five traits (p = .06). Conscientiousness was a significant predictor of the reaction to this strategy (β = .35, p < .01).

Relations between Intercultural Traits and Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies

With regard to the intercultural traits, we found that cultural empathy correlated positively with the affective reaction to integration (Table 5.1). Cultural empathy is characterized by empathizing with feelings, thoughts and behaviours of people with different cultural backgrounds. Therefore, people scoring high on cultural empathy might understand that immigrants want to participate in the host society and at the same time maintain their original culture. Social initiative appeared to be positively correlated with the affective reaction to assimilation and negatively with the affective reaction to separation. This makes sense as social initiative refers to the tendency to approach social situations in an active way, e.g. by making contacts, which is indeed happening when immigrants assimilate and not when immigrants separate. Regression analyses revealed that the intercultural traits were only predictive of the attitude towards separation, R2 = .13, F (5, 73) = 2.24, p = .06. Social initiative was the sole significant predictor (β = -.34, p < .01).

Incremental Validity of Attachment Styles in predicting Acculturation Attitudes

Relations between Attachment Styles, Big Five Personality Traits and Intercultural Traits When considering the incremental validity of attachment styles above the Big Five

traits and the intercultural traits, it is important to know first how the attachment styles are rooted in these latter psychological personality frameworks. Do the attachment scales have specific content relevant to attitudes towards acculturation strategies which is not captured by the Big Five traits or the intercultural traits? To examine this, we first performed four simultaneous regression analyses with the attachment styles as the


dependent variable and the Big Five traits as the independent variables (for raw scale inter-correlations see Table 5.2). The Big Five traits explained 23% of the variance in the secure style, which had to be attributed to extraversion and agreeableness (β = .41, p < .001; β = .21, p < .01, respectively). The fearful style was predicted by extraversion and emotional stability (β = -.25, p < .001; β = -.20, p < .01; R2= .15). With respect to the dismissing style, both extraversion and autonomy were significant predictors (β = -.26, p < .001; β = .21, p < .01; R2= .09). Finally, emotional stability appeared to be a strong negative predictor of the preoccupied attachment style (β = -.37, p < .001; R2= .24).

On average, the Big Five traits explained 18% of variance in the attachment scales. This means that there is a certain amount of overlap between attachment styles and the Big Five traits, but that attachment is not a superfluous concept. The Big Five traits explained the highest percentage of variance in the preoccupied attachment style.

Next, simultaneous regression analyses with the attachment styles as the dependent variable and the intercultural traits as the independent variables were performed (for raw scale inter-correlations see Table 5.2). Cultural empathy (β = .46, p < .001), open-mindedness (β = -.24, p < .001), social initiative (β = .30, p < .001) and emotional stability (β = .12 , p < .05) were all significant predictors of the secure style (R2= .34). However, as the zero-order correlation (see Table 5.2) between secure attachment and open-mindedness was not significant, the beta-weight for open-mindedness has to be interpreted with caution. The fearful style was predicted by emotional stability (β = -.36, p < .001), social initiative (β = -.20, p < .01) and cultural empathy (β = -.16, p < .05). The explained variance amounted to 26%. Although we also found a significant beta-weight for open-mindedness (β = .26, p < .001), the raw correlation of this variable with fearful attachment was not significant. With regard to dismissing attachment, open-mindedness (β = .29, p < .001), emotional stability (β = .16, p < .05) and cultural empathy (β = -.18, p < .01) were significant predictors (R2= .13). However, the zero-order correlation between dismissing attachment and cultural empathy was not significant. Finally, the preoccupied attachment style was predicted by emotional stability alone (β = -.56, p < .001, R2= .39). On average, the intercultural traits were able to explain 28% of the variance in the attachment scales. The preoccupied attachment style appeared to be best predictable by the intercultural traits11.

11 With regard to the relations between the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits it was found that cultural empathy was best predicted by agreeableness, followed by autonomy and extraversion (β = .34, p < .001; β = .26, p < .001; β = .17, p < .01 respectively; R2= .16). Autonomy was the single predictor of open-mindedness (β = .34, p < .001; R2= .11). The strongest predictor of social initiative was extraversion (β = .45). Also autonomy and agreeableness were significant predictors of this intercultural trait (β = .21, p < .001; β = -.15, p < .01). Together, they explained 37% of the variance in the social initiative scale. The Big Five scale for emotional stability was the strongest predictor of the MPQ scale for emotional stability (β = .56, p < .001). Together with autonomy (β = .13, p < .05), these scale explained 42% of the variance in emotional stability. With respect to

92 Chapter 5

Additional Value of Attachment Styles beyond the Big Five Traits To test whether attachment styles are able to explain variance in the attitude

towards acculturation strategies of immigrants beyond that explained by the Big Five traits, hierarchical regressions in which the Big Five traits were entered in the first step and attachment styles in the second step (Table 5.3) were conducted.

As was shown earlier, when entered alone the Big Five traits significantly explained 15% of the variance in the attitude towards integration (see Table 5.3, first step). The attachment styles alone explained a higher percentage of variance, 19%. The addition of attachment styles in the second step resulted in a significant increase in the explained variance of 10% (Table 5.3). The secure attachment style was the single best predictor. So, adding attachment styles to the Big Five traits in the regression resulted in an improvement of the predictive power of the model. With respect to the variance in the attitude towards the separation strategy, simultaneous regression analyses showed that attachment styles and the Big Five traits explained this equally well (R2 = 0.11, p = .07 and R2 = 0.13, p = .06 respectively). From hierarchical regressions (Table 5.3) it appeared that the attachment styles did not have significant additional value in explaining the variance in the attitude towards separation above the Big Five traits.

We also conducted hierarchical regressions in which the attachment styles were entered in the first step and the Big Five in the second step, to see whether the Big Five traits added a significant percentage of explained variance in the prediction of the attitude towards the acculturation strategies when controlled for the attachment styles. This was not the case.

The Big Five traits were not able to significantly explain additional variance in the attitude towards the integration strategy (ΔR2 = .06; ΔF (5, 79) = 1.21) nor in the attitude towards the separation strategy (ΔR2 = .09; ΔF (5, 69) = 1.57). In conclusion, the attitude towards integration is best predicted by the more narrow attachment styles as compared to the broader Big Five personality traits. Attachment styles and the Big Five traits predict the attitude towards the separation strategy equally well.

flexibility, the amount of explained variance amounted to 34%, which had to be attributed to conscientiousness (β = -.50, p < .001), autonomy (β = .22, p < .01) and agreeableness (β = .12, p < .05). However, the zero-order correlation between flexibility and agreeableness was not significant. So, the corresponding beta-weight has to be interpreted with caution. On average, the Big Five traits explained 28% of the variance in each intercultural personality scale. Our results are in line with previous studies by Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000); Van der Zee, Zaal, and Piekstra (2003); and Leone, Van der Zee, and Van Oudenhoven (2005).


Table 5

.2Me

ans, St

andard

Deviat

ions an

d Scale

Inter-c

orrelati

ons for

the AS

Q, Big

Five a

nd MP

Q scale

s and D

egree of

Conta

ct with

Immigra

ntsM

SD2

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

151.S

ecure

4.1.50

-.57***

-.27***

-.19**

.43***

.18**

.05.22

***.18

**.46

***.06

.42***

.23***

.12*

.032.F

earful

2.21

.85.13

*.45

***-.31

***-0.1

1.01

-.30***

-.18**

-.17**

.02-.36

***-.42

***-.21

***.03

3.Dism

issing

2.98

.61-.20

**-.14

*-.14

*-.08

.06.16

**-.06

.26***

.04.20

**.19

**.14

*4.P

reoccu

pied

2.9.86

-.25***

.07.17

**-.45

***-.34

***-.05

-.11-.36

***-.61

***-.33

***-.09

5.Extr

aversio

n3.7

7.49

-.06-.08

.35***

.40***

.21***

.18**

.55***

.31***

.19**

.076.A

greeab

leness

3.93

.40.32

***.14

*-.22

***.26

***-.04

-.22***

-.03-.09

-.057.C

onscie

ntiousn

ess3.1

7.55

-.15*

-.21***

.07-.07

-.10-.08

-.52***

-.078.E

motion

al Stab

ility3.6

2.50

.47***

.11.07

.26***

.62***

.23***

.069.A

utonom

y3.5

6.39

.20**

.30***

.43***

.43***

.33***

.17**

10.Cu

ltural E

mpath

y4.1

.37.42

***.32

***.13

*.17

**.07

11.Op

en-min

dednes

s3.5

3.47

.30***

.27***

.39***

.30***

12.Soc

ial Ini

tiative

3.34

.55.47

***.35

***.14

*13.

Emotio

nal Sta

bility

3.32

.55.46

***.12

*14.

Flexib

ility3.2

3.49

.25***

15.Co

ntact

2.68

.82No

te. *p

< .05;

**p <

.01; **

*p < .

001.

94 Chapter 5

Table 5.3

Hierarchical Regressions of Affective Reactions to the Three Acculturation Strategies on the Attachment Styles,

controlled for the Big Five.

Integration

n = 90

Assimilation

n = 104

Separation

n = 79

ß step1 ß step2 ß step1 ß step2 ß step1 ß step2

Extraversion .32** .13 .26* .24 -.14 -.09

Agreeableness .27* .17 .03 .01 -.11 -.08

Conscientiousness -.07 -.10 .04 .04 .35** .30

Emotional stability -.15 -.16 .01 -.03 .27 .25

Autonomy -.08 -.13 -.01 -.03 .06 .03

Secure .45** .05 -.17

Fearful .11 -.08 -.18

Dismissing .06 .06 .21

Preoccupied .05 -.01 .15

R (R2) .39 (.15) .50 (.25) .26 (.07) .29(.08) .36 (.13) .45 (.20)

R2 change .15 .10 .07 .01 .13 .07

F change 2.88* 2.58* 1.46 .33 2.23+ 1.45

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; +p <.10. Additional Value of Attachment Styles beyond the Intercultural Traits We also performed hierarchical regression analyses in which the intercultural traits

were entered in the first step and the attachment styles in the second (see Table 5.4). With respect to the integration strategy, the intercultural traits alone were not able to explain a significant amount of variance (step1, Table 5.4). Remember that the attachment styles alone explained 19% of the variance in the attitude towards integration. The addition of the attachment styles in the second step resulted in a significant increase of explained variance of 15%, which was due to the secure attachment style.

Regression analyses showed that the attachment styles alone explained 11% of the variance in the affective reaction to the separation strategy and that the intercultural traits alone explained 13% of the variance. From hierarchical regression analyses it appeared that the attachment styles did not explain a significant amount of variance in the attitude towards separation beyond the intercultural traits.

Reversed regression analyses in which the attachment styles were entered first and the intercultural traits second, revealed that the intercultural traits did not have additional


value in explaining variance in the affective reaction to integration (ΔR2 = .06; ΔF (5, 79) = 1.12) nor in the affective reaction to separation (ΔR2 = .09; ΔF (5, 69) = 1.50). From these analyses we can conclude that attachment styles are better predictors of the attitude towards integration than the intercultural traits. The attitude towards separation is equally well predicted by attachment styles and the intercultural traits12.

Relations between Attachment Styles and Degree of Contact with Immigrants

Besides the relationship between attachment styles and the attitude towards acculturation strategies of immigrants, we were interested in whether attachment styles also play a role in the degree of contact majority members have with immigrants. To that end, we calculated the correlations between the two variables (Table 5.2). It appeared that only the dismissing attachment style was significantly related to the degree of contact with immigrants. More precisely, the higher the score on dismissing attachment, the more contact with immigrants. A regression analysis showed that the attachment styles together were predictive of the degree of contact with immigrants, which had to be attributed to the dismissing style (R2= .03, β = .13, p < .05).

