European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

34, 647661 (2004)

Published online 26 August 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.222

Multiculturalism and group status: The role of ethnic identication, group essentialism and protestant ethic
MAYKEL VERKUYTEN1* AND PEARY BRUG2
1 2

Utrecht University, The Netherlands University of Surrey, UK

Abstract The present research, which was conducted among ethnic minority (N 109) and majority (N 649) adolescents in the Netherlands, examined the endorsement of multiculturalism in relation to ethnic ingroup identication, perceived group essentialism and protestant ethic ideology. The results revealed that ethnic minorities were more in favour of multiculturalism than Dutch participants. Furthermore, ethnic identication, group essentialism and protestant ethic were independently related to multiculturalism. However, these relations were all moderated by ethnic group status. High ethnic identication, essentialist beliefs about minority groups, and protestant ethic were related to lower endorsement of multiculturalism among the majority group. In contrast, high ethnic identication and essentialist beliefs about ones own ethnic minority group were related to stronger endorsement of multiculturalism among the minority groups, but not protestant ethic. Perceived essentialism of the majority group showed no effects. It is concluded that social psychology is able to make a valuable contribution to issues related to the management of cultural diversity. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Most societies around the world are, or are rapidly becoming, ethnically and culturally pluralist. This state of affairs has led to ideological, normative and political developments such as multiculturalism. Multiculturalism stresses cultural diversity and the maintenance of different cultural identities within the same political framework (Fowers & Richardson, 1996). Multiculturalism deals with central social psychological topics, namely social identities, intergroup relations and group perceptions. However, in contrast, to Canada (e.g. Berry & Kalin, 1995; Moghaddam & Taylor, 1987; Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001) and the United States (e.g. Dovidio & Esses, 2001; Ginges & Gairns, 2000; Prentice & Miller, 1999; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000), European social psychologists have not made many contributions to this area (but see, Arends-Toth & Van de Vijver, 2003; Chryssochoou, 2000; Zagefka & Brown, 2002; Zick, Wagner, van Dick, & Petzel, 2001). Multiculturalism prioritizes group identity and is based on a conception of cultural groups as relatively internally homogenous, bounded, and having unique and inherent characteristics (e.g. Barry, 2001; Turner, 1993). These features have led to criticisms of multiculturalism. Brewer (1997, p. 208), for example, suggested that multiculturalism can lead to reied group distinctions that become fault
*Correspondence to: Dr M. Verkuyten, Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, NL-3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: M.Verkuyten@fss.uu.nl

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 21 August 2003 Accepted 8 April 2004

648

Maykel Verkuyten and Peary Brug

lines for conict and separatism. Similarly, others have argued that multiculturalism stresses and justies essentialist group identities and endangers social unity and cohesion. Furthermore, multiculturalism is considered to contradict the ideals of protestant ethic and meritocracy (e.g. Barry, 2001; Bissoondath, 1994; Lind, 1995; Schlesinger, 1992). In addition, the impact of multiculturalism may differ for the cultural majority group and cultural minorities. People from the former group, for example, may stress the desirability or necessity of adaptation of ethnic minorities to the dominant culture (Arends-Toth & Van De Vijver, 2003; Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Bunk, 1998). People from the latter groups, on the other hand, may emphasize their own identity and the necessity for cultural diversity (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002a). The present study focuses on ethnic majority (high status) and minority (low status) group members living in the Netherlands, the central question being to what extent the endorsement of a multicultural society differs between these two groups, particularly in relation to group identication, perceived group essentialism and protestant ethic ideology. MULTICULTURALISM Berry and Kalin (1995) argued that groups are more in favour of multiculturalism when they see advantages for themselves. Several theories have emphasized the role of group interests in the dynamics of intergroup relations (e.g. Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1999; Sherif, 1966). For example, because the status hierarchy is differentially benecial for members of low and high status groups, social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) proposed the ideological asymmetry hypothesis. This hypothesis implies that hierarchy-attenuating ideologies such as multiculturalism will appeal more to minority or low status groups than to the majority or high status group. Hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing ideologies support the interests of low status groups and challenges the interests of high status groups. For minority groups, multiculturalism offers the possibility of maintaining their own culture and obtaining higher social status in society. Majority group members, on the other hand, may see ethnic minorities and their desire to maintain their own culture as a threat to their group identity and status position (Barker, 1981; Rapley, 1998; Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998). Hence, minority group members should support multiculturalism more strongly than majority group members. INGROUP IDENTIFICATION There is considerable empirical evidence that those with high ingroup identication are more likely to show a variety of group level responses relative to low identiers (see Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999). This is especially the case when group interests are at stake and the value of the group identity is threatened. On this basis it can be proposed that the more minority group people identify with their ethnic ingroup, the more likely they are to consider it important to preserve their own culture. The endorsement of multiculturalism is a collective strategy for dealing with a negative group identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and for challenging group-based hierarchy and domination (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Furthermore, ingroup identication is an important condition for collective action (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). Hence, for members of ethnic minority groups, a positive association between ingroup identication and multiculturalism can be expected. In contrast, for the majority group, a negative association can be predicted. The more majority group members identify with their ingroup the more they can be expected to try to protect their group interests and status position. Ethnic Dutch people have been found to focus on the negative and threatening aspects of multiculturalism (Arends-Toth & Van de Vijver, 2003; Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998).
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

