When Minority Group Members Do Not Want Integration

Running head: PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Minority goals for interaction with the majority:

Seeking distance from the majority and the effect of rejection on identification

Miguel R. Ramos (CIS / ISCTE-IUL)

Jolanda Jetten (University of Queensland)

Airong Zhang (University of Queensland)

Constantina Badea (Paris Ouest Nanterre University)

Aarti Iyer (University of Queensland)

Lijuan Cui (East China Normal University)

Yuling Zhang (University of Queensland)

Author Note This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council to the second author (DP1094034). Address correspondence to Miguel Ribeiro Ramos, Departamento de Psicologia Social e das Organizações, ISCTE, Av. das Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisbon, Portugal, E-mail: [email protected] or to Jolanda Jetten, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia, E-mail: [email protected]. 2PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Abstract

Four studies investigated the conditions under which minority group members respond to group-based discrimination with increased identification with their group. We propose that minorities’ interaction goals should serve as a moderator: seeking distance from the majority might keep minority identification alive in the face of perceived discrimination. These predictions were tested correlationally in Study 1 among Chinese immigrants in Australia

(sample 1a) and children of rural migrant workers in a Chinese city (sample 1b). In Studies 2 and 3, perceived discrimination was manipulated among Romanian immigrants in France and

Polish immigrants in Scotland. In Study 4, both minority goals and perceived discrimination were manipulated among a sample of international students in Australia. Results showed that only for those who were inclined to seek distance from the majority, minority group identification increased when discrimination was high compared to low. Discussion focuses on the way that seeking distance might be an important strategy for coping with discrimination.

Keywords: Perceived discrimination, minority group identification, minority group goals, social identity

Word count: 155 3PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Minority goals for interaction with the majority:

Seeking distance from the majority and the effect of rejection on identification

Psychological research has made great advances in understanding how members of devalued minority groups cope with discrimination (for reviews see Major & O’Brien, 2005;

Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). Even though it makes intuitive sense to expect that individuals facing group-based discrimination will distance themselves from the minority group that is the cause of their negative treatment, the empirical evidence does not support this prediction.

Research has shown that individuals often increase their identification with the devalued minority group following group-based discrimination (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999;

Jetten, Branscombe, Schmitt, & Spears, 2001; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002; Schmitt,

Branscombe, Kobrynowicz, & Owen, 2002; Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe, 2003). The rejection-identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999) draws on social identity theory (SIT;

Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (SCT; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &

Wetherell, 1987) to explain this effect. The framework proposes that group-based discrimination may enhance identification with the minority group (rather than reduce it) because minority identification provides a buffer and resource to cope with the negative treatment, and thereby counteracts the negative well-being consequences that result from group-based discrimination.

Even though this conceptual framework has elucidated the process by which minority

members maintain group identification, the empirical evidence has not consistently

supported its claims. For instance, in addition to support for the rejection-identification

model (e.g., Branscombe et al., 1999), studies have also shown that perceived discrimination

was unrelated to minority group identification (e.g., Cameron & Lalonde, 2001; McCoy &

Major, 2003; Operario & Fiske, 2001; Spencer-Rodgers & Collins, 2006), or was only 4PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

positively related to identification with some, but not other, minority groups (e.g., Schmitt et

al., 2003). In some cases, perceived discrimination was found to be associated with lower

levels of minority group identification (Ellemers, Spears, & Doojse, 2002; Jasinskaja-Lahti,

Liebkind & Solheim, 2009).

We propose that these different results may be reconciled by considering boundary conditions of the relationship between perceived group discrimination and minority identification. In particular, discrimination by the majority need not have a uniform impact on minority group identification. We argue that minority goals for interaction with the majority moderate the relationship between perceived majority discrimination and minority group identification. In contexts where minorities face rejection and discrimination, the goal of maintaining distance from the majority is entirely compatible with perceptions of group-based discrimination. In such cases, perceptions of discrimination should reinforce the idea that it is best to stick to one’s own group and thus enhance minority identification. In contrast, perceived discrimination may damage ingroup identification among those minority group members who seek proximity to the majority. This is because increasing identification with the minority group, as a response to discrimination, would assert an intergroup distance that is contradictory to the initial minority goals.

Minority Goals: Seeking Distance or Proximity to the Majority

Work in the acculturation literature has developed the idea that minority group

members may choose to approach or avoid the majority group. For instance, Berry’s (1997,

2001) bi-dimensional model of acculturation proposes that minorities’ orientation towards

mainstream society can vary between seeking contact with the majority group culture and

avoiding such contact. Drawing on this model, we define seeking distance as a preference

for avoiding contact with the majority group and its members. This preference can be 5PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

manifested in several ways, ranging from individual avoidance of daily interactions with

majority group members, to more systematic geographical segregation that severely limits

opportunities for intergroup contact. Seeking distance thus stands in contrast to the goal of

seeking proximity and contact with the majority and its members. The latter goal is

associated with minority participation in majority networks, as well as attempts to dilute

existing group boundaries altogether to facilitate individual mobility (Berry, 2005).

In addition to preserving group distinctiveness, minorities may also seek distance

from the majority to keep the minority identity and the struggle for minority recognition

alive (see Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004). Evidence for this view comes from research

demonstrating the ironic consequences of intergroup contact and shared identity: minority

group members who downplay intergroup differences become less attentive to inequality,

and more optimistic about upcoming intergroup interactions (Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, &

Pratto, 2009), and thus are less motivated to participate in collective action to improve their

group’s position (Wright & Lubensky, 2008; see also Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2007;

Dixon, Tredoux, Durrheim, Finchilescu, & Clack, 2008). Taken together, then, minority

groups may maintain their distance from the majority in order to protect their cultural

worldview and preserve group interests. However, even though acculturation research has

made important advances in understanding acculturation strategies by both minorities and

majorities (e.g., Berry, 1997), very little research examines the way minority goals shape

responses to majorities’ discriminatory behavior.