12 For the sake of completeness, we also performed hierarchical regression analyses in which the Big Five were entered in the first step and the intercultural traits in the second and vice versa. Results showed that the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits did not have additional value in explaining variance in the affective reactions towards the strategies above and beyond each other.

96 Chapter 5

Table 5.4

Hierarchical Regressions of Affective Reactions to the Three Acculturation Strategies on the Attachment Styles,

controlled for the Intercultural Traits.

Integration

n = 90

Assimilation

n = 104

Separation

n = 79

ß step1 ß step2 ß step1 ß step2 ß step1 ß step2

Cultural empathy .32* .02 .08 .04 -.11 -.06

Open-mindedness .03 .07 -.18 -.17 .21 .19

Social initiative -.09 -.31* .22 .21 -.34** -.30*

Emotional stability -.08 -.09 .11 .07 .19 .19

Flexibility -.16 .04 -.06 -.06 .03 .04

Secure .57** .06 -.13

Fearful .03 -.05 .20

Dismissing -.01 .03 .20+

Preoccupied .07 .01 .21

R (R2) .32 (.10) .50 (.25) .30 (.09) .31 (.10) .37 (.13) .44 (.20)

R2 change .10 .15 .09 .01 .13 .06

F change 1.89 3.81** 1.95 .10 2.24+ 1.35

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; +p <.10.

Relations between Big Five Personality Traits, Intercultural Traits and Degree of Contact with Immigrants

Next, we tested whether the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits were related to the degree of contact. Of the Big Five personality traits, only autonomy correlated positively with the degree of contact with immigrants (Table 5.2). The Big Five traits did not predict a significant amount of variance in the degree of contact with immigrants.

With regard to the intercultural traits, significant correlations were found between open-mindedness, social initiative and flexibility on the one hand and degree of contact on the other hand (Table 5.2). The more open-minded or flexible one is, or the more social initiative one shows, the more contact there is with immigrants. Regression of the degree of contact on the intercultural traits, showed that both open-mindedness and flexibility were significant predictors (respectively β = .26, p < .001; β = .17, p < .05, R2 = .11).


Incremental Validity of Attachment Styles in predicting Degree of Contact with Immigrants

Additional Value of Attachment Styles beyond the Big Five traits As was shown earlier, the attachment styles alone explained 3% of the variance in

the degree of contact with immigrants. The Big Five traits alone did not explain a significant amount of variance in the degree of contact with immigrants. In Table 5.5, the results of the hierarchical regression analyses in which the Big Five traits were entered in the first step and the attachment styles in the second are presented. The attachment styles did not explain additional variance in the degree of contact with immigrants above the Big Five traits. A reversed analysis showed that neither the Big Five traits did have additional value in explaining variance in degree of contact with immigrant above the attachment styles.

Table 5.5

Hierarchical Regressions of Degree of Contact on the Attachment Styles, controlled for the Big Five.

Degree of Contact

N = 273

ß step1 ß step2

Extraversion .02 .04

Agreeableness .01 .02

Conscientiousness -.04 -.04

Emotional stability -.04 -.05

Autonomy .17* .14

Secure .08

Fearful .12

Dismissing .12

Preoccupied -.06

R (R2) .18 (.03) .23 (.05)

R2 change 0.03 .02

F change 1.68 1.52

Note. *p < .05.

Additional Value of Attachment Styles beyond the Intercultural Traits Next, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis in which we entered the

intercultural traits in the first step and the attachment styles in the second step (see Table

98 Chapter 5

5.6). As was shown earlier, when entered alone, the intercultural traits explained 11% of the variance in degree of contact with immigrants. Both open-mindedness and flexibility were significant predictors. The attachment styles alone significantly explained 3% of the variance in the degree of contact with immigrants ( p < .05), which had to be attributed to the dismissing style (β = .13, p < .05). The addition of the attachment styles in the second step did not yield a significant increase in explained variance. The attachment styles were not able to explain variance beyond the intercultural traits. A reversed regression analysis in which the attachment styles were entered in the first step and the intercultural traits in the second step, showed that the amount of explained variance in degree of contact significantly increased with 9% (ΔF (5, 263) = 5.40, p < .001). Open-mindedness and flexibility predicted the degree of contact significantly (respectively β = .24 p < .001; β = .17, p < .05). So, in line with our hypothesis, as compared to attachment styles intercultural traits are better predictors of the degree of contact majority members have with immigrants13.

13 We also performed hierarchical regression analyses in which the Big Five were entered first and the intercultural traits second and vice versa. Results showed that the MPQ explained additional variance (9%) in the degree of contact above the Big Five (ΔF (5, 263) = 5.42, p < .001). The Big Five traits did not have additional value in explaining variance in the degree of contact beyond the intercultural traits (ΔF (5, 263) = .43).


Table 5.6

Hierarchical Regressions of Degree of Contact on the Attachment Styles, controlled for the Intercultural Traits.

Degree of Contact

N = 273

ß step1 ß step2

Cultural empathy -.07 -.08

Open-mindedness .26*** .24**

Social initiative .05 .04

Emotional stability -.04 -.05

Flexibility .17* .17*

Secure .10

Fearful .12

Dismissing .05

Preoccupied -.06

R (R2) .34 (.11) .35 (.12)

R2 change .11 .01

F change 6.85*** .77

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Discussion

An important question of the present study was, what is the attitude of Dutch majority members towards acculturation strategies of Moroccan immigrants? We expected that Dutch majority members would prefer Moroccan immigrants to assimilate, thus to let go of the Moroccan culture and to participate in the Dutch society. However, the results showed that integration of Moroccan immigrants was appreciated mostly, followed by assimilation and separation. This result is in contrast with the research by Van Oudenhoven et al. (1998), which showed that Dutch majority members preferred that Moroccan and Turkish immigrants assimilated into the Dutch society. How can we explain these differences in results? First of all, the respondents in our study were university students in contrast to the Van Oudenhoven et al. study in which a highly representative sample of the Dutch population participated. Research has shown that an open and tolerant attitude towards immigrants and multiculturalism is positively related with education (see for example Quillian, 1995; Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004). Moreover, the students in our sample were all students of psychology. Social sciences

100 Chapter 5

students are known to have a social attitude and to be empathic towards others. As a consequence, the psychology students might have been more understanding towards immigrants who do not want to give up their original identity when participating in the host society.

Next, the present study addressed the value of attachment styles in the domain of majority-immigrant relations (attitudes towards and degree of contact with immigrants), as compared to the Big Five personality traits and intercultural traits. First, we focused on the questions: Are attachment styles of majority members related to their attitude towards immigrants? And do attachment styles have additional value in predicting these attitudes above the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits? In line with previous research, we found that secure attachment was positively related to the attitude towards integration. Moreover, the dismissing style was negatively related to the latter strategy and positively to the reaction towards separation. Finally, the fearful attachment style correlated negatively with the attitude towards an assimilating Moroccan immigrant. This is in contrast to what was expected and to what was found in Chapter 3. How can this finding be explained? Fearful attachment is characterized by a distrust of others. This distrust might be enhanced when fearfully attached individuals have to deal with people whose values they do not know. One could speculate that this distrust will be somewhat neutralized when immigrants make an accommodating step towards the host culture, i.e. when they assimilate. Consequently, one could expect a positive relation between fearful attachment and the attitude towards assimilation. This is what we found in Chapter 3. However, in Chapter 3 a questionnaire in which the cultural background of the immigrants was not specified was used, so the respondents had to react to strategies of immigrants in general. In the present study, the respondents had to react to an immigrant from Morocco. As said before, the Moroccan culture is very different from the Dutch culture, and a considerable part of the Dutch population find the Moroccan culture threatening. It might be that because of the negative image Moroccans have in the Netherlands, fearfully attached individuals do not want any contact at all with Moroccan immigrants whether or not these immigrants adapt to the host society. To conclude, we largely replicated previous findings on the relation between attachment and attitude towards acculturation of immigrants.

Further, we indeed found that the attachment styles best predicted the attitude towards the integration strategy as compared to the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits. This finding indicates that attachment styles have a unique influence on the attitude towards integration, independent of the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits. The attitude towards the separation strategy was equally well predicted by the attachment


styles, the Big Five personality traits and the intercultural traits. Attachment styles are tendencies of relating to others and are related to exploration of the environment. It might be that attachment styles played a bigger role in the reaction to the integration strategy as integrating immigrants show exploration related behaviour, in that they want to actively participate in the new host society. Separating immigrants on the contrary, do not want to explore the new cultural environment and stay in their own, familiar cultural group.

In addition to the relation with acculturation attitudes, we studied the relation between attachment styles and degree of contact majority members have with immigrants to examine the usefulness of attachment in acculturation research. For that purpose, the influence of attachment styles was compared with the influence of intercultural traits and the Big Five traits. Of the attachment styles, only dismissing attachment significantly correlated with degree of contact. The more dismissingly attached one is, the more contact one reports to have with immigrants. This finding can be explained by the fact that dismissing attachment correlated positively with the intercultural traits of open-mindedness and flexibility. A mediation analysis, following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure, indeed showed that the relation between dismissing attachment and the degree of contact with immigrants is mediated by open-mindedness and flexibility. Accordingly, it seems that because of their open and flexible mind, dismissingly attached individuals have more contact with immigrants.

The intercultural traits had additional value in predicting the degree of contact with immigrants beyond the attachment styles. The results together suggest, as predicted, that whereas attachment styles refer to a tendency to approach others in a certain way, the intercultural traits are more related to actually dealing with intercultural contacts. When actually interacting with others, the attitude towards the other is important but social competencies are even more important. The intercultural traits encompass both attitude towards others and -more strongly- social competencies, whereas the attachment styles more narrowly refer to a tendency to approach others.

Our study had some limitations. Firstly, because of the correlational design, we cannot draw firm conclusions about the direction of the relations found in the present study. For instance, it could also be that more intercultural contact leads to higher scores on the intercultural traits. However, Stronkhorst (2005) found that the effects of living in a multicultural environment on intercultural competencies are small. Another limitation of the present study is the homogeneity of the sample. The participants were all students of psychology at a university in the Northern part of the Netherlands. Therefore, we cannot easily generalize our findings to the total Dutch population. Moreover, the cultural

102 Chapter 5

diversity of the student population at this Northern University is low and therefore there is less chance of intercultural contact. The average degree of contact the participants had with immigrants reflects this (M = 2.68 on a 5-point scale). Finally, as a measure of contact we only asked the respondents one question about how much contact they had with immigrants. We do not know on what kind of contact the respondents focused. Moreover, we do not know whether they only considered contacts with Moroccan immigrants, as they were the main character in the scenarios, or also contacts with people from other countries. For future studies we recommend to ask more questions about frequency of contact with immigrants, about the nature of the contact with immigrants and to specify the immigrant group which the respondents have to keep in mind. Nevertheless, although we asked only one simple contact-question, we did find that personality variables were able to explain variance in the degree of contact majority members have with immigrants.

The present study showed that individual characteristics have an impact on attitudes towards immigrants and the degree of contact with immigrants. More specifically, secure attachment is positively related to the reaction towards the integration strategy. Integration is the strategy which is preferred the most by the majority members and research has often shown that immigrants also prefer this strategy (e.g. Pfafferott & Brown, 2006). Thus increasing the level of the attachment security might improve intercultural relations. Moreover, the intercultural traits were related to more intercultural contacts. Contact between people from various social groups can -under certain conditions- reduce prejudice between the groups and might alter stereotypes about one another (Pettigrew, 1981, 1997). Therefore, training people in their intercultural traits might be a fruitful intervention.