Multiculturalism and ethnic group status GROUP ESSENTIALISM

649

Multiculturalism is about groups and requires a conceptualization of groups as being more or less bounded and as having their own basic and inherent cultural characteristics. Multicultural approaches tend to equate ethnicity with culture and emphasize authentic cultural differences that should be recognized and respected (e.g. Parekh, 2000; Taylor, 1994). Essentialist arguments about groups are used by groups to present their culture as precious heritage that should be transmitted in an uncontaminated and unweakened manner. In social psychology, systematic interest in essentialist beliefs about social groups is rather recent, although the concept of essentialism was used by Sherif (1948) and Allport (1954). In addition, the work of Campbell (1958) on entitativity is very closely related to the concept of essentialism. The perception of a coherent and unied entity is linked to a belief in an underlying essence, and essentialist beliefs encourage the perception of coherence and unity (McGarty, Haslam, Hutchinson, & Grace, 1995; Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001). In examining the diverse literature on essentialism, Haslam, Rothschild, and Ernst (2000) concluded that the concept has several discernible elements or criteria, such as ideas about inductive potential, exclusivity and necessary features. In two questionnaire studies of laypeoples beliefs about social categories, Haslam and colleagues (2000) found that the notion of essentialism can be divided into two dimensions. The rst is the extent to which categories are understood as natural or inherently different kinds, and the second is the extent to which categories are reied or perceived as homogenous and unied entities or real things. Haslam et al. (2000) concluded that social categories may be essentialized in either one of these two distinct ways. However, they also found that there are social categories that are relatively essentialized on both dimensions, such as ethnic and racial groups. Essentialist views of ethnic minority groups justify multiculturalism. In general, multiculturalism is morally and intellectually more acceptable if ethnic minorities are felt to be actual groups with certain inherent cultural characteristics. Such groups are able to argue the need for cultural diversity more easily. In many countries, ethnic minority groups have put forward essentialist arguments for the legitimization of their ethnicity and culture, making it increasingly difcult to ignore their claims (Morin & Saladin dAnglure, 1997; Roosens, 1999; Verkuyten, 2003). Hence, for ethnic minority groups, ingroup essentialism can be expected to be related positively to the endorsement of multiculturalism. Ideas about the importance of cultural identity and group representation will be more relevant when the ingroup is perceived as more essentialist and entity-like. Multiculturalism has much to offer ethnic low status groups and it serves an essentialist ingroup better than it would a non-essentialist ingroup. In contrast, for the majority group, the perception of essentialist minority groups is more threatening. This perception may lead to cultural racism (Barker, 1981; Hopkins, Reicher, & Levine, 1997; Rapley, 1998) in which different cultures are assumed to be incompatible and their existence as inherently problematic, leading to the rejection of multiculturalism in favour of assimilation of minority groups. Hence, for the majority group, ethnic outgroup essentialism can be expected to be related negatively to multiculturalism.

PROTESTANT ETHIC In examining multiculturalism and its relationship with ingroup identication and group essentialism, a measure for protestant ethic ideology was also included. Protestant ethic is an ideology that includes beliefs that focus on personal autonomy and responsibility, and meritocracy (Katz & Hass,1988). It
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

650

Maykel Verkuyten and Peary Brug

provides a standard with which to judge positive and negative outcomes of events, which it tends to attribute internally. In terms of social dominance theory, protestant ethic is a hierarchy-enhancing ideology because it provides moral and intellectual justication for differences in status hierarchy and continued inequality among social groups (Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1998). Multiculturalism as a group approach conicts with protestant ethic (Barry, 2001). Hence, protestant ethic should be related negatively to the endorsement of multiculturalism. The present study examined whether this was the case and explored whether the relationship between multiculturalism and protestant ethic was moderated by ethnic group status.