Perceiving Discrimination in a Context of Seeking Distance from the Majority

We argue that the goal of seeking distance should moderate the extent to which perceived group-based discrimination elicits group identification. From a social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), minority group members who seek distance from the 6PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS majority should perceive majority discrimination as entirely consistent with this goal. This alignment of interaction goal and experience should make intergroup boundaries more salient and enhance group distinctiveness (Jetten et al., 2004). This intergroup salience, in turn, should motivate a collective response to perceived group-based discrimination and lead to increased minority identification (Tajfel, 1978; see also Wright & Lubensky, 2008). A similar hypothesis can be derived from self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987): seeking distance from the majority should facilitate enhanced perceptions of meta-contrast (i.e., accentuating within group similarities and intergroup differences), which should increase perceptions of common fate and strengthen group identification (Haslam, 2004; Turner et al., 1987). In the context of a minority group goal of seeking distance and maintaining intergroup boundaries, rejection by outgroup members is not only expected, it also reinforces the perception for minority members that it is better to ‘stick to one’s own’.

In contrast, minority group members who do not seek distance from the majority may find themselves in an uncomfortable situation when confronted with group-based discrimination: the intergroup distance that the majority seeks to enforce (through its discriminatory behavior) stands in direct contradiction to the minority goal of seeking proximity to the majority. Discrimination and hostility from the majority then communicate the failure of the minority group to achieve its interaction goals; indeed, the negative treatment is perpetrated by the very group with which the minority seeks contact. As a result, minority group members who seek proximity to the majority may not be able to rely on the minority group to help them cope with discrimination: increasing identification with the minority group is not an option, because this strategy would align the minority member more with the minority than with the majority group and this contradicts the goal of seeking majority proximity. Indeed, discrimination from the majority may even reduce minority group identification among 7PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS members who prefer proximity to, rather than distance from, the majority group. It is likely that this effect should be particularly strong in contexts where minority groups perceive group boundaries to be permeable (Ellemers, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990). This because permeability of group boundaries allows minority group members to engage in an individual mobility strategy when confronted with discrimination and this should be reflected in decreased minority group identification. Taken together, one could argue that such responses leave minority members more vulnerable to the power of the majority group, as it cuts off the best way to counteract the threat of discrimination — namely by seeking identification with and support from one’s own minority group (Jetten et al., 2001).

The Present Research

We conducted four studies to examine whether minority goals for interaction with the majority moderate the relationship between perceived group-based discrimination and minority group identification. The first study used a cross-sectional correlational design to examine support for our hypotheses and used two different samples. Sample 1a included adult Chinese immigrants who held permanent residency in Australia. Sample 1b comprised a different type of minority group: children of Chinese rural migrant workers who have settled in a large

Chinese city. In contrast to sample 1a, this immigrant group is not culturally different from the majority group, although there are clear differences in terms of access to resources and social standing (China Labor Bulletin, 2008). Studies 2 and 3 manipulated pervasiveness of discrimination among Romanian immigrants in France (Study 2) and Polish immigrants in

Scotland (Study 3), and examined the interaction between pervasiveness of discrimination and participants’ interaction goals on minority identification. In Study 4, we aimed to obtain greater confidence about the direction of causality and therefore, we manipulated both minority goals and pervasiveness of discrimination among a group of international students in Australia. 8PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Across the four studies, we predicted that the more minority group members sought distance from the majority, the more likely they would be to report increased minority identification when faced with group-based discrimination. This is because the goal of seeking distance allows minority group members to turn to their group for support and resources to cope with the negative treatment. Perceived discrimination should have different consequences for those who are less inclined to seek distance from the majority. Because those who are oriented towards the majority may not automatically turn to their minority group as a coping resource when they face group-based discrimination, perceived discrimination should either have no impact on minority group identification, or might reduce such identification.

Study 1

In Study 1 we examined our hypothesis that minority goals moderate the relationship between discrimination and minority group identification in two separate samples. We operationalized minority goals as the separation acculturation strategy, which emphasizes connection with the minority group and distance from the majority.1 Our hypothesis was examined among a group of Chinese immigrants in Australia (sample 1a) and Chinese country children whose families have migrated to a large city to find work (sample 1b). The children of country workers are often targets of discrimination as they are denied access to public schools in the city and have to attend separate schools that are under-resourced (Li, Yang, & Wang,

2006; Zhang, Jetten, & Iyer, in press). Country workers are also typically treated as lower-class citizens, and face discrimination from city residents.

In this study it was predicted that perceived discrimination should be associated with increased identification with the minority ingroup when participants seek distance from the majority. In contrast, for immigrants who were less inclined to seek distance, perceiving discrimination should be unrelated to (or even associated with reduced) minority identification. 9PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Method

Participants. Sample 1a included 143 Chinese immigrants living in four major

Australian cities (Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, and Sydney). All participants were born in

Mainland China and were either permanent residents or citizens of Australia. Participants' ages ranged from 20 to 78 years old (M = 42.62, SD = 9.19; 39.4% males and 52.1% females with missing values for 12 participants). Participants had been living in Australia between 2 months and 30 years (M = 12.7 years, SD = 6.00 years).

Sample 1b was comprised of 56 country children who were recruited from a segregated school for country children only in the city of Shanghai. The sample included 24 girls and 32 boys whose ages ranged from 9 to 13 years (M = 11.38, SD = .80). All participants were registered residents in rural areas of China.

Measures. Both questionnaires were translated and back-translated into Chinese. All items were completed using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Minority goals were measured with two items assessing the separation acculturation strategy (e.g., Badea, Jetten, Iyer, & Er-Rafiy, 2011; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006): “To me it is of value to maintain my Chinese cultural heritage and Australian culture is not very important to me” and “To me it is of value to have relationships with Chinese people, but relationships with Australian people are not very important to me” (r = .76, p < .001). The same measure was adapted for sample’s 1b context (r = .57, p < .001)2.