CHAPTER 6

General Discussion

For majority members, the acculturation process in society involves dealing with strangers, exploring new cultures and adapting to a new situation, that is different cultures. This dissertation focused on how Dutch majority members react towards immigrants’ ways of dealing with the host society (integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization). Additionally, the link between people’s general style to relate to other people, that is attachment style, and their acculturation attitude was examined. I argued that attachment styles (secure, fearful, dismissing and preoccupied) are important variables to study in the context of host society-immigrant relations as they have been found to be related to dealing with strangers and exploring new situations (e.g., Roisman, 2006; Green & Campbell, 2000) and the adaptation to new, unknown situations (e.g., Lapsley & Edgerton, 2002). Knowledge about majority members’ acculturation attitudes and their relations with attachment styles can contribute to the development of effective interventions aimed at improving relations between immigrants and host society members. In addition to the examination of the acculturation attitudes of Dutch majority members and the role of attachment styles in their acculturation attitudes, the development of a new instrument to measure attachment styles of adults was an important objective of this dissertation.

Below, the findings of the present dissertation are summarized per chapter. Next, the results of the different chapters are integrated and discussed. Finally, I present some limitations and practical implications of the research.

Summary of the findings

In Chapter 2, the development and evaluation process of a new instrument, the Attachment Styles Questionnaire, to assess adult attachment styles is described. Previous instruments were designed to measure relationship-specific attachment, and to categorize individuals in one attachment category. Furthermore, many instruments used only one item to measure attachment style or suffered from low internal reliabilities. I aimed at developing a reliable multiple-item instrument, measuring attachment to others in general,

104 Chapter 6

using continuous scores for the four attachment styles which were distinguished by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991).

The Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ) resulted from extensive examination of empirical data of large groups of respondents -students, adults and emigrants- with a total of N = 3533. The ASQ consists of 24 items, which belong to one of four scales that measure the secure, the fearful, the dismissing or the preoccupied attachment style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Factor analyses showed four factors that clearly corresponded to the four abovementioned attachment styles. The internal consistencies of the attachment scales were, with the exception of the dismissing scale, reasonable to good. Stability coefficients were on average .68, over a period of roughly one year. Furthermore, the relations between the attachment styles and some relevant other constructs, such as selfesteem/ self-perception, image of others/trust in others, reactions to frustrating situations (exit, voice, loyalty and neglect) and the Big Five personality traits were largely in line with what could be expected. Besides, the scales of the ASQ correlated highest with the corresponding scales of an other instrument to measure adult attachment, the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In sum, the ASQ appears to be a reliable and valid new instrument to measure attachment styles of adults.

The main interest of Chapter 3 concerned the longitudinal relation between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes of Dutch majority members. In order to measure acculturation attitudes, a questionnaire was used containing items such as “I almost always speak in my mother tongue”, which expressed different forms of adapting to Dutch society by immigrants. The cultural background of the immigrants was not specified.

Results showed that the respondents, psychology students, appreciated the integration strategy the most, followed by assimilation, separation and marginalization. Moreover, the attachment styles as measured at T1 revealed modest but significant relations with the acculturation attitudes as measured at T2, roughly one year later. The most important finding was that the secure style correlated positively with the attitude towards integration, indicating a favourable attitude towards this strategy. The three insecure attachment styles were either negatively related to the attitude towards integration, indicating unfavourable attitudes towards integration, or positively to the other strategies. The findings regarding the construct validity and stability of the ASQ as presented in Chapter 2 were replicated among a different sample of respondents.

In Chapter 4, again the affective reactions of majority members to acculturation strategies of immigrants and their relations with attachment styles were examined.

General Discussion 105

However, the study described in this chapter differed on several aspects from the previous study. First, the sample in the present chapter was much more representative and less homogeneous in age than the sample used in Chapter 3. The sample consisted of adolescents and adults, which enabled us to compare the acculturation attitudes and the relations with attachment styles between these two groups. Second, Chapter 4 relied on a scenario approach to measure acculturation attitudes towards immigrants whose cultural background, Surinamese, was specified. Finally, in addition to studying how respondents reacted to the acculturation strategies, their estimations of the prevalence of each acculturation strategy and the relationship with attachment styles were examined.

Results showed that both adolescents and adults preferred integration of Surinamese immigrants, followed by assimilation, separation and marginalization. Moreover, both groups estimated the occurrence of integration and separation as higher than that of assimilation and marginalization. Again, like in Chapter 3, secure attachment correlated positively with the attitude towards integration. The insecure styles showed either a negative relation with the attitude towards integration or relations (positive or negative) with attitudes towards the other acculturation strategies. Remarkably, the relations were only significant among the adults, not among the adolescents.

With regard to the relations between attachment styles and the estimated occurrence of the acculturation strategies, among both groups -stronger- significant relations were found. In general, the secure attachment style correlated positively with the estimated occurrence of integration and non-significantly or negatively with the estimated occurrence of the other strategies. The higher the score on secure attachment, the higher the perceived percentage of integrating immigrants and the lower the perceived percentage of immigrants endorsing the other strategies. In general, the pattern for the insecure attachment styles was reversed.

Chapter 5 again dealt with the relations between attachment styles and acculturation attitudes of adult majority members. Different from Chapter 4, the cultural background of the main character in the scenarios was Moroccan instead of Surinamese. As compared to the Surinamese culture, the Moroccan culture is very different from the Dutch, and Dutch majority members in general have more unfavorable attitudes towards Moroccan immigrants than towards Surinamese immigrants (e.g. Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2004). Furthermore, two additional questions were examined. First, the relation between attachment styles and the degree of contact majority members have with immigrants was studied. Second, the value of attachment styles in predicting acculturation attitudes and the degree of contact with immigrants was compared to the predictive value of two

106 Chapter 6

competing sets of individual difference variables, the Big Five traits and intercultural traits. Chapter 5 again relied on the scenario approach to measure acculturation attitudes.

Results showed that majority members reacted most positively to an integrating Moroccan immigrant, followed by an assimilating and separating immigrant. This hierarchy in Dutch majority members’ preferences of acculturation strategies is the same as the hierarchy in preferences for acculturation strategies of Surinamese immigrants we found in Chapter 4. The cultural background of the immigrant, Surinamese or Moroccan, does not seem to lead to different acculturation attitudes of majority members. Again, the secure attachment style was related to a positive attitude towards integration and also the insecure attachment styles showed a similar pattern of relations with the acculturation attitudes as in the previous chapters. Remarkably, only dismissing attachment was significantly related to the degree of contact with immigrants: the more dismissingly attached, the more contact with immigrants. It appeared that this relation was mediated by the intercultural traits of open-mindedness and flexibility. So, people scoring high on dismissing attachment have a more open and flexible mind, which makes them have more contact with immigrants.

Integration and Discussion of Findings

Development of a Measure for the Assessment of Adult Attachment Styles

The first step of this dissertation was to develop a reliable and valid instrument to measure adult attachment styles. The development of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire was -on the whole- successful. The ASQ seems a promising tool for measuring adult attachment to others in general and clearly adds to the existing arsenal of attachment instruments. The scales for the secure, fearful and preoccupied attachment style had reasonable to good internal consistency and stability coefficients. In addition, the relations between these scales and other theoretically relevant variables were satisfactory. The reliability and construct validity of the scale for dismissing attachment were, however, less satisfying. The internal consistency of the dismissing scale was only moderate. This might be attributed to the ambiguity of the concept. According to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) dismissing attachment is characterized by a negative disposition towards others, expressed by the ‘avoidance of close relationships with others’ and ‘striving for independence’, which are two different psychological tendencies. These two types of expressions of dismissing attachment were also reflected in the items of the dismissing scale, which could account for the lower internal consistency. This could also


be an explanation for the, in general, weak relations between the dismissing scale and the other variables.

The data of Chapter 5 enabled us to further examine the structure of the dismissing scale, and in fact two subfactors were identified which corresponded to ‘avoidance’ and ‘independence’. As these two subfactors refer to different psychological tendencies, they might relate differently to other variables. ‘Avoidance of close relationships’ is a psychological tendency which might lead to negative or non-constructive outcomes, as it seems to be related to fear of intimacy or relating to others. On the other hand, ‘striving for independence’ seems to be a tendency which leads to more positive and constructive outcomes, as it -for instance- implies that one relies on the self instead of on others. This assumption was tested by relating the two subfactors of dismissing attachment to the Big Five personality characteristics. Indeed, whereas the ‘avoidance’ items correlated negatively with the social traits of extraversion and agreeableness which can be viewed as non-constructive psychological outcomes, ‘independence’ correlated positively with a constructive outcome, autonomy. It is a theoretical challenge to further study these two components of dismissing attachment and their relations with relevant variables.

To further examine the psychometric qualities of the newly developed ASQ, the possible occurrence of gender and age differences in the scores on the attachment scales was explored across the chapters of this dissertation. One consistent difference was found: Women scored significantly higher on the preoccupied attachment style than men. The preoccupied attachment style is characterized by a low orientation on the self and a high orientation on others. Research has shown that women are generally more socially oriented on others than men (e.g., Winquist, Mohr, & Kenny, 1998). However, the present gender difference cannot be explained by the social or relational orientation of women as no gender difference was found on the other attachment styles, for instance the secure attachment style which is also characterized by a positive orientation towards others. Nevertheless, preoccupied attachment has been frequently found to be related to lower emotional stability (e.g., Bakker, Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2004; Noftle & Shaver, 2006). In Chapters 2 and 5 of the present dissertation, this relationship was also found. Studies have shown that women generally score lower on emotional stability than men (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 2002; Furnham & Buchanan, 2005). This also the case in the study discussed in Chapter 5, where emotional stability was measured. Therefore, the finding of the present dissertation that women are more preoccupied than men, might partially be explained by its association with lower emotional stability.

108 Chapter 6

Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies

An important goal of the present dissertation was to map the attitudes of Dutch majority members towards acculturation strategies of immigrants. The data consistently showed that Dutch majority members prefer integrating immigrants, followed by assimilating, separating and marginalizing immigrants. This seems to be a robust finding, firstly because these results were obtained using different methods. In Chapter 3, a questionnaire with statements of immigrants about their adaptation to the host society was used. As an alternative, Chapters 4 and 5 relied on a scenario-approach to measure acculturation attitudes. Secondly, preferences for acculturation attitudes were also consistent across different samples, that is adolescents (Chapter 4), students (Chapters 3 & 5) and adults (Chapter 4). Thirdly, the same pattern of preferred acculturation strategies was found regardless of the immigrants’ cultural background: non-specified (Chapter 3), Surinamese (Chapter 4), or Moroccan (Chapter 5). So, irrespective of the method of measurement, the phase of life of the respondent, or the cultural background of the immigrant, Dutch majority members from our samples prefer immigrants who participate in Dutch society, and at the same time maintain their heritage culture, over immigrants who participate and let go of their original culture. The finding that majority members also prefer Moroccan immigrants to participate in the Dutch society and at the same time maintain the Moroccan culture, seems promising as the general impression is that Dutch natives have a negative attitude towards immigrants from Morocco. Admittedly, the findings regarding the attitudes towards acculturation strategies of Moroccan immigrants are only based on psychology students, so more research is needed using a more representative sample of respondents.

Attachment Styles and Attitudes towards Acculturation Strategies

Next, findings from this dissertation show that individual differences in attachment styles are related to majority members’ attitudes towards acculturation strategies of immigrants. More specifically, all three studies consistently showed that people scoring high on secure attachment are more positive about the integrating immigrant. Besides, across the studies, the secure attachment style showed no significant relations with the affective reactions to the other acculturation strategies of assimilation, separation and marginalization.