PREDICTIONS The present study examined the endorsement of multiculturalism, ingroup identication, perceived group essentialism and protestant ethic among majority and minority group members. The following four predictions were tested: (1) Ethnic minority group members were expected to support multiculturalism more strongly than their majority group counterparts. (2) An interaction effect between ethnic group status and ingroup identication was expected: that is, for the minority group participants, a positive association was expected between ethnic ingroup identication and the endorsement of multiculturalism, whereas for the majority group, a negative association was predicted. (3) Multiculturalism was expected to be related to ingroup essentialism for the minority groups and to outgroup essentialism for the majority group. (4) Protestant ethic was expected to be related negatively to the endorsement of multiculturalism. In addition, it was explored whether this relationship was moderated by ethnic group status. The study was conducted among ethnic majority (high status) and minority (low status) participants living in the Netherlands. Ethnic group membership was used as a proxy for group status. In terms of housing, schooling and the labour market, the position of most ethnic minority groups is worse than that of the ethnic Dutch. For example, studies indicate that ethnic minority groups have the highest unemployment rates and are around twice as likely to be unemployed as the Dutch. Furthermore, these groups are at the bottom of the ethnic hierarchy, or put differently, they are the less accepted by the Dutch (Hagendoorn, 1995). In the Netherlands, there is a notable pattern of relatively low levels of blatant prejudice and high levels of subtle prejudice towards ethnic minorities (Jackson, Brown, & Kirby, 1998; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Ethnic minority groups are also more likely to face ethnic victimization than the Dutch (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002b).

METHOD Participants The study was conducted in four secondary schools in the Netherlands. The sample comprised 758 students: 649 belonged to the ethnic majority group, and 109 belonged to an ethnic minority group (34 Turkish, 35 Moroccan, and 40 Surinamese). Ninety-one per cent of the minority group participants had been born in the Netherlands or had immigrated to the country before the age of ve, and 84% had
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

Multiculturalism and ethnic group status

651

Dutch nationality. Of the sample, 49% were females and 51% males. There were no gender differences among the ethnic groups, chi square (3, 758) 7.03, p > 0.05. Participants were between 15 and 18 years of age, with a mean age of 16.4. There were no age differences among the ethnic groups, F(3, 758) 0.63, p > 0.10.

Procedure Questionnaires were administered in class under supervision. The students were asked to participate in a study on the way that people in the Netherlands think about present-day society. They completed the questionnaires anonymously. For the present purposes, we focused on the Dutch students (ethnic Dutch father and mother) as members of the ethnic majority status group, and Turkish, Moroccan and Surinamese students as members of ethnic minority groups. Participants from other ethnic minority groups were disregarded in the analyses because for these groups, no questions on in- and outgroup essentialism were included.

Measures Fourteen items assessed the endorsement of multiculturalist ideology. These items were taken from Berry and Kalins (1995) Multicultural Ideology Scale. Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver (2000, 2003) developed a Dutch version of this scale in their representative study of the Dutch population. This version was used, three sample items being, Migrants should be supported in their attempts to preserve their own cultural heritage in the Netherlands, If migrants desire to preserve their own culture, they should do so within their own circles, The Dutch should make more of an effort to familiarize themselves with the habits and cultural backgrounds of immigrants. Items (six were reversed scored) were measured on scales ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Ethnic ingroup identication was assessed with ten items presented immediately after the participants indicated their ethnic group membership on the questionnaire. The questions were taken from previous studies conducted in the Netherlands (see Verkuyten, 1999). The items measure the importance attached to ones ethnic background and are similar to the items on Phinneys (1992) Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure. The items (four were reverse scored) were measured on scales ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Three sample items are I feel a strong attachment to my ethnic group, I like being a member of my ethnic group, and I have a strong sense of belonging to my ethnic group. Group essentialism was assessed by means of eight items developed for the current study. Scales ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) were repeated for the Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan and Surinamese groups. The order of the four target groups was counterbalanced. Criteria for group entativity and group essentialism as identied by Haslam et al. (2000) were used for devising the items. The rst four items focused on group entativity, the latter four on group essentialism. Four sample items were: In some groups, the group members are very alike in how they think and act, whereas in others, the members differ greatly. What do you think is the situation for . . . . ?, In some groups, there is a real sense of unity, whereas others are more divided. What do you think is the situation for . . . . ?, For some groups, the groups culture determines very much the way people are, so that people belonging to that culture are hardly able to change their ways. What do you think is the situation for . . . . ?, In spite of any outward differences between the members of one group, in essence, they are the same. What do you think is the situation for . . . . ?.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

652

Maykel Verkuyten and Peary Brug

The endorsement of protestant ethic ideology was measured using eight items. Five of these items were taken from the Protestant Ethic Scale developed by Katz and Hass (1988), and three similar items (Quinn & Crocker, 1999) were added. Each item was rated on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly), with higher numbers indicating more endorsement of protestant ethic. Three sample items are Getting ahead is a matter of working hard and relying only on yourself, People are responsible for their own situation in life, People who fail at a job have usually not tried hard enough.