Perceived discrimination. Participants’ belief that their group was negatively treated by the majority was assessed with four items ( = .85) adapted from Schmitt et al., 2003. A 10PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS sample item includes “I feel Australians look down on me because of my nationality”. This measure was adapted for sample’s 1b context (= .73).

Minority identification. In sample 1a we measured identification with Chinese immigrants in Australia with four items (= .85), for example: “I feel a sense of closeness with

Chinese immigrants in Australia”. In sample 1b we measured identification with other country children with two items: “I feel a strong sense of solidarity with the country children in this city” and “I feel a sense of closeness to the country children in this city” (r = .31, p = .021).

Background information. Finally we asked participants' age and gender. Chinese immigrants (sample 1a) also specified their education and length of time living in Australia. For both samples, given their heterogeneity and diversity in background, we also included five items (sample 1a, α = .90 and sample 1b, = .70) to assess pre-arrival expectations regarding intergroup interactions (e.g., “I was expecting to have a lot of Australian friends/city children friends”).

Results and Discussion

Table 1 shows the correlations between the key measured variables for both studies.

For sample 1a, the only demographic variable to impact the extent to which participants sought distance from the majority was gender, t(128) = 3.18, p < .002. Men were more motivated to seek distance from the majority (M = 3.68, SD = 1.59) than were women (M = 2.89, SD = 1.25).

Pre-arrival expectation was positively associated with minority identification and negatively correlated with minority goals. Therefore, in all subsequent analyses we controlled for gender and pre-migration expectations. For sample 1b, preliminary analyses revealed that age and gender were not related to the key variables of the study. Pre-arrival expectations were negatively correlated with minority goals, suggesting that the more positive pre-arrival 11PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS expectations were, the less strong the wish to keep distance from the majority. In all analyses reported below, we controlled for pre-arrival expectations.

Moderation by minority goals. For both samples we performed separate regression analysis examining whether minority goals moderated the relationship between perceived group-based discrimination and minority identification. All variables were centered. In all analyses, minority goals, perceived discrimination, and their interaction term were entered simultaneously (Aiken & West, 1991). For sample 1a we controlled for pre-migratory expectations and gender, whilst for sample 1b we controlled only for pre-migratory expectations.

Analysis with sample 1a revealed only a significant interaction between perceived discrimination and minority goals, β = .18, t(121) = 2.04, p = .044. Simple slope analysis revealed that perceived discrimination was associated with higher minority group identification at higher levels of endorsed separation, β = .24, t(121) = 2.31, p = .022. In contrast, for those who were less inclined to seek distance from the majority group, perceived discrimination was not associated with minority group identification at lower levels of separation endorsement, β =

-.08, t(121) = -.59, p = .555 (see Figure 1; note that high and low scores of our moderator were defined by 1 standard deviation above (high) and below (low) the mean).

The analysis with sample 1b also revealed an interaction effect of minority goals and perceived discrimination, β = .27, t(54) = 2.12, p = .039. Simple slope analysis showed that perceived discrimination was associated with higher minority group identification at higher levels of distance seeking, β = .53, t(54) = 2.93, p = .005. In contrast, perceived discrimination was not associated with minority group identification at lower levels of distance seeking, β = .

02, t(54) = .13, p =.899 (see Figure 2). 12PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Overall, with two samples we found support to our predictions that minority goals of seeking distance moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and minority group identification. When endorsement of seeking distance was high, perceived discrimination was associated with higher identification with their minority group. However, when there was less endorsement of distance from the majority, perceived group-based discrimination was unrelated to minority identification. Our hypothesis was examined among a group of immigrants who have a different cultural background from the host community (Chinese immigrants in Australia, sample 1a) and a minority group who experiences economic, rather than racial or cultural, inequality (Chinese country children in Shanghai, sample 1b). Despite differences between the two samples (e.g., their overall identification levels; see Figure 1 and

2), analyses showed the same pattern of results. This provides some support to the generalizability of our findings across different minority groups.

Study 2

Although the results across our previous study were quite consistent, the correlational nature of the data does not allow us to infer causality. Even though previous research has shown that rejection causes increased identification (Jetten et al., 2001), some have argued for a reversed causal relation — highly identified minority members are more likely to perceive discrimination (Crocker & Major, 1989). Hence, it could be argued that minority group identification and perceptions of discrimination interact to affect minority goals. To rule out this alternative explanation, in Study 2 we manipulated group-based discrimination with the aim of testing the direction of causality directly.

In this study, we tested our predictions among a sample of Romanian immigrants living in France. Based on results from our previous studies, we predicted that seeking distance from the majority should enhance identification with other Romanians when discrimination is 13PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS perceived to be high rather than low. In contrast, perceived discrimination should have less of an effect when Romanians were less likely to seek distance from the majority.

Method

Participants. Seventy-seven Romanian immigrants who had been living in Paris between 1 and 23 years (M = 4.00 years) were approached at a gathering place for Romanians.

The researcher identified herself as Romanian and all questions were asked in Romanian

(translated and back translated from English by two native Romanians). All participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions. The sample comprised 34 males,

40 females, and 3 people who did not indicate their gender. Their age ranged from 14 to 62 years.

Measures and procedure. The study was introduced as an investigation into the relationship between French and Romanians. After assessing minority goals, discrimination against Romanian immigrants in France was manipulated. Participants then completed measures assessing perceived discrimination (i.e., a manipulation check) and group identification with other Romanians. All items were completed using 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Minority goals were assessed by adapting the two items used in Study 1 (r = .42, p < .

Manipulation of perceived discrimination. Participants were asked to read a brief paragraph about the relationship between Romanians in France and the French. In the high discrimination condition, participants received information stating that the increasing number of Romanian immigrants in France had led to increased discrimination against their minority group. In addition, we presented information from a bogus survey showing that French attitudes to immigration were not very favorable. Participants read: “Different studies have shown that a 14PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS large proportion of French people do not agree with the current immigration policy and that they would prefer the country would not have so many immigrants”, and “In fact, interviews with Romanian people revealed that 85% of the interviewed Romanians had had at least one episode where they felt they were discriminated against because of their foreign nationality”.