Secure attachment is characterized by a constructive attitude towards the self and towards others. Research has shown that, as compared to the other styles, the secure


attachment style has various positive correlates. For instance, as compared to insecurely attached individuals, securely attached individuals have better relations with friends, peers and family; have less behavioural problems; and score higher on well-being and psychological health (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, for a review). This dissertation showed that secure attachment is positively related to the attitude towards integration of immigrants. Integration might also be viewed as a positive correlate. Immigrants endorsing the integration strategy were found to have for instance fewer psychological and behavioural problems (e.g., Berry, Phinney, Sam, &Vedder, 2006), and superior health (Curran, 2003) than immigrants pursuing the other ways of acculturating. Moreover, the integration strategy is related to positive intergroup relations (Zagefka & Brown, 2002). So, people scoring high on secure attachment are positive about an acculturation strategy which appears to be most beneficial for immigrants and host society-immigrant relations. Securely attached people are attracted by novelty, such as new situations and strangers (e.g., Green & Campbell, 2000). When immigrants use the integration strategy, it implies that majority members have contact with ‘strangers’ or people with ‘novel’ cultural backgrounds, that is cultural backgrounds different from the host society culture. Therefore, it might be that people scoring high on secure attachment are more attracted to or prefer immigrants who integrate.

In contrast, the insecure styles (fearful, dismissing, and preoccupied) were either negatively related or not related to the attitude towards integration. These styles correlated more strongly with the three other -less beneficial- acculturation strategies of assimilation, separation and marginalization. However, the relations between the attitudes towards these strategies and the insecure styles showed a less clear-cut pattern and were less consistent across the studies than the relations between the attitude towards integration and the secure attachment style.

For instance, with respect to the attitudes towards the assimilation scenario, both a significant positive relation (Chapter 3) and a significant negative relation (Chapter 5) with the fearful attachment style were found. An explanation for these contrasting results might be the difference in cultural background of the immigrants to whom the respondents had to react. In Chapter 3 the cultural background was not specified, in Chapter 5 the respondents reacted towards a Moroccan immigrant. Perhaps, majority members who score high on fearful attachment want immigrants in general to assimilate, and thus to become more like the majority in society, which might decrease their distrust of others. Yet, when the immigrants have a Moroccan cultural background, which is culturally distant from Dutch culture and seen as threatening by a substantial part of the Dutch majority members, majority members who score high on fearful attachment, might

110 Chapter 6

become a bit suspicious of contact with Moroccan immigrants, which is part of the assimilation strategy, and thus react negatively towards this strategy. The threat-rigidity hypothesis (Austin, 1987; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981) corroborates this assumption. The hypothesis states that high level of threat to one’s cultural identity, caused by high level of unfamiliarity with the other culture, leads to rigidity, restriction in information processing and repeated reliance on dominant or well-learned responses. As such, threat might increase the tendency to identify with the own cultural group and to exclude the out-group. Therefore, people scoring high on fearful attachment might tend to exclude a Moroccan immigrant, indicated by a negative reaction towards the assimilation strategy. Additionally, the image of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands is negative and differences between the Moroccan and the Dutch culture are often enlarged in Dutch media. It might be that fearfully attached individuals because of this negative image do not want to have contact at all with Moroccans, whether or not they are well adapted to Dutch society. Therefore, people scoring high on fearful attachment might react more negatively to an assimilating Moroccan immigrant.

In sum, the insecure styles are not straightforwardly related to the attitude towards the acculturation strategies, like the secure attachment style is. These relations seem to depend on contextual factors, like the cultural background of the immigrant. However, as there consistently were no positive relations between the insecure styles and the attitude towards integration, it can be stated that insecure attachment styles do not contribute to more positive intercultural attitudes in the Netherlands.

The studies described above showed that attachment styles are -to a certain extent- related to acculturation attitudes. In a recent study we found that this link not only holds for majority members, but also for minority members in the Netherlands (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). Among a group of immigrants consisting of 177 Chinese, Surinamese and Turkish immigrants the secure attachment style again was positively related to the attitude towards integration, and the insecure styles were negatively related to this strategy or positively to the other strategies. The correlations between the attachment styles and the acculturation attitudes were stronger than the ones found among the majority members in the present dissertation. This is understandable as, unlike majority members, immigrants are on a daily basis more confronted with acculturation issues than majority members and they have to decide to what extent they are going to adapt to the host society.

The present dissertation showed, in different ways, that attachment styles seem to be relevant factors in acculturation research. For example, Chapter 4 showed that attachment styles are not only connected to how we value strategies adopted by


immigrants, but also to how we estimate the occurrence of the strategies. Furthermore, in Chapter 5 it was shown that the dismissing attachment style was positively related to the degree of contact majority members have with immigrants. Moreover, attachment styles appeared to have additional value in predicting the attitude towards integration beyond the Big Five personality traits and intercultural traits. Interestingly, whereas attachment appeared to be better predictors of the attitude towards integration than the Big Five traits and the intercultural traits, the intercultural traits appeared to be better predictors of the degree of contact majority members have with immigrants. This result might be explained by the different content of the two concepts. Attachment styles refer to a general tendency (or attitude) to approach others. The intercultural traits encompass both attitude towards others, and -more strongly- social competencies. In social contacts both attitudes towards others and social competencies are important. Therefore, intercultural traits might be more strongly related to actually dealing with intercultural contacts whereas attachment styles are more related to attitudes towards acculturation strategies of immigrants.

Limitations of the Present Research

A few limitations of the studies described in this dissertation have to be taken into account when interpreting the results. First of all, the survey method used as an indicator of both attachment styles and acculturation attitudes could have contributed to common method variance, which in turn could have led to an overestimation of the actual association between the concepts. To reduce the risk of common method variance, in Chapters 4 and 5 a scenario-approach, instead of a questionnaire as in Chapter 3 for measuring the acculturation attitudes, was used. Using scenarios instead of questionnaires also has the advantage that the possibility of social desirable answers is reduced. First, it is easier for participants to react in a socially desirable way to global questions than to a concrete scenario. Additionally, a between-subjects design in which the respondents randomly get to read only one scenario, will reduce socially desirable answers even further as this way the scenarios can not be compared.

Another limitation concerns the generalizability of the results. The sample of adolescents (Chapter 4) was homogeneous in that it consisted of children who all were in the third grade of secondary schools and the majority attended higher secondary education. The samples of psychology students (Chapters 3 and 5) were also homogenous concerning age and education. The sample of adults (Chapter 4) was more representative with respect to age, but a drawback of this sample was that it consisted of voluntary

112 Chapter 6

participants, in contrast to the adolescents and students who had to participate in the study as part of a course. Using voluntary respondents may lead to an underrepresentation of people with certain characteristics, for instance a high score on fearful or dismissing attachment. Besides, the majority of the adults also attended higher education. As research has shown that level of education is positively related with for instance the attitude towards multiculturalism (Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004), there could be a bias towards a positive attitude towards the integration strategy of immigrants. So, one must be careful when generalizing the findings to the total Dutch population. Future studies should include more representative samples.

Practical implications

The present dissertation showed that secure attachment style is linked to a positive attitude towards integration. Integration is the strategy which is preferred the most by Dutch majority members and research has often shown that immigrants also prefer this strategy (e.g. Pfafferott & Brown, 2006). Thus, it seems therefore desirable to stimulate a positive attitude towards integration among majority members. Previous research has shown that public education, for instance information spots on television, is a good tool to stimulate attitude change. However, in light of this dissertation, changing acculturation attitudes by public education alone seems to be difficult as the present studies showed that the attitude towards acculturation strategies is dependent on deeply rooted individual characteristics, that is attachment styles. So, attachment styles, and in particular the secure attachment style, seems to be the starting point in order to reach a positive attitude towards integration. As attachment styles become more stable with age (e.g., Bowlby, 1973) it seems reasonable to intervene in the attachment styles in childhood or adolescence. Most interventions aimed at altering attachment styles, are based on individual or infant-parent psychotherapy (e.g., Diamond, Clarkin, Levine, Levy, Foelsch, & Yeomans, 1999; Lieberman & Zeanah, 1999) and are therefore often expensive and intensive. However, parents, other family members, teachers and other professional educators can obviously also play an important role in stimulating the development of a Secure attachment style by for instance enhancing the child’s image of the self and the child’s trust in others. These type of interventions could be more cost-effective as fewer sessions might be needed and it might be given to groups. For instance, at welfare centers parents and other family members could be taught some strategies -e.g. to stimulate explorative behaviour of the child- to increase the level of basic trust the child has in itself and in the world around him. Moreover, interventions such as trainings to improve the


level of secure attachment could be given by teachers or professional educators. One could think of trainings at schools with several exercises to learn to trust the self in social interactions, to train social competencies, to reduce shyness or fear of failure, or to learn to trust that other people are -most of the times- well-intentioned. These exercises could also be specifically tailored to learn to deal with the self and with others in intercultural interactions.

An interesting method to use in the interventions is priming. Mikulincer and Shaver (2001) showed that priming (or activation) of a secure base by making participants read a few sentences about the love and support they receive from their loved ones, regardless of one’s attachment style, lead to less negative reactions to out-groups. So, maybe also primes such as posters with persons who evoke feelings of trust, as for instance Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, or with sentences about love, support and trust also decrease negative attitudes towards others. Priming effects are usually temporary. It is a challenge to develop an intervention, maybe based on repeated secure base or ‘trust’ priming, that leads to a lasting change of the insecure attachment styles into a secure attachment style.

Conclusion

In the introduction of this dissertation, I wrote that when watching television, talking to people, or reading the newspaper I often wondered why some people think positively about cultural diversity and others negatively. Now, at the end of my research project I can conclude that I have more insight into this matter. The studies showed that ‘healthy’ people, that is people who have a positive image of themselves and of other people, are open to cultural diversity. In other words, securely attached people are not wary about other cultures, instead, they prefer immigrants who maintain their culture whilst participating in the Dutch society over immigrants who participate and let go of their original culture. So, improving people’s level of secure attachment, might lead to a ‘truly’ culturally diverse society which guarantees a safe societal environment for people with different cultural backgrounds, at schools, at work and in neighbourhoods. This may eventually result in better relations between people with different cultural backgrounds in the Netherlands.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum. Arends-Tóth, 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. Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303. Ashton, M. C., Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Rothstein, M. G. (1995). The criterion validity of broad factor scales versus specific facet scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 432-442. Austin, J. R. (1997). A cognitive framework for understanding demographic influences in groups. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5, 342-360. Bakker, W. (2005). Emigration and well-being: The role of personality and cultural identity in acculturation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Bakker, W., Van Oudenhoven, J.P., & Van der Zee, K.I. (2004). Attachment styles, personality, and Dutch emigrants’ intercultural adjustment. European Journal of Personality, 18, 387-404. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relations, 7, 147-178.

116 References

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244. Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The attachment to God inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group difference. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 92-103. Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving between cultures. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 232-253). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications Inc. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-34. Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. The International Migration Review, 21, 491-511. Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 185-206. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303-332. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369-386. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation, anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.

References 117

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measures of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press. Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267-283. Breugelmans, S. M., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Antecedents and components of majority attitudes towards multiculturalism. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 400-422. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. (1970). A reinforcement-affect model of evaluative responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1, 103-128. Carnelly, K. B., & Ruscher, J. B. (2000). Adult attachment and exploratory behavior in leisure. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 153-165. Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol.3. Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 311-388). New York: Wiley & Sons. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810-832. Costa, P.T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and Neo Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Craig, G. J., & Baucum, D. (2002). Human development (9th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

118 References

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37. Curran, M. J. (2003). Across the water: The acculturation and health of Irish people in London. Dublin: Psychology Department, Trinity College, and Allen Library. De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & Derksen, M. (2003). Het aangaan van hechte relaties en de cross-culturele aanpassing van expatriates: De rol van persoonlijkheid en hechtingsstijl [Close relationships and cross-cultural adaptation of expatriates: The role of personality and attachment style]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 16, 89-107. Diamond, D., Clarkin, J., Levine, H., Levy, K., Foelsch P., & Yeomans, F. (1999). Borderline conditions and attachment: A preliminary report. Psychoanalytical Inquiry, 19, 831-884. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. Dijkstra, A. B., Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Peschar, J. L., & Van der Wal, M. (2004). Oud gedaan, jong geleerd? Een studie naar de relaties tussen hechtingsstijlen, competenties, EVLN-intenties en sociale cohesie [Old done, learned young? A study on the relationships between attachment styles, competencies, EVLN-intentions, and social cohesion]. Amsterdam: Aksant. Duck, S., & Barnes, M. K. (1992). Disagreeing about agreement: Reconciling differences about similarity. Communication Monographs, 59, 199-208. Elicker, L., Englund, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Predicting peer competence and peer relationships in childhood form early parent-child relationships. In R. D. Parke, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 77-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Erez, A., Mikulincer, M., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (2008). Attachment, personality, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoretical framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 64-74. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis (1st ed.). New York: Norton.