RESULTS Factor Analyses Factor analyses were conducted to examine the dimensionality of the scales for the majority and ethnic minority groups separately. In addition, as a coefcient of factorial agreement between groups, Tuckers phi was computed. A value higher than 0.90 is seen as evidence of factorial similarity (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).

Multiculturalism For the majority group sample, the 14 items loaded on a main factor that accounted for 40.7% of the variance (eigenvalue of a second factor was 1.14). For the minority group participants, one main factor was also found and this factor accounted for 29.1% of the variance (eigenvalue of the second factor was 1.54). Tuckers phi was 0.96. Hence, similar to the results reported by Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver (2003), our analyses provided support for the factorial similarity of the scale across the two samples. Cronbachs alpha was 0.88 for the majority group, and 0.77 for the ethnic minorities.

Ingroup Identication All ten items measuring ingroup identication loaded on one factor in both the majority and minority group samples accounting for 40.8 and 44.1% of the total variance, respectively. The value of Tuckers phi was 0.97. For the majority group, Cronbachs alpha was 0.80 and for the minority group, alpha was 0.81.

Ingroup Essentialism Haslam et al. (2000) showed that for ethnic and racial groups, a close relationship exists between the dimensions of group entativity and group essentialism (Yzerbyt et al., 2001). This was also found in the present study: there was a strong main factor that accounted for 38.5% of the variance. The result was similar for both samples of participants (eigenvalue of the second factor for the majority group was 1.12, and for the minority group it was 1.09). For the majority group the main factor accounted for 37.3% of the variance and for the minority group the percentage was 40.1%. A Tuckers phi value of 0.99 was obtained indicating strong evidence of factorial similarity. Cronbachs alpha was 0.76 for the majority group, and 0.75 for the ethnic minority sample.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

Multiculturalism and ethnic group status Outgroup essentialism1

653

For the measure of outgroup essentialism a main factor accounted for 33.1% of the variance (eigenvalue of the second factor was 1.45) for the majority group. For the minority group, a single factor accounted for 42.4% of the variance. Tuckers phi was 0.93. For the majority group, the alpha was 0.65, and for the minority sample, it was 0.73.

Protestant Ethic All the eight items measuring protestant ethic loaded on a single factor in the majority sample accounting for 29.1% of the variance (eigenvalue of the second factor was 1.32). For the minority groups, a single factor was found that accounted for 32.4% of the total variance. The factorial agreement was high with Tuckers phi 0.98. Cronbachs alpha was 0.69 for the majority group and 0.75 for the minority group sample.

Scale Intercorrelations Table 1 shows the intercorrelations among the independent measures. For both groups of participants, in- and outgroup essentialism showed a similar positive correlation, and the association indicates that there was no strong overlap between these measures. Also for both groups, a signicant and positive correlation was found between ethnic identication and ingroup essentialism. In addition, a signicant positive association between ethnic identication and perceived outgroup essentialism was found for the majority group. High ingroup identifying Dutch participants had more essentialist perceptions of ethnic minority groups than low identiers. This association was signicantly stronger than for the minority group sample, z 2.58, p < 0.01. There was a positive association between protestant ethic and ingroup identication for the majority group, whereas this correlation turned out to be negative for the minority groups. The difference between these two correlations was signicant, z 4.77, p < 0.001. Protestant ethic showed low correlations with group essentialism.

Table 1. Pearson product-moment correlation coefcients between the different independent measures. Majority group participants above the diagonal and ethnic minority participants below the diagonal 1 1. Ethnic identication 2. Ingroup essentialism 3. Outgroup essentialism 4. Protestant ethic
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

2 0.28*** 0.32*** 0.13

3 0.31*** 0.30*** 0.12

4 0.19*** 0.08* 0.16**

0.33*** 0.04 0.31***

1 Because the analytical focus of the present study is on the comparison between the majority and minority groups, outgroup essentialism was measured slightly differently for the two groups. For the Dutch, outgroup essentialism was the average for the three ethnic minority target groups. For the ethnic minorities, outgroup essentialism was dened as the rating given to the higher status Dutch.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