After reading the overview, we asked participants to write about a situation where they felt discriminated against in France.

In the low discrimination condition, participants were informed that despite the increasing numbers of Romanian immigrants arriving into France, immigrants in France were hardly ever treated negatively by the French. We also provided information showing that

Romanian people are rarely targets of discrimination in France: “In fact, interviews with

Romanian people revealed that 85% of the interviewed Romanians are quite happy living in

France and they report that they are only rarely targets of discrimination. In general, they feel welcome in France and feel that they are treated with respect”. After reading the information, we asked participants to write a situation where they felt they were treated positively by the

French.

Manipulation check. The discrimination manipulation was checked with the perceived discrimination items developed in Study 1 ( = .79).

Minority identification was assessed with two items (r = .59, p < .001) for example:

“Generally, I feel good when I think about myself as a Romanian.”

Finally, we asked participants’ age, gender, and the length of time that they had been living in France. 15PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Preliminary analyses. The manipulation of perceived discrimination was successful.

Perceived discrimination was higher in the high discrimination condition (M = 4.76, SD = 0.25) than in the low discrimination condition (M = 3.08, SD = 0.24), F(1, 75) = 23.67, p < .001. An inspection of the descriptive statistics of our variables indicated that individuals were identified with their minority group (M = 5.63, SD = 1.21). Seeking distance from the majority was just below the midpoint of the scale (M = 2.93, SD = 1.66) suggesting that distance seeking was relatively low. Gender, age, and time spent in France were not correlated with any of the key variables; hence, these variables were not included in further analyses.

Moderation by minority goals. In order to test our predictions we entered minority goals, the contrast coded discrimination manipulation (‘-1’ low discrimination and ‘1’ high discrimination condition), and the interaction term as simultaneous predictors in a regression equation (Aiken & West, 1991).

Analysis revealed only the predicted interaction between group-based discrimination

and minority goals, β = .27, t(73) = 2.45, p = .017. Simple slope analysis showed that at high

levels of endorsing majority distance, identification with other Romanians was higher in the

high than the low discrimination condition, β = .37, t(73) = 2.32, p = .023. Identification

with other Romanians was not affected by the discrimination manipulation at low levels of

distance endorsement, β = -.18, t(73) = 1.16, p = .251 (see Figure 3).

The findings of the present study among Romanian immigrants are consistent with previous results. Minority goals moderated the relationship between manipulated group-based discrimination and minority identification. Perceiving group-based discrimination increased minority identification when the minority goals emphasized seeking distance from the majority.

On the other hand, perceived discrimination did not impact on identification with other 16PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Romanians at lower levels of majority distance endorsement.

Study 3

The previous studies have provided compelling evidence that seeking distance to the majority is a crucial moderator of the relationship between perceived discrimination and minority group identification. We argued that when minorities seek distance, being confronted with group-based discrimination from the majority reinforces the boundaries between the ingroup and the outgroup. The negative treatment only confirms that the majority group cannot be trusted, and minority members are then more likely to turn to the own group as a response to discrimination. However, it is also possible that such interaction goals are oriented towards the minority group rather than the majority group. That is, the consequences of perceived discrimination for minority identification may depend on minority group members’ desire to maintain distance or proximity to their own group. This idea is consistent with research suggesting that it is not just important to examine the preferred interaction with the majority, but also the preferred interaction with the own minority group (e.g., Dona & Berry, 1994; Lasry

& Sayegh, 1992). This is a possibility that we have not yet examined, particularly because our measures of minority goals include reference to both the ingroup and the outgroup. For example, our measure inspired from Berry’s acculturation strategy of separation reflects a desire to simultaneously seek distance from the majority and proximity to the minority.

To address this issue, this study examined whether the relationship between perceived discrimination and minority identification is moderated by minority goals towards the minority group or towards the majority. Thus, we measured minority goals towards the majority separately from their goals towards their own minority group. Examining these different targets of minority goals allows us to determine their independent and interactive effects in shaping the relationship between perceived discrimination and minority identification. 17PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Among a sample of Polish immigrants living in Scotland, we manipulated the extent to which participants perceived discrimination using the same procedure as in Study 2. In line with our main predictions, it was anticipated that, regardless of minority goals towards the minority group, seeking distance from the majority should enhance minority identification when discrimination is perceived to be high rather than low. Following from the previous studies, we predicted that perceived discrimination should have less of an effect when minority members were less likely to seek distance from the majority. No interaction effects were expected for minority goals towards the minority group.

Method

Participants. Sixty-two Polish immigrants were recruited for a study investigating the relationship between Scottish and Polish people. A questionnaire booklet written in Polish

(translated and back translated to English by two native Polish speakers) was given to all participants. The sample included 32 females and 30 males, whose ages ranged from 16 to 60 years (M = 28 years, SD = 8.57). Participants had been living in Scotland between 1 month and

6 years (M = 8 months, SD = 13.14 months).

Measures and procedure. All items were completed using 7-point response scales (1

= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Before being exposed to the manipulation of discrimination, participants responded to measures assessing their minority goals towards the majority and towards their minority group. All participants were then randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions (low discrimination or high discrimination).

Minority goals towards the majority were assessed with eight items ( = .76). Five items were developed for this study and three were adapted from previous research (Nguyen &

Eye, 2002; Barry, 2005; Ghuman, 2000). Sample items include “I don’t want to learn more things about the Scottish culture” and “I like British culture and I will do my best to be part of 18PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS it” (reversed-scored). Higher scores indicate increased endorsement of seeking distance from the majority.

Minority goals towards the minority group were assessed with seven items ( = .78), two of which were adapted from previous research (Nguyen & Eye, 2002; Ghuman, 2000) and five that were developed for this study. Sample items include “It is important to me to preserve my Polish cultural heritage” (reversed-scored) and “Polish culture is not interesting”. Higher scores indicate increased endorsement of seeking distance from the minority.