References 119

Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect typology: The influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 201-208. Feeney, J. A. (2002). Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: A diary study. Personal Relationships, 9, 39-55. Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults. Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 128-152). New York: Guilford Press. Fraley, R. C., & Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Attachment and loss: A test of three competing models on the association between attachment-related avoidance and adaptation to bereavement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 878-890. Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77-114). New York: Guilford Press. French, S. A., Seidman, E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. L. (2006). The development of ethnic identity in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1-10. Furnham, A., & Buchanan, T. (2005). Personality, gender, and self-perceived intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 543-555. George, C., Kaplan, N, & Main, M. (1984). Adult Attachment Interview protocol. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley. George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). Adult Attachment Interview protocol (2nd ed.). Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley. George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview protocol (3rd ed.). Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.

120 References

Gijsberts, M., & Dagevos, J. (2004). Concentratie en wederzijdse beeldvorming tussen autochtonen en allochtonen. [Concentration and mutual formation of images between majority members and immigrants]. Migrantenstudies, 3, 145-168. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34. Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford. Graves, T. D. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 23, 337-350. Green, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic and contextual accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 452-461. Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships, Volume 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17-52). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hagedoorn, M. (1998). Employees’ reactions to dissatisfying situations: Multi-method research with justice-based predictors. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 909-924. Hendriks, A. A. J. (1996). The Big Five as tendencies in situations: A replication study. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 527535. Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307-325.

References 121

Hesse, E. (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview: Historical and current perspectives. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 395-433). New York: Guilford Press. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hofstra, J., & Van Oudenhoven, J.P. (2004). Hechtingsstijlen [Attachment styles]. In A. B. Dijkstra, J. Hofstra, J. P. van Oudenhoven, J. L. Peschar, & M. van der Wal, Oud gedaan, jong geleerd? Een studie naar de relaties tussen hechtingsstijlen, competenties, EVLN-intenties en sociale cohesie (pp.31-67). Amsterdam: Aksant. Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Buunk, B. P. (2005). Attachment styles and majority members’ attitudes towards adaptation strategies of immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 601-619. Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2009a). Attachment styles and acculturation attitudes of adolescent and adult majority members. Manuscript submitted for publication. Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2009b). Majority members’ attachment styles, personality traits and attitudes towards and contact with immigrants. Manuscript in preparation. Hogg, M. A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D. W. (1993). Group prototypicality and depersonalized attraction in small interactive groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452-465. Holmes, B.M., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2006). The Relationship Questionnaire-Clinical Version (RQ-CV): Introducing a profoundly distrustful attachment style. Infant Mental Health Journal, 27, 310-325. Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Phillipsen, L. C. (1998). Stability and continuity of child-caregiver and child-peer relationships. Child Development, 69, 418-426.

122 References

Hraba, J., Hagendoorn, L., & Hagendoorn, R. (1989). The ethnic hierarchy in the Netherlands: Social distance and social representation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 57-69. John, O. P. (1990). The ‘Big Five’ factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford Press. Johnston, M. A. (1999). Influences of adult attachment in exploration. PsychologicalReports, 84, 31-34. Kroger, J. (2000). Ego identity status research in the new millennium. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 145–148. Lapsley, D. K., & Edgerton, J. (2002). Separation-individuation, adult attachment style, and college adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 484-492. Leone, L., Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2005). The cross-cultural generalizability and validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1449-1462. Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Love styles and attachment styles compared: Their relation to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 439-471. Lieberman, A. F., & Zeanah, C. H. (1999). Contributions of attachment theory to infant-parent psychotherapy and other interventions with young infants and children. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (555-575). New York: Guilford Press. Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95-124). Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing.

References 123

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 121-160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 927-935. Marcia, J. E., Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Archer, S. L., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1993). Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research. New York: Springer-Verlag. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 97-115. Moghaddam, F. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1987). The meaning of multiculturalism for visible minority immigrant women. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19, 121-136. Musch, J. (2003). Personality differences in hindsight bias. Memory, 11, 473-489. Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179-208. Nunnally, J. L. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Onishi, M., Gjerde, P. F., & Block, J. (2001). Personality implications of romantic attachment patterns in young adults: A multi-method, multi-informant study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 1097-1110. Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538-556.

124 References

Pettigrew, T. F. (1981). Extending the stereotype concept. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 303-331). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173-185. Pfafferott, I., & Brown, R. (2006). Acculturation preferences of majority and minority adolescents in Germany in the context of society and family. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 703-717. Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514. Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzálek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1-26. Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 221-232. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586-611. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152. Rice, K. G., FitzGerald, D. P., Whaley, T. J., & Gibbs, C. L. (1995). Cross-sectional and longitudinal examination of attachment, separation-individuation, and college student adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 463-474.

References 125

Rohmann, A., Florack, A., & Piontkowski, U. (2006). The role of discordant acculturation attitudes in perceived threat: An analysis of host and immigrant attitudes in Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 683-702. Roisman, G. I. (2006). The role of adult attachment security in non-romantic, non-attachment-related first interactions between same-sex strangers. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 341-352. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus phenomenon: An attributional bias in self-perception and social perception processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301. Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665. Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1230-1242. Schmitt, D., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., et al. (2004). Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are models of self and of other pancultural constructs? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 367-402. Schrier, M., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). Hechtingsstijlen en zelfbeeld als voorspellers van sociale steun en welbevinden. Een longitudinaal onderzoek onder studenten [Attachment styles and self-image as predictors of social support and well-being: A longitudinal study among students]. In D. Stapel, M. Hagedoorn, & E. Van Dijk (Eds.), Jaarboek Sociale Psychologie 2001, (pp. 182-191). Delft: Eburon. Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the ‘Big Five’ personality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 536-545.

126 References

Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Oriña, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 598-608. Statistics Netherlands. (2008a). Bevolking per maand: leeftijd, geslacht, herkomst en generatie [Population per month: Age, gender, origin, and generation]. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/default.aspx?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71090ned&HD=080711-1219. Statistics Netherlands. (2008b). Bevolking: herkomstgroepering, generatie, geslacht en leeftijd, 1 januari [Population: Origins, generation, gender, and age, 1st of January]. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37325&HD=080711-1224. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524. Stronkhorst, R. (2005). Learning outcomes of international mobility at two Dutch institutions of higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 292-315. Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books. Tsagarikis, M., Kafetsios, K., & Stalikas, A. (2007). Reliability and validity of the Greek version of the Revised Experiences in Close Relationships measure of adult attachment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 47-55. United Nations. (2006). Trends in migration stock: The 2005 revision. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://esa.un.org/migration/p2k0data.asp.

References 127

Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291-309. Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: Reliability and validity of self- and other ratings of multicultural effectiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 278-288. Van der Zee, K. I., Zaal, J. N., & Piekstra, J. (2003). Validation of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire in the context of personnel selection. European Journal of Personality, 17, 77100. Van Oudenhoven, J.P. (2002). Cross- culturele psychologie. De zoektocht naar verschillen en overeenkomsten tussen culturen [Cross-cultural psychology. The search for differences and similarities between cultures]. Bussum: Coutinho. Van Oudenhoven, J.P., & Eisses, A.M. (1998). Integration and assimilation of Moroccan immigrants in Israel and the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 293-307. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Hofstra, J. (2006). Personal reactions to ‘strange’ situations: Attachment styles and acculturation attitudes of immigrants and majority members. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 783-798. Van Oudenhoven, J.P., Hofstra, J., & Bakker, W. (2003). Ontwikkeling en evaluatie van de hechtingstijlvragenlijst (HSL) [Development and evaluation of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ)]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 58, 95-102. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Mol, S., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2003). Study of the adjustment of Western expatriates in Taiwan ROC with the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. Asian Journal of Psychology, 6, 159-170. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995-1013.

128 References

Van Oudenhoven, J. P. & Van der Zee, K. I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness of international students: The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 679-694. Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387-403. Verkuyten, M., Hagendoorn, L., & Masson, K. (1996). The ethnic hierarchy among majority and minority youth in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1104-1118. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (1999). Nederlandse en Turkse jongeren over multiculturalisme: Cultuurbehoud, aanpassing, identificatie en groepsdiscriminatie [Dutch and Turkish youth about multiculturalism: Cultural maintenance, adaptation, identification and group discrimination]. Sociologische Gids: Tijdschrift voor Sociologie en Sociaal Onderzoek, 46, 407-425. Von Zerssen, D. (1994). Persönlichkeitszüge als Vulnerabilitätsindikatoren-Probleme ihrer Erfassung [Personality traits as vulnerability markers: Problems of assessment]. Fortschritte der Neurologie, Psychiatrie, 62, 1-13. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.).New York: Routledge. Ward, C., & Masgoret, A -M. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes towards immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671-682. Waters, E. (1987). Attachment Behavior Q-set (Revision 3.0). Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Waters, E. (1995). The attachment Q-set. In E. Waters, B. E. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60, 247-254.

References 129

Waters, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social competence as a developmental construct. Developmental Review, 3, 79-97. Wellman, B. (1992). Men in networks: Private communities, domestic friendships. In P.M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp.74-114). Newsbury Park, CA: Sage. Winquist, L. A., Mohr, C. D., & Kenny, D. A. (1998). The female positivity effect in perception of others. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 370-388. Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: Immigrant-majority relations in Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 171-188.

Appendix 1. Chapter 2

Description of all samples used in Chapter 2 and of the instruments which were used among the samples.

Students of psychology (N = 1960)

Group N % female Mean age (SD) Age range Instruments used:

1. 379 73 n.a. n.a. ASQ

Self-Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg,

1965)

EVLN-intentions

Image of others

2. 439 73 20.88 (3.17) 17-43 ASQ

3. 113 79 21.54 (5.54) 18-53 ASQ

4. 450 75 20.48 (4.25) 17-51 ASQ

FFPI (Hendriks, Hofstee & De

Raad, 1999)

5. 300 77 19.88 (3.25) 18-47 ASQ

6. 45 67 21.37 (5.16) 16-53 ASQ

Self-esteem Inventory (Rosenberg,

1965)

7. 234 73 20.27 (3.17) 17-49 ASQ

Self-esteem Inventory (Rosenberg,

1965)

132 Appendix 1

Adults (N = 1010)

Group N % female Mean age (SD) Age range Instruments used:

8. 43 49 39.59 (12.38) 25-61 ASQ

EVLN-intentions

9. 175 70 50.11 (4.17) 39-63 ASQ

EVLN-intentions

Adult Self-Perception Profile

(Harter, 1988)

Trust in others

10. 461 49 50.15 (14.60) 20-90 ASQ

Self-esteem Inventory

(Rosenberg, 1965)

Relationship Questionnaire

(Bartholomew & Horowitz,

1991)

11. 133 61 50.01 (14.11) 25-82 ASQ

FFPI (Hendriks, Hofstee & De

Raad, 1999)

12. 143 55 44.85 (11.61) 25-78 ASQ

13. 55 51 46.75 (14.99) 25-84 ASQ

Self-esteem Inventory

(Rosenberg, 1965)

Emigrants (N =563)

Group N % female Mean age (SD) Age range Variables measured

14. 563 46 59.88 (14.67) 2491 ASQ

FFPI (shortened)


Items which were used to measure attachment styles in Chapter 3. Secure attachment style I feel at ease in emotional relationships. I avoid close ties. I trust other people and I like it when other people can rely on me. I find it easy to get engaged in close relationships with other people. I feel at ease in intimate relationships. I think it is important that people can rely on each other. Fearful attachment style I would like to be open to others, but I feel I can’t trust other people. I would like to have close relationships with other people, but I find it difficult to fully trust them. I feel uncomfortable when relationships with other people become close. I assume that other people can be trusted.* I am afraid of to tell personal things about myself.* Preoccupied attachment style I often wonder whether people like me. I have the impression that usually I like others better than they like me. I am often afraid that other people don’t like me. I fear to be left alone. I don’t worry whether people like me or not. Dismissing attachment style I feel comfortable without having close relationships with other people. It is important to me to be independent. I prefer that others are independent of me, and that I am independent of others. I like to be self-sufficient. I don’t worry about being alone: I don’t need other people that strongly. Note. *These items are not included in the latest version of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire that we presented in Chapter 2.