654

Maykel Verkuyten and Peary Brug

Majority-Minority Differences in Independent Variables Although our focus was on the comparison between the ethnic majority and ethnic minority group participants, we also examined whether there were mean differences between the three ethnic minority groups. There was a signicant difference for ethnic identication, F(109, 2) 7.17, p < 0.01. Scheffes test indicated that the Surinamese participants had lower ethnic identication than the Turks and Moroccans. However, no differences were found for the endorsement of multiculturalism, protestant ethic, ingroup essentialism and outgroup essentialism. This lack of differences may be indicative of a shared low status position. For descriptive purposes, the mean scores and standard deviations of the continuous predictor variables were examined. The results are shown in Table 2. The scores for protestant ethic are rather low, whereas the scores for ethnic identication are on the positive side of the scale. The score for ingroup essentialism for the majority group was similar to the minority groups score for outgroup essentialism, F(1, 758) 0.30, p > 0.10. Furthermore, the outgroup essentialism score for the former was similar to the ingroup essentialism score for the latter group, F(1, 758) 1.60, p > 0.10. Thus, the Dutch as well as the ethnic minorities in the Netherlands were perceived as equally essentialistic by both the high and low status group. Furthermore, both groups perceived the Dutch as being less essentialist than the ethnic minorities. To examine differences between the majority and minority groups on the independent variables, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with ethnic group as a between-participants factor was conducted. Ethnic identication, ingroup essentialism, outgroup essentialism, and protestant ethic served as multiple dependent variables. A signicant multivariate effect (Pillais) for ethnic group was found, F(4, 758) 168.40, p < 0.001. The univariate results in Table 2 show that a signicant ethnic group difference was found on all four measures. Compared to the majority group participants, the minority group adolescents had higher scores on ethnic identication and ingroup essentialism, but lower scores on outgroup essentialism and protestant ethic. The Endorsement of Multiculturalism A hierarchical regression analysis was used to determine which variables predicted the endorsement of multiculturalism. For these analyses, we constructed a dummy variable for ethnic group, whereby 0 Dutch and 1 ethnic minorities. In the analysis, ethnic group together with ethnic identication, ingroup essentialism, outgroup essentialism, and protestant ethic were used as (centred) continuous variables. In the second step, the four interaction terms between ethnic group and the four continuous variables were included in the regression equation. Table 3 shows the results of these analysis.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and univariate F values for the measures for the majority and the minority group participants Majority group Measure Ethnic identication Ingroup essentialism Outgroup essentialism Protestant ethic
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

Minority group M 6.34 5.19 4.02 2.55 SD 0.96 0.87 0.91 0.57 F 84.31*** 207.37*** 183.29*** 9.21**

M 5.42 3.97 5.10 2.73

SD 0.98 0.86 0.73 0.78

Multiculturalism and ethnic group status

Table 3. Stepwise multiple regression analysis predicting the endorsement of multiculturalism standardized regression coefcients, beta Step 1 Ethnic group (minorities) Ethnic identication Ingroup essentialism Outgroup essentialism Protestant ethic Ethnic group ethnic identication Ethnic group ingroup essentialism Ethnic group outgroup essentialism Ethnic group protestant ethic R square change F-change
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

655

Step 2 0.29*** 0.06 0.10** 0.36*** 0.22*** 0.19*** 0.18*** 0.17*** 0.07* 0.04 12.09***

0.34*** 0.07 0.13** 0.32*** 0.23***

0.38 96.56***

As expected, the majority group participants were less in favour of multiculturalism (M 3.44, SD 0.84) than the minority group participants (M 4.71, SD 0.64). The analysis yielded no signicant main effect for ethnic identication. However, the results showed a signicant interaction effect between ethnic identication and ethnic status group. This interaction was as expected and is shown in Figure 1. For the majority group, simple slope analysis indicated that higher ethnic identication was associated with lower endorsement of multiculturalism. In contrast, for the minority groups, ethnic identication was related positively to multiculturalism. Signicant main effects were found for ingroup and outgroup essentialism. The effect of the former was positive, whereas that of the latter was negative. However, both these effects were qualied by signicant interaction effects with ethnic group in Step 2. The nature of these interaction effects was examined by simple slope analyses. For the majority group, higher perceived outgroup essentialism was associated with weaker endorsement of multiculturalism (beta 40, p < 0.01), whereas ingroup essentialism showed no effect (beta 0.06, p > 0.05). In contrast, for the minority groups, higher perceived ingroup essentialism was associated with stronger endorsement of multiculturalism (beta 0.32, p < 0.01); outgroup essentialism showed no such effect (beta 0.08, p > 0.10). Hence,

Figure 1. Multiculturalism by ethnic identication for ethnic majority and minority groups
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

656

Maykel Verkuyten and Peary Brug

Figure 2.

Multiculturalism by perceived ethnic minority essentialism for ethnic majority and minority groups

when minority groups were perceived more in essentialist terms, the majority group was less in favour of multiculturalism, whereas minority groups were more in favour of multiculturalism. This result is shown in Figure 2. The perceived essentialism of the majority group had no effect on multicultural attitudes. Protestant ethic had an independent negative main effect on multiculturalism (see Table 2). However, this effect was qualied by a signicant interaction effect between protestant ethic and ethnic status group. Simple slope analysis showed that protestant ethic was negatively related to multiculturalism for the majority group participants (beta 0.23, p < 0.01), whereas no signicant association was found for the minority groups (beta 0.12, p > 0.05).