Manipulation of perceived discrimination. Participants were asked to read a brief text about the relationship between Poles in Scotland and the Scottish. This text included an adapted version of the bogus survey presented in Study 2.

Manipulation check. The discrimination manipulation was checked with four items (

= .94) adapted from our previous studies.

Minority identification. Identification was assessed with three items: e.g., “Generally, I feel good when I think about myself as a Polish person” (α = .78).

Finally, we asked participants’ age, gender, and the length of time they had been living in Scotland.

Manipulation check and preliminary analysis. The manipulation of perceived discrimination was successful. Perceived discrimination was higher in the discrimination condition (M = 3.32, SD = .33) than in the low discrimination condition (M = 2.27, SD = .37),

F(1, 52) = 4.48, p = .039. Descriptive statistics indicated that individuals were highly identified with their minority group (M = 6.41, SD = 0.88). Seeking distance from the majority (M = 3.04,

SD = 1.06) and seeking distance from their minority group means (M = 3.26, SD = 1.22) were 19PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS around the midpoint of the scales. Preliminary analysis of demographics revealed that gender, age, and time spent in Scotland were not correlated with any of the key variables; hence, these variables were not included in any of the analyses reported below.

The moderation effect of minority goals towards the majority and minority. In order to test our predictions, we followed the same steps as in Study 2. Thus, the discrimination manipulation was contrast coded (”-1” low discrimination and ”1” high discrimination condition), minority goals towards the majority, minority goals towards one’s own minority group, and the respective interaction terms were entered simultaneously in the regression. All variables were centered.

The regression analysis revealed no significant main effects for the predictors. There were also no interaction effects between minority goals towards one’s own minority group and either minority goals towards the majority, or the discrimination manipulation. The three-way interaction was also not significant. However, there was an interaction effect between the discrimination manipulation and minority goals towards the majority, β = .48, t(43) = 2.73, p = .

009. In line with our predictions, simple slope analysis revealed that at high levels of distance endorsement, identification with other Poles increased when discrimination was high compared to low, β = .47, t(43) = 2.63, p = .012. In contrast, at low levels of distance endorsement, minority identification decreased when discrimination was high compared to low, β = -.56, t(43) = 2.64, p = .012 (see Figure 4).

Taken together, the results replicated our previous findings and extended them by showing that interaction goals towards the majority group moderated the relationship between perceived discrimination and minority identification, whereas interaction goals towards one’s own minority group did not. This provides further evidence for our argument that minority goals towards the majority are crucial for understanding the ways in which perceived 20PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS discrimination impacts on minority group identification. It appears that for participants who sought distance, being discriminated by the host group reinforces the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ distinction, which strengthens minority identity.

Note that, as in the previous studies, the mean scores for seeking distance from majority and from minority groups were relatively low. This is expected given that most immigrant groups have a preference for integration (i.e., tend to seek proximity to both minority and majority groups; Berry, 2001). Despite the low scores on both measures, there was considerable variability in ratings ruling out the possibility that floor effects might have prevented the detection of a moderation effect of distance to the minority. What is more, the finding that distance from the majority moderated the relationship between perceived discrimination and minority identification is consistent with our previous studies.

Importantly, results for those who were less inclined to seek distance were somewhat different from our previous findings. Whilst in previous studies there were no effects for those who were low in seeking distance from the majority, in this study, Polish immigrants decreased their identification with other Poles with increasing levels of discrimination. This difference across studies might be due to the specific intergroup context that we examined in Study 3. In contrast to the minority groups that were examined in the first studies, it is likely that Polish immigrants perceived intergroup boundaries with the Scottish as quite permeable (i.e., both are member states within the European Union and thus share the same superordinate categorization). Perceived permeability might have enhanced the likelihood, in particular, of those seeking closeness to the Scottish to engage in individual mobility (resulting in lower minority identification) when confronted with group discrimination. We will elaborate further on the role of perceived permeability of group boundaries in the General Discussion. 21PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Study 4

In a final study, we aimed to obtain greater confidence in our conceptual model and the direction of causality by manipulating both perceptions of discrimination and the moderator — minority goals. Predictions were tested among international students in Australia and predictions were identical to those tested in the previous studies: when students endorse distance from the host community, identification with other international students should increase when discrimination is perceived to be high rather than low. In contrast, perceived discrimination should have less of an effect when students are less likely to seek distance from the host community.

Method

Participants and design. One-hundred and five Asian international students from 12 different countries at an Australian university volunteered to participate in this study. The sample was comprised of 38 males and 67 females, and their age ranged from 18 to 31 years

(M = 21.84 years, SD = 2.44).

The current study involved a 2 (discrimination: low versus high) x 2 (minority goal: high versus low distance from the majority) between-subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.

Measures and procedure. Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants were greeted by an Asian international student. After completing an initial task focusing on participants’ experiences as an international student, participants were given immediate bogus feedback regarding their responses, which contained the manipulation of minority goals. They were then presented with a manipulation of perceived discrimination similar to our previous studies. 22PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Manipulation of minority goals. In the low distance from the majority condition, participants were given the following information (high distance from the majority condition in brackets): “According to your test results, you seem to be (not all that) interested in Australian culture. You look like the type of international student who likes (does not like) to be friends with Australian students, and you want to get to know them (have not much of a desire to get to know them). Thus, forming relationships with Australians seems very important to you (seems not all that important to you)”.

Manipulation check of minority goals. Our manipulation was checked with three items asking participants to indicate their perceptions of the provided feedback. These items used a scale ranging from 1 = very much to 7 = not at all and were: “according to your test results, how much do you value close links between yourself and Australian students”; “to what extent would you like to have close relationships with Australian students”; and “to what extent is having a close relationship with Australian students important to you?” Scores were averaged and higher scores indicated a higher endorsement of distance from the majority (α = .86).