Appendix 3. Chapter 4 Items which were used to measure attachment styles among the adolescent sample. Secure attachment style I feel at ease with children who care about me. I like to be with other children. I like it when other children and me know each other well. I think it is important that people can rely on each other. I like it when other people can rely on me. Fearful attachment style I am afraid to tell much about myself.* I don’t like it when others want to associate much with me. I don’t like telling stuff about myself.* I would like getting to know other children, but I find it hard to trust others. I find it is easy to tell stuff about myself.*, ** Preoccupied attachment style I often wonder whether people like me. I believe that I like others better than they like me. I am often afraid that other people don’t like me. I fear to be left alone. I find it important to know whether other children like me.** Dismissing attachment style I prefer doing things without the help of others. I feel comfortable when others don’t know too much about me. I find it unpleasant when others want something from me, I also prefer to go my own way. I don’t need other people that strongly. Note. *These items do not have a counterpart in the latest version of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire that we presented in Chapter 2. **These items do not have a counterpart in the adult version.

Appendix 4. Chapter 4 Items which were used to measure attachment styles among the adult sample. Secure attachment style I feel at ease in close relationships. I avoid close ties. I find it easy to get engaged in close relationships with other people. I think it is important that people can rely on each other. I trust other people and I like it when other people can rely on me. Fearful attachment style I am afraid to tell personal things about myself.* I feel uncomfortable when relationships with other people become close. I don’t get confidential that easily.* I would like to have close relationships with other people, but I find it difficult to fully trust them. I would like to be open to others, but I feel I can’t trust other people.** Preoccupied attachment style I often wonder whether people like me. I have the impression that usually I like others better than they like me. I am often afraid that other people don’t like me. I fear to be left alone. I don’t worry whether people like me or not.** Dismissing attachment style It is important for me to be independent. I feel comfortable without having close relationships with other people. I prefer that others are independent of me, and that I am independent of others. I don’t worry about being alone: I don’t need other people that strongly. Note.: *These items are not included in the latest version of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire that we presented in Chapter 2. **These items do not have a counterpart in the adolescent version.


Below, examples of the four scenarios describing the integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization strategy as used among the adolescent sample are presented. The scenarios used among the adult sample were almost identical to these scenarios, except that the words ‘youth’ and ‘school’ were replaced by ‘people’ and ‘work’. The scenarios were presented to the respondents as fictitious newspaper articles. The instruction text was the same for the four versions.

Instruction:

The text presented below is a fragment of an article about immigrants in the Netherlands. We ask you to read the text carefully, and to give your opinion about it.

Integration scenario:

Jamy’s parents were both born in Surinam. When Jamy was only a little baby, his family decided to migrate to the Netherlands. Jamy has been living in the Netherlands for a long time and identifies himself with the Dutch culture as well as with the Surinamese. “I do not ask myself whether I am Surinamese or Dutch. Both cultures have influenced me. I feel both Dutch and Surinamese, actually”. Jamy associates with Dutch ànd Surinamese youth. Both at school and in his spare time, Jamy has Surinamese as well as Dutch friends. “On the one hand I feel at ease with other Surinamese people, but on the other hand I also get along with Dutch people. I feel at home among both groups”.

Assimilation scenario:

Jamy’s parents were both born in Surinam. When Jamy was only a little baby, his family decided to migrate to the Netherlands. Jamy has been living in the Netherlands for a long time and identifies himself more with the Dutch culture than with the Surinamese culture. “I do not ask myself whether I am Surinamese or Dutch. No, I am a Dutchman. My friends also see me as Dutch and not as Surinamese”. Jamy almost exclusively associates with Dutch youth. Both at school and in his spare time, Jamy has few Surinamese friends. “I feel most at ease with Dutch people. I feel less at home among Surinamese people. They have a totally different culture. I just do not fit in with them”.

Appendix 5 137

Separation scenario:

Jamy’s parents were both born in Surinam. When Jamy was only a little baby, his family decided to migrate to the Netherlands. Jamy has been living in the Netherlands for a long time but he identifies himself more with the Surinamese culture than with the Dutch culture. “I do not ask myself whether I am Surinamese or Dutch. No, I am Surinamese. My friends also see me as Surinamese and not as Dutch”. Jamy almost exclusively associates with Surinamese youth. Both at school and in his spare time, Jamy has few Dutch friends. “I feel most as ease with Surinamese people. I feel less at home among Dutch people. They have a totally different culture. I just do not fit in with them”.

Marginalization scenario:

Jamy’s parents were both born in Surinam. When Jamy was only a little baby, his family decided to migrate to the Netherlands. Jamy has been living in the Netherlands for a long time and identifies himself neither with the Dutch culture nor with the Surinamese. “I do not ask myself whether I am Surinamese or Dutch. Neither culture has influenced me. I feel neither Dutch, nor Surinamese, actually.” Jamy doesn’t associate much with Dutch and Surinamese youth. Both at school and in his spare time, Jamy has few Surinamese and Dutch friends. “I don’t feel at ease with Dutch people, nor with Surinamese. I feel connected to neither culture”.


Below, examples of the three scenarios describing the integration, assimilation and separation strategy are presented. The scenarios were presented to the participants as fictitious newspaper articles. For space purposes, we only present the male versions. The instruction text was the same for the three versions.

Instruction:

A while ago, a series of items about immigrants were published in a local newspaper. In these items, several Moroccan immigrants talked about their lives in the Netherlands. A fragment of one of these items is presented below. We ask you to carefully read the fragment.

Integration scenario:

Azedine’s story: “I respect Moroccan customs, but I do not isolate myself from my environment.

For example, I find it very important that my children learn Dutch. Next to Arabic, I speak Dutch pretty well myself. Furthermore, it is all right with me when my children participate in Dutch feasts at school, but at home we celebrate the Festival of Fast-Breaking and we participate in the Ramadan. I am part of the Moroccan culture, my wife is also Moroccan, but I am also very much involved in the Dutch society. I watch Dutch news, for instance, and I have Moroccan as well as Dutch friends”. Besides his work, Azedine takes an active part in the Moroccan community. For instance, he organizes theme evenings at an Moroccan association. In addition, he is an active member of the -primarily Dutch- community committee. “Still, I do not have the need to give up my own culture: it is such a beautiful culture. If I loose my culture, I also loose a part of my identity”.

Assimilation scenario:

Azedine’s story: “We live in the Netherlands, so we have to adjust to the Dutch society. Speaking

Dutch is a requirement for participating in this society. It is not wise to speak Arabic at

Appendix 6 139

home: that way, you will never learn Dutch well”. Azedine lives with his Moroccan wife and children in a primarily Dutch neighborhood. “I like living among the Dutch. I think it is good to have much contact with the Dutch. Also because of that, I participate in the parents’ council of my children’s school”. Azedine doesn’t have many Moroccan friends. “I’ve never sticked to the Moroccan culture, and I also know increasingly less about developments in the Moroccan society. You must not keep adhering to Moroccan values and customs in the Netherlands, that’s not right. For instance, take my work place. I wouldn’t dare to ask my colleagues to skip their lunch during Ramadan because of me. No, in the Netherlands it is best to live as much as possible like the Dutch, and therefore I try my best to become Dutch”.

Separation scenario:

Azedine’s story: “Dutch culture is very different from Moroccan culture, I cannot get accustomed

to it. I believe that even if you live in the Netherlands, you should stick to your original culture. I also find the values and customs of the Moroccan culture, like Ramadan, very important to the upbringing of my children. For instance, I want them to speak Arabic well, and I wish them to have a Moroccan partner in the future: that’s a better match. Furthermore, we actively follow the developments in Morocco at home. I am less interested in what is going on in Dutch society”. Although Azedine lives in a primarily Dutch neighborhood, he goes to a Moroccan association twice a week where he organizes meetings for Moroccan youth. “I find it important to have much contact with Moroccans”. When possible, Azedine speaks his mother tongue. “Actually, I only speak Dutch with my colleagues at work, besides that, I do not have contact with Dutch people. I am Moroccan, and I prefer to be with people of my own country”.

Samenvatting

(Summary in Dutch)

Het aantal eerste en tweede generatie immigranten in Nederland is hoger dan ooit tevoren. Momenteel wonen er 3,2 miljoen immigranten in Nederland, dat is 19.7% van de totale Nederlandse bevolking. De verwachting is dat dit getal de komende jaren zal blijven stijgen. Een belangrijke taak voor de Nederlandse samenleving is dus het omgaan met culturele diversiteit. Dit is geen gemakkelijke taak, zoals bijvoorbeeld blijkt uit de spanningen die bestaan tussen verschillende culturele groepen in Nederland. De inpassing van immigranten in de Nederlandse samenleving is dan ook vaak onderwerp van verhitte debatten in de Nederlandse media en politiek.

Dit proefschrift richt zich op de houding van autochtone Nederlanders over deze inpassing van immigranten (mensen die zelf in het buitenland geboren zijn of van wie tenminste één van de ouders in het buitenland geboren is). Meer specifiek is onderzocht wat de houding van autochtone Nederlanders is ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën van immigranten. Acculturatiestrategieën zijn strategieën die immigranten hanteren om hun positie in de samenleving te bepalen. In dit proefschrift wordt gebruik gemaakt van het model van Berry (1997) dat vier acculturatiestrategieën beschrijft: integratie (behoud van de eigen cultuur en positieve relaties met de gastsamenleving zijn belangrijk voor de immigrant), assimilatie (alleen positieve relaties met de gastsamenleving zijn belangrijk), separatie (alleen het behoud van de eigen cultuur is belangrijk), en marginalisatie (noch behoud van de eigen cultuur noch positieve relaties met de gastsamenleving zijn belangrijk).

