Tilburg University What immigration does to young people Ait Ouarasse, O.

127 Pages·2017·38.39 MB·English

Tilburg University
What immigration does to young people
Ait Ouarasse, O.
Publication date:
2004
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal
Citation for published version (APA):
Ait Ouarasse, O. (2004). What immigration does to young people: The psychological acculturation of Moroccans
in the Netherlands. Dutch University Press.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Download date: 14. mrt.. 2023
OTMANE AIT OUARASSE
What 1mmigration Does
to Young People
The Psychological Acculturation of Moroccans
in the Netherlands
0
0
What Immigration Does to Young People
What Immigration Does
to Young People
The Psychological Acculturation ofMoroccans
in the Netherlands
PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Tilburg
op gezag van rector magnificus, prof.dr. F.A. van der Duyn Schouten,
inhet openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaanvan
een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie
in de aula van de Universiteit op vrijdag z3 januari aooq. omio.i5 uur
door
OTMANEAIT OUARASSE
geboren op 3 januari i~66 te Beni-Mellal, Marokko
PROMOTOR:
Prof.dr. A.J.R.van deVijver
cQ O.AitOuarasse, zoo3
Graphicdesign ácover: PuntSpatie, Amsterdam
DTP: Offsetdrukkerij Haveka bv, Alblasserdam
Allrights reserved. Saveexceptions stated by
the law, no part ofthis publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system ofany
nature, or transmitted inany form or byany
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recordingor otherwise, included a complete or
partial transcription, without the prior written
permission ofthe publishers, application for
which should be addressedto the publishers:
DUTCH UNIVERSITY PRESS
Rozengracht r~6A
ror6 NK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Phone: t 3i (o) zo 6z5 54 29
Fax: t 3i (o) zo 6zo 30 95
E-mail: infoa~dup.nl
Dutch University Pressin association
with Purdue University Press, West Lafayette,
Ind. U.S.A a~ RozenbergPublishers,
The Netherlands
IssN ~0 36r~ 4or 6
NUR740
Acknowledgments
I want to thank Fons van de Vijver for the quality ofhis supervision, Ype Poortinga
for his availability and encouragement, and Wasif Shadid for his valuable advice. My
thanks go also to my colleagues Ali, Bogdan, Deon, Dianne, Earen, Eduarda, Esther,
Judit, Karim, Mustafa, Saskia, Seger, and Symen for their kind company and their
readiness to help. I am grateful to all the participants for accepting and for having
the patience to answer the single-spaced, thirty-two-page questionnaire, to
Abderrahmane, Aláddine, Anas, Faisal, Fatima, Hamid, Hassan Benhammou,
Houriyya, Malika, Mohammadi, Mohammed E-rramdani, Mohammed Najah,
Naoual, Nourimane, Saskia, Sonia, and Yahya for finding them, and to Asma',
Jasper, Maaike, and Seger for translating the questionnaire from Englishinto Dutch.
I would also like to express my gratitude to the people who helped make my stay in
the Netherlands a joy, for so was it; here I would like to mention Jac and Zus van
Lissum with whom I shared the same house for more than six years (Jac, Zus, zeer
bedankt!), the members of the university's sailing club, for it was with them that I
first found my feet in the country, the members of the university's Islamitische
Gebedsgroep whose meetings at the university's silence center were refreshing and
revitalizing, and finally the people ofMasjidAl-Fath in Tilburg for their hospitality
and generosity.
DECEMBER 2003
OTMANE AIT OUARASSE
Contents
Introduction 9 Chapter q
Family: Its Role inAcculturation 93
Chapter ~
Perceived Acculturation Conteut: Conclusion ii3
Its Structure and Function ~9
Summary izo
Chapter z
Acculturation, Stress, and Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) iz4
Coping 43
eacklist iz8
Chapter 3
The Mediating and Moderating
Roles ofAcculturation Strategies 69
Introduction
ACCULTURATION
In what ways, ifat all, does prolonged exposure to unfamiliar cultural environments
affect the attitudes and behavior ofindividuals?What precisely promotes successful
cross-cultural transitions and what hinders them? These and similar questions
represent the core of what is typically addressed in acculturation research. The
present collection of studies addresses the acculturation experience of second-
generation Moroccans inthe Netherlands and taps potential assets and liabilities in
their acculturation processes.
Authors often distinguish between acculturation in general and psychological
acculturationon the grounds thatthe latter mainlyinvolves individual-level variables
(Graves, r~6~) while the former mainly involves culture-level variables (Redfield,
Linton, ~ Herskovits, r936). Culture-level acculturation refers to the changes that
take place as a result of sustained first-hand contact between groups of differing
cultural origins and the processes involved therein. Social, economic, and political
changes that affect the structure ofinstitutions and organizations ofthe groups in
contact are examples of group-level phenomena studied in acculturation research.
Individual-level acculturation, on the other hand, refers to the changes that an in-
dividual undergoes as a result ofbeing exposed to an alien culture. The changes that
affect an individual's affect, behavior, and cognition as a result ofhis~her exposure to
a foreign culture are part of that individual's psychological acculturation. Single
studies combining both levels are becoming quite common and current accultu-
ration models incorporate themboth (e.g., Berry, i~~~; Ward, Bochner, 8i Furnham,
aooi). Although the individual remains the unit ofanalysis throughout the present
research, acculturation is still the term used.