Manipulation of perceived discrimination. Participants were then presented with the results from a bogus study showing how Asian international students where perceived by their Australian counterparts. Depending on which condition they were assigned to, participants were either told that Australian students were interested (or not) in developing closer relationships with Asian international students.

Manipulation check of perceived discrimination. Perceptions of discrimination were checked with the following items: “From the research described above, I draw the conclusion that Australian students want to include Asian international students” (reverse- coded); “Asian international students are likely to be accepted by Australian students”

(reverse-coded); and “Australian students dislike interacting with Asian international 23PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS students”. All responses were recorded on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Higher scores indicated more perceived discrimination (α

= .86).

Minority group identification. Identification with Asian international students was assessed with four items (e.g., “I have a lot in common with other Asian international students” and “In general, I’m glad to be an Asian international student”). Participants were instructed to indicate their responses on a 7-point scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Higher scores indicated a stronger identification with

Asian international students (α = .66).

Manipulation check and preliminary analysis. To examine whether our manipulations were successful we started by performing a 2 (minority goals) x 2

(perceived discrimination) ANOVA on the manipulation check of minority goals. Results revealed a significant main effect of minority goals, F(1, 101) = 35.56, p < .001, ηp2 = .

21. Participants in the high distance from the majority condition reported a stronger endorsement of seeking distance (M = 3.59, SD = 1.37) than those in the low distance condition (M = 2.42, SD = .88). Neither the main effect of the manipulation of perceived discrimination was statistically significant, F(1, 101) = 1.52, p = .220, ηp2 = .02, nor the interaction, F(1, 101) = .01, p = .939, ηp2 = .00. This is evidence that our minority goal manipulation was successful.

Analysis of the discrimination manipulation check revealed the expected main effect on perceived discrimination, F(1, 101) = 105.76, p < .001, ηp2 = .51, such that participants in the high discrimination condition (M = 4.74, SD = 1.31) perceived greater discrimination than those in the low discrimination condition. (M = 2.34, SD = 1.03). 24PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Neither the main effect of minority goals was statistically significant, F(1, 101) = .45, p =

.504, ηp2 = .00, nor the interaction, F(1, 101) = .02, p = .880, ηp2 = .00, indicating that the manipulation of perceived discrimination was also successful.

The effects of minority goals and perceived discrimination on minority group identification. To test our predictions we performed a 2 (minority goal) x 2 (perceived discrimination ANOVA on minority group identification. Results showed that there were no main effects of either minority goals, F(1, 101) = .19, p = .663, ηp2 = .01, or perceived discrimination, F(1, 101) = .46, p = .500, ηp2 = .01. There was, however, a significant interaction, F(1, 101) = 6.31, p = .014, ηp2 = .06 (see Figure 5). Within the high distance from the majority condition, students were more identified in the high perceived discrimination condition (M = 5.44, SD = 1.74) than in the low perceived discrimination condition, (M = 4.87, SD = 1.88), F(1, 101) = 5.02, p = .027, ηp2 = .05. Within the low distance from the majority condition, identification did not differ in the low (M = 5.40,

SD = 1.80) compared to the high discrimination condition (M = 5.07, SD = 1.77), F(1,

101) = 1.70, p = .195, ηp2 = .02.3

In this study we obtained further support for our predictions that minority goals moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and minority group identification. Results replicated our previous findings and extended them by finding the same patterns with a study manipulating both perceptions of discrimination and minority goals. Again, it was found that for individuals who perceived their minority group’s goal as one of keeping distance, identification with their minority group was higher when levels of perceived discrimination were high compared to low.

General Discussion

Our work extends work on the rejection-identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999; 25PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Jetten et al., 2001; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002), by establishing precisely when perceived discrimination will increase minority group identification. In the context of group-based discrimination, we found that the extent to which discrimination elicits group identification depends on minority groups’ preferred interaction goals with the majority. More specifically, we found that those who strongly endorsed distance from the majority reported increased levels of identification following perceptions of group-based discrimination. We found this effect in a cross-sectional study among Chinese immigrants in Australia and among a minority group that is culturally similar to the majority group — country workers’ children in a large Chinese city

(Study 1). We also found support for our hypothesis when manipulating perceptions of discrimination among Romanian immigrants in France (Study 2) and Polish immigrants in

Scotland (Study 3), and when manipulating both perceptions of discrimination and minority goals (Study 4).

Our findings are consistent with an increasing body of work showing that increased awareness of intergroup differences clarifies minority group members’ understanding of their own identity and group-based disadvantages (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009; Saguy et al.,

2009). In the context of group-based discrimination, our results suggest that the goal of seeking distance sharpens minority group members’ view that “they” are discriminating against “us.” As such, the combination of perceived discrimination and the goal of seeking distance from the majority enhances the salience of the intergroup context. As a result, intergroup divisions become salient and minority group members’ best strategy to cope with group-based discrimination is to stick to their own group (i.e., demonstrate increased group identification) rather than make overtures to the (perpetrator) outgroup. In this context, increased minority group identification is particularly relevant given that it is a crucial mechanism in protecting individuals from the harmful psychological consequences of discrimination (Branscombe et al., 26PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

1999) and also because strengthening identification is a first step for preparing collective action aiming at challenging the status quo (Wright & Lubensky, 2009). In contrast, our findings demonstrated a different pattern of results for those who were less inclined to seek distance from the majority. At lower levels of distance-seeking, perceived discrimination was either associated with less minority identification (Study 3) or was unrelated to minority group identification (Studies 1, 2, and 4). These findings suggest that the minority group may be of limited use when group members are less supportive of the distance-seeking goal and face discrimination. In such situations, minority members do not turn to the minority group as a resource when facing group discrimination and they may even decrease identification with their minority group (i.e., Study 3). Our findings are in line with Lewin’s (1948) view that minority members might get frustrated when their wish to be accepted by the majority is impeded by their own minority group. Over time, “such a frustration may lead to a feeling of hatred against one’s own group as the source of the frustration” (p. 189).