Naast de houding ten opzichte van de vier acculturatiestrategieën, onderzocht ik de invloed van een belangrijke individuele verschil variabele, hechtingsstijl, op deze houding. Iemands hechtingsstijl beschrijft de manier waarop die persoon omgaat met (relaties met) andere mensen. Is het zo dat iemands algemene stijl in het benaderen van en omgaan met anderen van invloed is op hoe diegene over immigranten denkt? Vier hechtingsstijlen worden in de literatuur onderscheiden: de zekere hechtingsstijl (gekenmerkt door een positief beeld van zichzelf en anderen; sociale interacties worden met vertrouwen tegemoet gezien), de angstige hechtingsstijl (negatief beeld van zichzelf en anderen; sociale interacties worden vermeden), de vermijdende hechtingsstijl (positief beeld van zichzelf, negatief beeld van anderen; geen behoefte aan sociale contacten), en de gepreoccupeerde

142 Samenvatting

hechtingsstijl (negatief beeld van zichzelf, maar een positief beeld van anderen; tijdens sociale contacten verlatingsangst). Waarom onderzoek naar de invloed van hechtingsstijlen van autochtone Nederlanders op hun houding ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën van immigranten? Uit onderzoek blijkt dat hechtingsstijlen samenhangen met hoe iemand omgaat met vreemden en met de mate waarin iemand nieuwe situaties onderzoekt en zich aanpast aan nieuwe, onbekende situaties. Voor autochtone Nederlanders impliceert het omgaan met immigranten ook het exploreren van nieuwe culturen, omgaan met vreemden en het aanpassen aan een nieuwe situatie, dat wil zeggen verschillende culturen.

Om de relatie tussen hechtingsstijlen en houding ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën te kunnen vaststellen, is een nieuwe hechtingsstijlvragenlijst voor volwassenen ontwikkeld. De ontwikkeling en evaluatie van deze vragenlijst staat centraal in hoofdstuk 2. Eerdere vragenlijsten zijn veelal ontworpen om relatie-specifieke hechting te meten en personen te categoriseren in één hechtingscategorie. Daarnaast maken vele instrumenten gebruik van slechts één item om hechting mee te meten en ook zijn veel van die eerder ontwikkelde vragenlijsten weinig betrouwbaar. Ik wilde een betrouwbare vragenlijst ontwikkelen met meerdere items om de vier hechtingsstijlen te meten die door Bartholomew en Horowitz (1991) onderscheiden zijn, en die gebruik maakt van continue schalen om hechting aan anderen in het algemeen te bepalen. De ontwikkeling van deze Hechtingsstijllijst (HSL) is grotendeels geslaagd. Factoranalyses op een gegevensbestand van 3533 respondenten, onderverdeeld in drie groepen (studenten, volwassenen en emigranten) lieten vier duidelijke factoren zien die corresponderen met de eerder genoemde vier hechtingsstijlen. De betrouwbaarheid van de schalen was goed (gemiddelde α = 0.74). De stabiliteit van de hechtingsstijlen, gemeten over een periode van een jaar, was redelijk (gemiddeld 0.68). Verder zijn de relaties tussen de hechtingsstijlen en enkele belangrijke andere variabelen, zoals zelfwaardering, beeld van anderen, vertrouwen in anderen, reacties op frustrerende situaties en de Big Five persoonlijkheidseigenschappen, in lijn met de verwachtingen. Bovendien hingen de schalen van de HSL het hoogst samen met de corresponderende schalen van een ander instrument om hechtingsstijlen van volwassenen te meten. Alleen de betrouwbaarheid en de constructvaliditeit van de schaal voor vermijdende hechting laat nog wat te wensen over. Dit kan te wijten zijn aan de complexiteit van het concept. Enerzijds bestaat vermijdende hechting uit onafhankelijk willen zijn van anderen en anderzijds uit het op afstand willen houden van anderen. Dit kwam ook tot uiting in de items. Het gebrek aan eenduidigheid kan de oorzaak zijn van de lagere betrouwbaarheid van de vermijdende schaal en van de zwakke relaties tussen de vermijdende hechtingstijl en de andere

Samenvatting 143

gemeten concepten. De resultaten laten verder zien dat er sexe-verschillen zijn in de scores op de HSL, die aansluiten bij de verwachtingen uit de literatuur: vrouwen scoren hoger op de zekere en gepreoccupeerde schaal dan mannen, en lager op de vermijdende schaal. Al met al lijkt de HSL een veelbelovend instrument om hechtingsstijlen van volwassenen te meten en de lijst voegt zeker iets toe aan het bestaande instrumentarium van hechtingsmaten.

Houding ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën van immigranten

Een belangrijk doel van dit proefschrift was het bepalen van de houding van autochtone Nederlanders ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën van immigranten. De resultaten uit de verschillende hoofdstukken laten een consistent beeld zien: autochtone Nederlanders geven er de voorkeur aan dat immigranten de integratiestrategie hanteren, gevolgd door de assimilatie-, separatie- en marginalisatiestrategie. Dit lijkt een robuuste bevinding. Ten eerste, verschillende methoden om de houding ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën te meten zijn gebruikt en hetzelfde resultaat werd gevonden. Zo is in hoofdstuk 3 een vragenlijst gebruikt met uitspraken van immigranten over hun acculturatie. De respondenten moesten hierover hun mening geven. In hoofdstuk 4 en 5 is de houding ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën met behulp van een scenariobenadering gemeten. De scenario’s waren fictieve krantenartikelen over een immigrant die één van de vier strategieën hanteert. Respondenten moesten over één scenario vragen beantwoorden die hun affectieve reactie maten. Ten tweede, de rangorde in de voorkeuren voor de acculturatiestrategieën laat geen verschillen zien tussen verschillende steekproeven respondenten: adolescenten (hoofdstuk 4), studenten (hoofdstuk 3 en 5) en volwassenen (hoofdstuk 4). Tot slot, dezelfde rangorde in voorkeuren van autochtonen werd gevonden ongeacht de culturele achtergrond van de immigrant: niet nader gespecificeerd (hoofdstuk 3), Surinaams (hoofdstuk 4) of Marokkaans (hoofdstuk 5). Dus ongeacht de meetmethode, de levensfase van de respondent en de culturele achtergrond van de immigrant, autochtone Nederlanders uit onze steekproeven zijn positiever over een immigrant die participeert in de Nederlandse samenleving en tegelijkertijd zijn eigen cultuur behoud dan over een immigrant die participeert en zijn eigen cultuur loslaat.

144 Samenvatting

Hechtingsstijlen en houding ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën

Een ander belangrijk doel van dit proefschrift was het vaststellen van de relatie tussen hechtingsstijlen en houding ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën van immigranten. De resultaten laten zien dat individuele verschillen in hechtingsstijlen inderdaad gerelateerd zijn aan de houding van autochtone Nederlanders ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën van immigranten. Meer specifiek, uit de hoofdstukken 3, 4, en 5 blijkt dat hoe hoger mensen scoren op de zekere hechtingsstijl (gekenmerkt door een positief beeld van zichzelf en van anderen), hoe positiever ze zijn over immigranten die integreren. Deze relatie is in hoofdstuk 3 ook longitudinaal aangetoond, waarbij de houding ten opzichte van de acculturatiestrategieën een jaar later werd gemeten dan de hechtingsstijlen. De zekere hechtingsstijl wordt gekenmerkt door een constructieve houding ten opzichte van het zelf en anderen. Uit onderzoeken is gebleken dat mensen die hoog scoren op deze hechtingsstijl bijvoorbeeld betere relaties hebben met familie en vrienden, hoger scoren op welbevinden en psychologische gezondheid dan mensen die hoog scoren op de onzekere hechtingsstijlen. Ook is integratie van de vier acculturatiestrategieën de meest constructieve strategie: het hanteren van deze strategie hangt samen met een betere gezondheid, minder gedragsproblemen en betere intergroeps-relaties. Dus mensen die hoog scoren op de zekere hechtingsstijl zijn positief over een acculturatiestrategie die het meest ‘gezond’ lijkt te zijn voor immigranten en voor de relatie tussen immigranten en autochtonen. Zeker gehechte mensen worden aangetrokken door nieuwigheid, zoals nieuwe situaties en vreemden. Wanneer immigranten integreren, hebben autochtonen contact met ‘vreemden’ of ‘nieuwe’ culturen. Daarom kan het dus zijn dat mensen die hoog scoren op de zekere hechtingsstijl positief zijn over immigranten die integreren. De zekere hechtingsstijl hangt overigens niet significant samen met de houding ten opzichte van assimilatie, separatie, en marginalisatie. De onzekere hechtingsstijlen (angstig, vermijdend en gepreoccupeerd) daarentegen waren of negatief gerelateerd of niet significant gerelateerd aan de houding ten opzichte van integratie en correleerden juist eerder met de drie andere acculturatiestrategieën (assimilatie, separatie en marginalisatie). Echter, de relaties tussen de houding ten opzichte van deze strategieën en de onzekere hechtingsstijlen toonden een minder duidelijk patroon en waren ook minder consistent over de studies heen dan de relatie tussen de houding ten opzichte van integratie en de zekere hechtingsstijl. Omdat er in geen geval positieve relaties tussen de onzekere hechtingsstijlen en de houding ten opzichte van integratie gevonden werden, kan geconcludeerd worden dat onzekere hechtingsstijlen niet bijdragen aan meer positieve interculturele attitudes in Nederland.

Samenvatting 145

Dit proefschrift laat op verschillende manieren zien dat hechtingsstijlen relevante factoren zijn in acculturatieonderzoek. In hoofdstuk 4 blijkt bijvoorbeeld dat hechtingsstijlen niet alleen gerelateerd zijn aan hoe we de acculturatiestrategieën van immigranten waarderen (houding ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën), maar ook aan hoe we het vóórkomen van de verschillende strategieën inschatten. In het algemeen geldt dat hoe hoger mensen scoren op de zekere hechtingsstijl, hoe hoger ze het percentage immigranten dat integreert schatten. De zekere hechtingsstijl hing niet significant of negatief samen met de waargenomen percentages immigranten die assimileren, separeren of marginaliseren. De onzekere stijlen daarentegen correleerden juist negatief met het waargenomen percentage immigranten dat integreert, en niet of positief met de waargenomen percentages van assimilerende, separerende en marginaliserende immigranten. Verder laten de resultaten in hoofdstuk 5 zien dat de vermijdende hechtingsstijl positief samenhangt met de mate van contact die autochtonen hebben met immigranten. Tot slot blijken hechtingsstijlen toegevoegde waarde te hebben in het voorspellen van de houding ten opzichte van integratie, boven de Big Five eigenschappen en interculturele eigenschappen.

Samengevat, dit proefschrift heeft aangetoond dat hechtingsstijlen een rol spelen in de houding van autochtone Nederlanders ten opzichte van acculturatiestrategieën van immigranten. Specifieker, een zekere hechtingsstijl hangt samen met een positieve attitude ten opzichte van integratie door immigranten. Integratie is de strategie die het meest gewaardeerd wordt door autochtone Nederlanders en onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat ook immigranten deze strategie prefereren. Het is dus raadzaam om een positieve attitude ten opzichte van integratie te stimuleren en de zekere hechtingsstijl lijkt het startpunt te zijn voor het bereiken van deze positieve houding ten opzichte van integratie. Hechtingsstijlen worden stabieler naarmate men ouder wordt, dus het is verstandig om in de kindertijd of in de adolescentie interventies te plegen om de ontwikkeling van een zekere hechtingsstijl te bevorderen. In de eerste plaats is het goed om thuis en op school een ‘veilige’ omgeving te creëren zodat kinderen en adolescenten zichzelf kunnen zijn en de wereld om hen heen veilig kunnen verkennen. Daarnaast kunnen trainingen gegeven worden -bijvoorbeeld op consultatiebureaus- aan ouders en andere verzorgers met het doel strategieën te leren waarmee het vertrouwen van hun kinderen in zichzelf en in hun sociale omgeving verhoogd kan worden. Ook op school kunnen trainingen gegeven worden aan kinderen om hun sociale vaardigheden te verhogen, faalangst of verlegenheid te reduceren en zichzelf in sociale interacties te kunnen vertrouwen. Deze trainingen kunnen ook op maat gemaakt worden om met zichzelf en anderen om te gaan in interculturele situaties.