DISCUSSION Multiculturalism stresses the importance of recognizing and maintaining different ethnic and cultural identities within the same political framework. Multiculturalism is about group identities, requires a conception of groups as having unique and inherent characteristics, and is difcult to reconcile with liberal principles (Barry, 2001). Furthermore, it can be expected that ethnic minority and majority groups will evaluate multiculturalism differently. For the former, it offers the possibility for heritage culture maintenance and upward social mobility. For the latter, multiculturalism is often seen as a threat to cultural dominance and higher social status (e.g. Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002a). Considering these competing interests, ethnic minority group members should be more in favour of multiculturalism than majority group members. The present results show this to be the case. Similar to other studies conducted in the Netherlands (e.g. Arends-Toth & Van de Vijver, 2003), it was found that the ethnic minority group participants endorsed multiculturalism more strongly than the Dutch group. However, in agreement with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), the effect of ethnic group on multiculturalism was moderated by ingroup identication. For the ethnic minority group participants, ingroup identication was positively associated with the endorsement of multiculturalism. High minority group identiers were more likely to favour cultural diversity and a multicultural society than low identiers. For them, possibilities for heritage cultural maintenance seem to be
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

Multiculturalism and ethnic group status

657

important in itself and an emphasis on multiculturalism may also represent a collective response to a negative group identity. In contrast, for the majority group, identication was negatively related to multiculturalism. The more Dutch people identied with their ingroup, the more they seemed to focus on the negative and threatening aspects of multiculturalism. These results for ingroup identication are in agreement with other studies that have found that high identiers show a variety of group level responses (see Ellemers et al., 1999), particularly when group interests are involved. In general, multiculturalism has more to offer to ethnic minority groups than the majority group which may explain why ingroup identication is differently related to multiculturalism in both status groups. The present study has implications for research on group essentialism. For both the ethnic majority and minority group participants, no association was found between multiculturalism and essentialist beliefs of the majority group. Whether the majority group is seen as having fundamental, inherent and homogeneous characteristics turned out not to be related to the endorsement of multiculturalism. This suggests that, at least in the Netherlands, when discussing multiculturalism, the emphasis is not on the majority group but on ethnic minorities, something that has been noted in several Dutch studies (e.g. Arends-Toth & Van de Vijver, 2003; Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998). This suggestion is supported by the results for ethnic minority group essentialism. When minority groups were perceived in more essentialist terms, the majority group favoured multiculturalism less. In contrast, for the minority group participants, ethnic minority group essentialism was positively related to multiculturalism. Social psychologists argue that people are inclined to treat many social categories, such as ethnicity, as reied and natural kinds by assuming that they have an underlying essence (e.g. Haslam et al., 2000, 2002; Yzerbyt et al., 2001; Yzerbyt, Rocher, & Schadron, 1997). Essentialist beliefs are thought to rationalize existing social hierarchies and social arrangements (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Yzerbyt et al., 1997), and to provide an acceptable and justied account for the status quo. However, most studies focus predominantly on majority group members and tend to ignore the possible emancipating effects of essence-related beliefs. The present results show that for the majority group, essentialist beliefs about minorities are related negatively to the endorsement of multiculturalism. Hence, for them, essentialist beliefs about ethnic minority groups seem to be related to the rejection of cultural diversity and minority group rights. Homogeneous, unied and coherent minority groups are probably seen as threatening. This pattern ts a new racist discourse which presents the mixing and coexistence of fundamental and intrinsically different cultures as inherently problematic (e.g. Barker, 1981; Hopkins et al., 1997). However, for the ethnic minority groups, a more essentialist view of the ingroup was related to a stronger endorsement of multiculturalism. Cultural essentialism can be used to challenge assimilationist ideas and argue for provisions and measures that match the uniqueness of ones group culturally distinct practices and beliefs. Furthermore, groupness is important for collective action and strengthens the argument for the need for cultural diversity. Cultural essentialism is an important political tool for ethnic minorities, and it has become increasingly difcult to challenge or ignore it (Morin & Saladin dAnglure, 1997; Roosens, 1999). Hence, essentialist beliefs about groups do not only rationalize and justify existing social arrangements, they can also question and challenge them. Essentialism is not by denition oppressive, just as anti-essentialism is not by denition liberating (Verkuyten, 2003). In the present results, there was a positive association between ingroup identication and ingroup essentialism. The association was similar for the ethnic majority and minority groups and is in agreement with other studies (e.g. Lickel et al., 2000; Yzerbyt, Castano, Leyens, & Paladino, 2000). These results support the idea that, in general, ingroup essentialism or entativity is seen as a positive feature of the ingroup (Sherman, Hamilton, & Lewis, 1999). People who identify strongly with a group are inclined to perceive the group as a real entity with fundamental and inherent features. As such, ingroup essentialism may contribute to a secure sense of identity.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