It is also possible that this inconsistent pattern of results for those who were less inclined to seek distance from the majority is due to differences in the perceived permeability of group boundaries in these intergroup contexts. Although perceived permeability of group boundaries should be quite low for all minority groups involved in our studies, our sample of

Polish immigrants in the UK (Study 3) differed somewhat from the other samples. Given that

Poland is part of European Union, Polish citizens are free to enter and work in the UK (as any other EU country) without restrictions. For this reason, compared to other immigrants in our studies, they enjoy a special status which may lead them to perceive group boundaries with the

British to be relatively permeable. It is thus possible that Poles who were inclined to seek proximity decreased identification with their minority group in an attempt to follow a strategy of individual mobility and ‘pass’ to the group with which they prefer to be close to (i.e., the 27PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

British). This effect contrasted with our remaining results with samples in which ‘passing’ to the majority group might be more difficult and therefore those seeking proximity did not feel the need to disidentify with their minority group when responding to discrimination. Whether group permeability moderates responses to perceived discrimination among minority group members who are predominantly seeking proximity to the majority group should be examined in future research.

Regardless of whether perceived discrimination is unrelated to, or decreases, minority identification among minority group members who are less inclined to seek distance from the majority, it is likely that perceived discrimination will have negative outcomes for these individuals. In such cases minority group members are caught between two unpalatable options.

On the one hand, it may be difficult for these group members to seek their preferred proximity to the majority group as this outgroup is the very source of discrimination. On the other hand, these group members will not seek out the minority ingroup as a resource to help them cope with the threat of perceived discrimination. This suggests that those who are not interested in seeking distance from the majority are left out in the cold when faced with group-based discrimination.

Taken together, our results add to a growing literature that is clarifying the boundary conditions of the rejection-identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999). More specifically, previous research has examined how other features of the intergroup context than those investigated here may moderate minority group members’ responses to their group’s low status position. For example, Jetten et al. (2011) showed that minority group identification increases in the face of group-based discrimination, but only when this discrimination is perceived to be illegitimate. Other research has demonstrated that minority group members are only more willing to engage in collective action to challenge group-based discrimination when there is no 28PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS actual contact between the minority and majority (Wright & Lubensky, 2009). Taken together, these different lines of research demonstrate that in order to understand how minority groups respond to their group’s low status, it is vital to examine the broader social context and how this shapes the relationship between perceived discrimination and minority identification.

Limitations and Future Research

The current work has some limitations that suggest some promising avenues for future research. First, our measures of minority group identification varied across the different studies.

Our measure of identification in Study 1 assessed dimensions of solidarity and satisfaction

(Leach et al., 2008), whilst in Studies 2 to 4 it tapped only the satisfaction dimension. These discrepancies were due to the specificity of some of our samples (e.g., the sample comprised of children in Study 1) and due to the difficulty and availability of translated measures for each language. Nonetheless, both dimensions of satisfaction and solidarity reflect a more general component of perceived affect for the group (Cameron, 2004). It is also the case that patterns across the four studies were remarkably consistent, which provides some support for the idea that solidarity and satisfaction were affected in a similar way.

Furthermore, the scores for the seeking distance goal were somewhat low in some of our studies (e.g., Study 1 among the sample with country children). Nonetheless, despite the relative low endorsement of the distance seeking goal, we do not believe that responses represented floor effects. Indeed, scores did vary within the sample and there was enough variance to obtain evidence for the predicted interaction with perceived discrimination.

Nevertheless, it is important to be mindful of floor (or ceiling) effects in future research so that measurement is adequately tapping different minority goals for interaction with the majority.

However, all in all, results across studies are remarkably consistent, this despite the fact that 29PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS different measures were used, different designs, and most notably, different immigrant or minority groups in different countries.

It is important to keep in mind that the processes described so far are inherently dynamic and fluid. Minorities’ goals of seeking distance should not be seen as fixed, as they are likely to be highly context-dependent and thus should be subject to change over time. Indeed, due to the very interplay between minority goals and majority behavior, goals that initially seem undesirable in retrospect may be renegotiated or adapted by minority members. For example, minority groups might start off with goals to seek greater proximity to the majority, but might reconsider this goal and might endorse seeking distance from the majority if they are confronted with pervasive discrimination. Investigating how minority goals may evolve over time and how they themselves may be shaped by interactions with the minority and majority is another important avenue for future research.

Finally, the rejection identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999) argues that enhanced minority identification counteracts the negative effects of group-based discrimination on well-being. It would be useful in future work to examine the impact of minority goals in the discrimination – identification – well-being sequence. We suggest that minority identification may buffer well-being for those who endorse distance from the majority, but that minority identification is unrelated to well-being for those who are less willing to seek distance from the majority. For the latter, well-being may be tied more closely to actions of the majority.

Conclusion

Our research sheds light on how the construal of intergroup relations affects minority group members’ responses to group-based discrimination. Minorities’ goal to seek distance from the majority enhanced minority identification following group-based discrimination, which can lay the foundation from which to mount challenges to the status quo. In contrast, 30PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS minority identification is less likely when discrimination is perceived by minority members who were not originally inclined to seek distance from the majority. In the face of discrimination, we thus propose that ‘staying separate’ is essential to keeping minority identification alive, which in turn can provide a valuable resource to mitigate the harmful effects of rejection. 31PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Badea, C., Jetten, J., Iyer, A. et Er-Rafiy, A. (2011). Negotiating dual identities: The impact of

group-based rejection on identification and acculturation. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 41, 586-596.

Barry, D. T. (2005). Measuring acculturation among male Arab immigrants in the United States:

An exploratory study. Journal of Immigrant Health, 7, 179-184.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 46(1), 5-34.

Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615-631.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 29, 697-712.

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.

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

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

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

Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239-262.

Cameron, J. E., & Lalonde, R. N. (2001). Social identification and gender-related ideology in

women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 59-77.

China Labour Bulletin (2008). Migrant workers in China. Retrieved 28th July, 2010, from

http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/ 32PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of

stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A

reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697-711.

Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward

the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867-872.

Dona, G., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of Central

American refugees in Canada. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 57-70.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of "We":

Social attitudes and social change, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3, 3-20.

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

Ellemers. N., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of

group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and

social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 233-246.

Ghuman, P. A. S. (2000). Acculturation of South Asian adolescents in Australia. British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 70, 305-316.

Haslam, S. A. (2004, 2nd ed). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach.

London, UK: Sage.

Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To identify or not to identify? National

disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Applied

Psychology, 58, 105-128. 33PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause: Group

identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204–1213.

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A

meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 862-879.

Jetten, J., Schmitt, M., Branscombe, N., Garza, A., & Mewse, A. (2011). Group commitment in

the face of discrimination: The role of legitimacy appraisals. European Journal of Social

Lasry, J. C. & Sayegh, L. (1992). Developing an acculturation scale: a bi-dimensional model. In

N. Grizenko, L. Sayegh & P. Migneault (Eds.), Transcultural issues in child psychiatry,

(pp.67-86). Montréal, Canada: Editions Douglas.

Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B.,

Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a

hierarchical (multicomponent) model of ingroup identification. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 95, 144-165.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Li, Y. Y., Yang, Z. H. & Wang, W. (2006). A survey study of the psychological status of children

and teachers from country children schools in Beijing. New Vision, 3, 62-64.

Major, B., & O'Brien, L.T (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of

McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2003). Group identification moderates emotional responses to

perceived prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1005–17.

Nguyen, H., & von Eye, A. (2002). The acculturation scale for Vietnamese adolescents: A bi-

dimensional perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 202-213. 34PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice:

judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 550–61.

Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33,

881–893.

Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup

contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 1, 114-121.

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

discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. In W. Stroebe, & M.

Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 167–199).

Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Kobrynowicz, D., & Owen, S. (2002). Perceiving

discrimination against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in

women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 197–210.

Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group identity

out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 33(1), 1-12.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and socio-cultural adjustment

during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 449-

Spencer-Rodgers, J., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Risk and resilience: Dual effects of perceptions of

group disadvantage among Latinos. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 729-

Tajfel, H. (1978). The social psychology of minorities. London, UK: Minority Rights Group. 35PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

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

the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

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

& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey,

California: Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-hall. Wright, S., & Lubensky, M. (2008). The struggle for social equality: Collective action vs.

prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J.P. Leyens, & J.F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup

misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York:

Psychology Press.

Zhang, A., Jetten, J., & Iyer, A. (in press). “It will not always be this way”: Cognitive

alternatives improve self-esteem in contexts of segregation. Social Psychological

and Personality Science.

Footnotes

1In the acculturation framework, both separation and marginalization strategies convey a motivation to seek distance from the majority. However, the two strategies differ in terms of contact with own minority group. That is, separation reflects a group-based strategy (whereby individuals seek distance from the majority but also seek closeness to their minority group) while marginalization is an individual-level strategy that is characterized by a lack of interest in both cultures. In our research, we are interested in the way minority goals affect group-level processes such as minority identification and for this reason we assessed seeking distance from the majority as an acculturation strategy of separation. 36PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

2To rule out that seeking distance is a proxy measure for low majority identification, we assessed whether these constructs are conceptually different. Majority identification was measured with six items in Studies 1, 2, and 4. In all studies, even though the magnitude of the correlations between the two measures ranged from small to moderate (Study 1, sample 1a: r =

-.29, p < .001; Study 1, sample 1b: r = -.18, p = .191; Study 2: r = -.10, p = .389; and Study 4: r

= -.39, p < .001), factor analysis confirmed the two-factor structure. This provides confidence in the separateness of these two constructs.

3Readers might wonder whether responses by those lower and higher in distance from the majority differ within the low perceived discrimination condition not just in this but also in the previous studies. Although we did find evidence showing that the slope for distance from the majority for those who perceived lower levels of discrimination was significant in Study 1, sample 1a (β = -.27, t = 2.88, p = .005), this slope was not significant in Study 1, sample 1b (β =

-.32, t = 1.65, p = .105), Study 2 (β = -.23, t = 1.50, p = .139), and in Study 3 it was only marginally significant (β = -.31, t = 1.97, p = .054). In Study 4, we found that when discrimination was low, there were no differences in identification between the low and high distance conditions (Tukey HSD, p = .182). We thus conclude that the interaction between minority goals and perceived discrimination on minority identification is not driven by differences in minority goals among those who perceived low levels of discrimination. 37PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Table 1

Study 1: Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the measured variables

Sample 1a Sample 1b

Measure Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 1 2 3

1. Minority goals 3.17 (1.46) 2.32 (1.08) - .04 -.06

2. Perception of discrimination 3.30 (1.24) 3.18 (1.93) -.17* - .24

3. Minority identification 4.72 (1.19) 5.48 (1.06) -.34** .14 - Note. *p < .05 **p < .01. Sample 1a correlations are below the diagonal of the matrix and sample 1b are above the diagonal. All responses were made on 7-point scales with endpoints ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” 38PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Figure 1. Study 1 (sample 1a): The moderating effect of minority goals towards the majority on the relationship between perceived discrimination and identification with Chinese immigrants in Australia.

Note. High and low scores of our moderator were graphed 1 standard deviation above (high) and below (low) the mean. 39PERCEIVING DISCRIMINATION AND MINORITY GOALS

Figure 2. Study 1 (sample 1b): The moderating effect of minority goals towards the majority on the relationship between perceived discrimination and identification with other country-children in Shanghai.

Figure 3. Study 2: The moderating effect of minority goals towards the majority on the relationship between perceived discrimination and identification with other Romanians.

Figure 4. Study 3: The moderating effect of minority goals towards the majority whilst controlling for goals towards one’s own minority group.

Note. High and low scores of our moderator were graphed 1 standard deviation above (high) and below (low) the mean.

Figure 5. Study 4: The interaction effect of minority goals and perceived discrimination.