146 Samenvatting

Het verhogen van de scores van mensen op de zekere hechtingsstijl zou kunnen leiden tot een ‘echt’ cultureel diverse samenleving die een veilige maatschappelijke omgeving garandeert voor mensen met verschillende achtergronden, op school, in de buurt en op het werk. Dit zou uiteindelijk kunnen leiden tot betere relaties tussen mensen met verschillende culturele achtergronden in Nederland.

Dankwoord

(Acknowledgements) Toen ik tijdens mijn afstuderen werd gevraagd om als student-assistent onderzoek te doen naar de houding van autochtonen ten opzichte van allochtonen en eventueel na mijn afstuderen hier mee verder te gaan als promovendus, kon ik mijn oren niet geloven. Ik? Onderzoeker? Dat kan ik toch helemaal niet? Dit moet een fout zijn! Maar het onderwerp trok me wel heel erg: als echte Friezin had ik me al vaak afgevraagd waarom veel autochtone Nederlanders toch zo negatief zijn ten opzichte van mensen met een andere culturele achtergrond. Na enig aarzelen heb ik de baan dan ook geaccepteerd en ben daar nog steeds erg blij om: de afgelopen jaren heb ik me op professioneel en persoonlijk vlak enorm kunnen ontwikkelen en heb ik met veel bijzondere mensen mogen samenwerken. Graag wil ik een aantal mensen bedanken die allen op eigen wijze hebben bijgedragen aan het tot stand komen van mijn proefschrift en aan de mooie tijd als promovendus. Allereerst mijn promotoren en dan in de eerste plaats Jan Pieter. Jouw vertrouwen in mij, je sociale persoonlijkheid en je deskundigheid trokken mij destijds mede over de streep om de wetenschappelijke wereld in te duiken. Met jou zag ik het samenwerken wel zitten en daar ben ik na al die jaren niet op teruggekomen. Dank voor je oprechte betrokkenheid bij mijn onderzoek, je deskundige feedback, alle mogelijkheden die je voor me hebt gecreëerd om mijn onderzoek goed te kunnen afronden en buitenlandse congressen te kunnen bezoeken, en voor je steun op die momenten dat het in mijn privé leven even niet zo lekker ging. Ik ben blij dat we de komende jaren blijven samenwerken! Karen: jouw scherpe feedback en creatieve ideeën hebben mijn proefschrift echt verrijkt. Dank dat je twee jaar geleden mijn tweede promotor wilde worden. Ik verheug me op onze samenwerking de komende jaren binnen jouw geweldige instituut voor Integratie en Sociale Weerbaarheid. Ook wil ik Bram Buunk bedanken voor zijn inbreng en feedback gedurende de eerste jaren van mijn promotieonderzoek. Dan mijn collega’s bij de afdeling DPMG: zonder jullie was mijn promotietijd nooit zo leuk geweest! Bedankt voor de goede werksfeer en voor het feit dat jullie deuren altijd open stonden voor mij. Vooral wil ik hier noemen: Anne Fetsje, Ilse, Lidewij, Rink en Sarah. Jullie zijn echte vrienden geworden! Het was zo fijn om samen met jullie in

148 Dankwoord

hetzelfde schuitje te zitten. Onze vele borrels, etentjes, koffiepauzes en feestjes zal ik niet vergeten en ik hoop dat er nog vele zullen volgen. Bedankt voor alles en vooral jullie vriendschap. Mijn paranimfen Onno en Sarah. Wat bof ik met jullie! Onno, jouw visie op het leven en je grote algemene kennis maken je een geweldige gesprekspartner en een grote broer om trots op te zijn. Ik vind het erg bijzonder dat jij mijn paranimf bent. En bedankt voor de mooie omslag! Sarah: eerst collega, toen kamergenote en nu vriendin. Samen hebben we al veel beleefd. Veel dank dat je er altijd voor me bent, dank voor al je adviezen, je geweldige en aanstekelijke lach en voor alle gezellige momenten. Je bent een kanjer! En Lidewij: jij was al een vriendin en werd toen ook nog eens collega en kamergenote. Wat hebben we veel lol gehad samen! Bedankt voor alle steun en gezelligheid de afgelopen jaren en zeker ook voor het lay-outen van het binnenwerk van mijn proefschrift, en dat in Laos en Zuid-Afrika! Fantastisch dat je toch bij mijn verdediging kunt zijn: zonder jou zou het niet compleet zijn. Verder wil ik mijn nieuwe collega’s bij het ISW en bij Toegepaste Psychologie aan de Hanzehogeschool bedanken voor hun belangstelling en pep-talks gedurende de laatste zware loodjes van mijn promotietraject. Door jullie ga ik nooit met tegenzin naar mijn werk! Buiten het werk heb ik ook een aantal bijzondere mensen om me heen die ik graag wil noemen. Allereerst mijn familie en schoonfamilie: bedankt voor jullie belangstelling voor mijn werk! Benammen wol ik Heit en Mem betankje: Tank dat jimme my altiten alle kânsen bean hawwe sadat ik wurde koe wa’t ik no bin. Ik hâld fan jimme. En natuurlijk wil ik mijn vrienden bedanken voor alle welkome afleidingen en belangstelling, vooral: Akke Marije, Annemiek, Cynthia, Leonie, Lucie, Mariska, Marloes, Merlijne, Nicoline en Nienke. Het is een eer dat ik jullie mijn vrienden mag noemen! En dan Jeroen. De liefde van mijn leven. Jou ben ik het meest dank verschuldigd: jij hebt me gedurende het gehele promotietraject van dichtbij meegemaakt en dat was niet altijd een pretje. Toch was je er altijd voor me en gaf je me alle tijd en ruimte om mijn ding te doen. Jij bent geweldig. Ik houd verschrikkelijk veel van je. Zo. Ik heb gezegd.

The “Kurt Lewin Institute Dissertation Series” started in 1997. Since 2007 the following dissertations have been published:

2007-1: Nils Jostmann: When the going gets tough… How action versus state orientation

moderates the impact of situational demands on cognition, affect, and behavior 2007-2: Belle Derks: Social identity threat and performance motivation: The interplay between

ingroup and outgroup domains 2007-3: Helma van den Berg: Feeling and Thinking in Attitudes 2007-4: Karin C.A. Bongers: You can't always get what you want! Consequences of success and

failure to attain unconscious goals 2007-5: Lotte Scholten: Motivation matters: Motivated information processing in group and

individual decision-making 2007-6: Debra Trampe: Social influence: Social comparison, construal, and persuasion processes 2007-7: Clemens Wenneker: Processes underlying biased language use 2007-8: Yaël de Liver: Ambivalence: on the how and when of attitudinal conflict 2007-9: Erik de Kwaadsteniet: Uncertainty in social dilemmas 2007-10: Hugo Alberts: Processes of self-control and ego depletion 2007-11: Loran Nordgren: Thinking about Feeling: The Nature and Significance of the Hot/Cold

Empathy Gap 2007-12: Stefan Thomas Mol: Crossing Borders with Personnel Selection from expatriates to

multicultural teams 2007-13: Hilbrand Oldenhuis: I know what they think about us: Metaperceptions and intergroup

relations 2007-14: Arnaud Wisman: New Directions in Terror Management Theory 2007-15: Gert Homsma: Making Errors Worthwhile: Determinants of Constructive Error

Handling 2007-16: Elianne van Steenbergen: Work-Family Facilitation: A Positive Psychological

Perspective on Role Combination 2007-17: Unna Danner: By Force of Habit: On the Formation and Maintenance of Goal-Directed

Habits 2007-18: Maureen Tumewu: The Social Psychology of Gender Differences and Procedural Justice in

Close Relationships 2007-19: Wokje Abrahamse: Energy conservation through behavioral change: Examining the

effectiveness of a tailor-made approach 2008-1: Marijke van Putten: Dealing with missed opportunities. The causes and boundary

conditions of inaction inertia

150 The Kurt Lewin Institute Dissertation Series

2008-2: Marjolein Maas: Experiential Social Justice Judgment Processes 2008-3: Lonneke de Meijer: Ethnicity effects in police officer selection: Applicant, assessor, and

selection-method factors 2008-4: Frederike Zwenk: Voice by Representation 2008-5: Margreet Reitsma: The Impact of Linguistically Biased Messages on Involved Receivers 2008-6: Marcus Maringer: Feeling one thing, seeing another: Emotion comparison effects in person

judgments 2008-7: Hanneke Heinsman: The competency concept revealed: Its nature, relevance, and practice 2008-8: Joris Lammers: Toward a more social social psychology of power 2008-9: Daniël Fockenberg: Between Good and Evil: Affective Priming in Dynamic Context 2008-10: Arne van den Bos: Why we stereotype influences how we stereotype: self-enhancement and

comprehension effects on social perception 2008-11: Lidewij Niezink: Considering Others in Need: On Altruism, Empathy and Perspective

Taking 2008-12: Aad Oosterhof: Better together: Antecedents and consequences of perceived expertise

dissimilarity and perceived expertise complementarity in teams 2008-13: Femke ten Velden: Negotiation in dyads and groups: The effects of social and epistemic

motives 2008-14: Maike Wehrens: How did YOU do? Social comparison in secondary education 2008-15: Kyra Luijters: Making Diversity Bloom: Coping Effectively with Cultural Differences at

Work 2008-16: Ilona de Hooge: Moral emotions in decision making: Towards a better understanding of

shame and guilt 2008-17: Lindred L. Greer: Team Composition and Conflict: The Role of Individual Differences 2008-18: Sezgin Cihangir: The Dark Side of Subtle Discrimination: How targets respond to

different forms of discrimination 2008-19: Giel Dik: On the contagiousness of others’ goals: The role of perceiving effort 2008-20: Lotte van Dillen: Dealing with negative feelings: The role of working memory in emotion

regulation 2008-21: Marijn Poortvliet: Information exchange examined: An interpersonal account of

achievement goals 2008-22: Sjoerd Pennekamp: Dynamics of disadvantage: Uncovering the role of group-based anger 2008-23: Chris Reinders Folmer: Cooperation and communication: Plastic goals and social roles 2009-1: Marijke Leliveld: Ethics in Economic Decision-Making 2009-2: Monique Pollmann: Accuracy and Bias in Person Perception 2009-3: Krispijn Faddegon: Regulatory Focus in Group Contexts

The Kurt Lewin Institute Dissertation Series 151

2009-4: Lieven Brebels: Mirror, mirror on the wall… Procedural fairness as an evaluative and regulatory looking-glass self

2009-5: Daphne Wiersema: Taking it personally: Self-esteem and the protection of self-related attitudes

2009-6: Judith D.M. Grob: Dial E for Emotion: Context and Consequences of Emotion Regulation

2009-7: Katherine Stroebe: Is this about me? Responding to subtle discrimination - beyond an individual versus group perspective

2009-8: Menno Vos: Identity patterns in diverse work groups: Improving social integration outcomes through relational identities

2009-9: Lennart Renkema: Facing Death Together: Understanding The Consequences of Mortality Threats

2009-10: Michael Vliek: Group-based social comparison processes: An intragroup level of analysis 2009-11: Karlijn Massar: Unconscious rivals: The automatic evaluation of rivals in jealousy-evoking

situations 2009-12: Bart Terwel: Origins and consequences of public trust: Towards an understanding of public

acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage 2009-13: Emma ter Mors: Dealing with information about complex issues: The role of source

perceptions 2009-14: Martijn Veltkamp: On the Instigation of Implicit Motivation: How Deprivation and

Positive Affect Cause Motivated Behavior 2009-15: Marret K. Noordewier: Consistency and the unexpected 2009-16: Sytske van der Velde: Imitation of Emotion: How meaning affects the link between

imitation and liking 2009-17: Jacomijn Hofstra: Attaching Cultures: The role of attachment styles in explaining

majority members' acculturation attitudes

Documents

Attachment Styles