658

Maykel Verkuyten and Peary Brug

In addition, however, ingroup essentialism was found to be higher for the minority groups than for the majority group. One possible explanation is that the threat involved in a minority position is counteracted by accentuating the ingroup as a coherent and homogeneous whole (Simon, 1992). However, the score for ingroup essentialism of the minority group was similar to the majority groups score for outgroup essentialism and the perceived outgroup essentialism of the former group was similar to the perceived ingroup essentialism of the latter. This agreement in perceptions suggests that more general tendencies are involved. For example, there may be a tendency to perceive numerically smaller groups as more homogenous and entatity-like than larger ones (Campbell, 1958). In accord with this view, Lorenzi-Cioldi (1998) made a distinction between collection and aggregated groups. He argued that high status groups tend to be seen as a collection of separate individuals, whereas low status groups tend to be considered as a more homogeneous whole. A negative independent association was found between protestant ethic and multiculturalism, but only for the Dutch participants. For the Dutch, protestant ethic seems to contradict the group thinking of multiculturalism. In political philosophy, it has been argued that multiculturalism as a group approach is difcult to reconcile with the ideals of protestant ethic and meritocracy (e.g. Barry, 2001). However, protestant ethic and meritocracy are also in the interest of the majority group because they deny collective rights and minority group practices. In social psychology, there is increased attention being paid to the idea that people use ideological beliefs to question or support the legitimacy of group relations (see Jost & Major, 2000). Future studies could examine the relation between multiculturalism and other ideological notions and beliefs. More broadly, multiculturalism is a multifaceted construct that can be examined in various ways (e.g. Ginges & Cairns, 2000; Prentice & Miller, 1999). For instance, in addition to multicultural attitudes, it is possible to examine peoples views toward actual multicultural policies and their argumentation for embracing or rejecting cultural diversity. Furthermore, multiculturalism is one of the possible models or strategies with which to manage cultural diversity. Other models, such as the melting pot, integration and assimilation, might also be examined in relation to identication, group perception and ideological beliefs (e.g. Berry, 2001; Fredrickson, 1999). It should be pointed out that there are also important national differences in dealing with diversity. In most European countries, issues of immigration and cultural diversity have recently emerged. In contrast, countries such as Canada, the United States and Australia are largely composed of immigrants and (in part) cultural diversity is a dening characteristic of these nations (Vermeulen & Slijper, 2003). This could mean, for example, that the negative association, found for the Dutch participants, between ingroup identication and multiculturalism, might be positive in these countries. As far as causality is concerned, the present study was predicated on the assumption that ethnic identication, protestant ethic and group essentialism inuence the endorsement of multiculturalism. However, the causal direction of the effects cannot be determined. Multiculturalism might also lead to stronger identication with ones ethnic group and a more essentialistic view of minority groups. The former causal effect is implied by policies and initiatives that stress the positive effects of multicultural ideologies and initiatives. However, it is highly unlikely that the relationship is unidirectional. In many countries, including the Netherlands, the discussion about the need for and merits of multiculturalism is far from settled. There is an ongoing, lively public debate on ethnic minority and majority issues; hence, it is more than likely that ethnic identication and ethnic group perceptions inuence peoples attitudes toward multiculturalism. Hence, a bi-directional relationship is plausible, similar to the nding that ingroup entativity inuences social identication and vice versa (Yzerbyt et al., 2000). In conclusion, the present research shows that social psychological variables are highly relevant for understanding the endorsement of multiculturalism by ethnic majority and minority groups. The latter group was found to be more in favour of multiculturalism than the former. Furthermore, ethnic identication, group essentialism, and protestant ethic appeared to be related independently to
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

Multiculturalism and ethnic group status

659

multiculturalism. However, these relations were all moderated by group status. High ethnic identication, essentialist beliefs about minority groups and protestant ethic turned out to be related to lower endorsement of multiculturalism among the majority group. In contrast, high ethnic identication and essentialist beliefs about ones own ethnic minority group were related to stronger endorsement of multiculturalism among the minority groups. Multiculturalism is not without its problems, and the debate on the way to manage cultural diversity continues. Social psychology should try to contribute to these debates, a goal that was central to the present study.

REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Arends-Toth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2000). Multiculturalisme: Spanning tussen ideaal en werkelijkheid (Multiculturalism: A tension between ideal and reality) Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychology, 55, 159 168. Arends-Toth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and TurkishDutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 249266. Barker, M. (1981). The new racism. London: Junction Books. Barry, B. (2001). Culture and equality: An egalitarion critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity. Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615631. Berry, J., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 301320. Bissoondath, N. (1994). Selling illusions: The cult of multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Penguin. Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacic Sociological Review, 1, 37. Bobo, L. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445472. Brewer, M. B. (1997). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Can research inform practice? Journal of Social Issues, 53, 197211. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioural Science, 3, 1425. Chryssochoou, X. (2000). Multicultural societies: Making sense of new environments and identities. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 10, 343354. Dovidio, J. F., & Esses, V. M. (2001). Immigrants and immigration: Advancing the psychological perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 375387. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.). (1999). Social identity: Context, commitment, content. Oxford: Blackwell. Fowers, B. J., & Richardson, F. C. (1996). Why is multiculturalism good? American Psychologist, 51, 609621. Fredrickson, G. M. (1999). Models of American ethnic relations: A historical perspective. In D. A. Prentice, & D. T. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conict (pp. 2334). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Ginges, J., & Cairns, D. (2000). Social representations of multiculturalism: A faceted analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 13451370. Hagendoorn, L. (1995). Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 199228). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113127. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87100. Hopkins, N., Reicher, S., & Levine, M. (1997). On the parallels between social cognition and new racism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 305329. Jackson, J. S., Brown, K. T., & Kirby, D. C. (1998). International perspectives on prejudice and racism. In J. L. Erberhardt, & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the responses (pp. 101135). London: Sage.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

660

Maykel Verkuyten and Peary Brug

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justication and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 127. Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (Eds.). (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893905. Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19, 373404. Lickel, B., Hamilton, D., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A. C., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223246. Lind, M. (1995). The next American nation: The new nationalism and the fourth American revolution. New York: Free Press. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1998). Group status and perceptions of homogeneity. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 3175). Chichester: Wiley. McGarty, C., Haslam, S. A., Hutchinson, K. J., & Grace, D. M. (1995). Determinants of perceived consistency: The relationship between group entativity and the meaningfulness of categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 237256. Moghaddam, F. M., & Taylor, D. (1987). The meaning of multiculturalism for visible minority immigrant women. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19, 121136. Montreuil, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2001). Majority acculturation orientations toward valued and devalued immigrants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 698719. Morin, F., & Saladin dAnglure, B. (1997). Ethnicity as a political tool for indigenous peoples. In C. Govers, & H. Vermeulen (Eds.), The politics of ethnic consciousness (pp. 157193). London: MacMillan. Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. London: MacMillan. Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 5775. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156176. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (Eds.). (1999). Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Quinn, D. M., & Crocker, J. (1999). When ideology hurts: Effects of belief in the protestant ethic and feeling overweight on the psychological well-being of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 402 414. Rapley, M. (1998). Just an ordinary Australian: Self-categorisation and the discursive construction of facticity in new racist political rhetoric. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 325344. Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and Nation. London: Sage. Roosens, E. (1999). Eigen grond eerst? Primordiale autochtonie, dilemma van de multiculturele samenleving (Own ground rst: Primordial autochtony, dilemma for a multicultural society). Leuven, Belgium: Acco. Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1992). The disuniting of America. New York: Norton. Sherif, M. (1948). An outline of social psychology. New York: Harper and Row. Sherif, M. (1966). Group conict and co-operation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sherman, S. J., Hamilton, D. L., & Lewis, A. C. (1999). Perceived entativity and the social identity value of group memberships. In D. Abrams, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 80110). Oxford: Blackwell. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simon, B. (1992). The perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity: Reintroducing the intergroup context. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone, European review of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 130). Chichester: Wiley. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 724). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 2573). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Turner, T. (1993). Anthropology and multiculturalism: What is anthropology that multiculturalist should be mindful of it? Cultural Anthropology, 8, 411429. Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. London: Sage. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 9951013.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)

Multiculturalism and ethnic group status

661

Verkuyten, M. (1999). Etnische identiteit: Theoretische en empirische benaderingen (Ethnic identity: Theoretical and empirical approaches). Amsterdam: Spinhuis. Verkuyten, M. (2003). Discourses about ethnic group (de-)essentialism: Oppressive and progressive aspects. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 371391. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002a). Multiculturalism among minority and majority adolescents in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 91108. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002b). Racist victimization among children in the Netherlands: The effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 310331. Vermeulen, H., & Slijper, B. (2003). Multiculturalisme in Canada, Australie en de Verenigde Staten: Ideologie en beleid, 19502000 (Multiculturalism in Canada, Australia and the United States: Ideology and policy, 1950 2000). Amsterdam: Aksant. Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 635654. Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life. Oxford: Blackwell. Yzerbyt, V., Castano, E., Leyens, J.-P., & Paladino, M.-P. (2000). The primacy of the ingroup: The interplay of entativity and identication. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 257295). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141155. Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative t and intergroup relations: Immigrant-majority relations in Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 171188. Zick, A., Wagner, U., van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001). Acculturation and prejudice in Germany: Majority and minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 541557.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 647661 (2004)