Acculturation Models
Thereare two major acculturation models. One, the unidimensional model, postulates
that the ethnic and the host culture counterbalance one another; adherence to the
io What Immigration Does to Young People
one limits adherence possibilities to the other. The unidimensional model has two
variants, the assimilationist variant (e.g., Kovacs, i955) and the bicultural variant
(e.g., Mendoza, i~84). According to the assimilationistvariant, cross-cultural travelers
invariably end up losing their cultural heritage and embracing the host culture. In
the bicultural variant, the loss of the culture oforigin is not at all a necessary out-
come and adherencetoboth cultures even after prolongedimmigration isa possible,
or even likely, outcome. Both variants ofthe unidimensional model have been cri-
ticized. While the assimilationist variant has often been invalidated for its failure to
predict actual acculturation outcomes in large portions ofsamples ofsecond- as well
third-generation immigrants (e.g., Johnson, i~6~), the bicultural variant has been
criticized for its inability to account for the difference between individuals who
strongly adhere to or strongly dissociate from both cultures (e.g., Cortes, Rogler, á
Malgadi, i~~q).
The other, the bidimensional model, postulates that ethnic and host cultures con-
stitute two independent dimensions and that adherence to the one may not affect
adherence possibilities to the other (e.g., Berry, r~~~). When considered inconjunction,
the independent dimensions yield four acculturation possibilities, labeled accul-
turation strategies. An individual is labeled integrated when s~he adheres to both
cultures, assimilated whens~he adheres tothe host culture only, separated when s~he
adheres to the ethnic culture only, and marginalized when s~he adheres to none.
Despite its obvious advantages, the bidimensional model has been subject to a
number of criticisms. First, the categorical nature of the model cannot provide a
proper description of the acculturation orientation of individuals who do not have
extreme scores on both dimensions (Boski, r~g8; Weinreich, r~~8). Second, when
the fouracculturation strategies (i.e., integration, assimilation, separation, margitia-
lization) rather than the underlying dimensions (i.e., attitudes toward ethnic culture
and attitudes toward host culture) are included in the analysis, it is not always easy
to interpret the results of the association between any of the four acculturation
strategies and any other variable; with the acculturation dimensions, however, the
association pattern is often straightforward as the underlying strategies are not
independent (Wardet al., Zooi). Third, measures ofthe bidimensional model can be
relatively difficult to administer, particularlywhen usingthe four-item method. Each
item measures a specific acculturation strategy (e.g., "I find it important to speak
Tarifit-Berberand ifind itimportantto speak Dutch" would be an exampleofan item
measuring language attitudes). Respondents may find it difficult to express the level
ofendorsement with such an item ifthey agree with one part (e.g., speaking Tarifit-
Berber) and disagree with the second part. Furthermore, expressing acculturation
strategies with a single, composite score would be incorrect ifthe scores are based
on a combination ofpreferences which are not identical across domains constituting
the scores. A recent thesis by Arends-Tóth (aoo3) presented much evidence for the
relevance of a distinction between public and private domains among Turkish mi-
INTRODUCTION 11
grants in the Netherlands. They are more inclined to favor integration in the public
domain and separation in the private domain.
Acculturation Outcomes
Factoranalyses have shown that the multitude ofacculturation outcomes canactually
be grouped undertwomajortypes: psychological outcomes having to dowith mental
health and general satisfaction with life in the host milieu and sociocultural out-
comes having to do with successful participation in the host society. It has been
argued that psychological adaptation and sociocultural adaptation are positively
correlated (Berry, zoo3; Ward áz Kennedy, r999) and that the strength ofthe associa-
tion is related to the cultural distance andthe degree ofintegration ofcross-cultural
travelers in the social host milieu: the larger the cultural distance, the weaker the
association between sociocultural and psychological adaptation; the more orientation
toward the host society (either in the form of assimilation or integration) the
stronger the association (e.g., Ward ~ Rana-Deuba, r~~~).
Psychological adaptation ismainlyused within the stress and coping perspective
and is measured by such indicators as life satisfaction (e.g., Kealey, r~8~), and
acculturative stress (e.g., Berry, i~~~), depression, and mental health. Sociocultural
adaptation, on the otherhand, ismainlyusedwithin the culture-learning perspective
and ismeasured by indicators like culture-specific competence (e.g., Bochner, 1~86),
work performance (e.g., Abo, r994), school performance (e.g., Kao ~Tienda, i~~5),
and the like. While the stress and coping perspective sees cross-cultural transitions
as majorlifeevents necessitatingadaptivecopingeiorts (e.g., Chatawayá~ Berry, i~8~),
the culture-learning perspective sees that success in a foreign culture amounts to
mastering the skills specific to that culture (Furnham ~ Bochner, 1~86).
Acculturation Frameworks
The main contemporary acculturation frameworks (Berry, i~~~; Ward et al., aool)
are to a large extent empirically based. According to these frameworks, the accultu-
ration process involves group-level variables (characteristics ofthe society oforigin
and characteristics of the society of settlement) and individual-level variables
(moderating factors prior to acculturation and moderating factors during accultura-
tion). These frameworks depict cross-cultural transitions as potentially stressful life
events that elicit coping resources to deal with them. The coping resources andtheir
outcomes are represented as subjected to the influence of both social factors (main-
stream factors such as official immigration ideology and public attitudes toward
migrants, and ethnic factors such as ethnic acculturation strategies, ethnic vitality,
and ethnic support) and psychological and biographical factors (age, gender, length
of stay, education, personality, and acculturation strategies). Although the frame-
works are mainlyanchored in the stress and coping perspective, they are notrestrict-
ed to it. Being multiperspectival, it is no wonder that the frameworks lack the