This article was downloaded by: [KU Leuven University Library]On: 27 February 2015, At: 06:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Basic and Applied Social PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20

Motivation for Education and Work in Young MuslimWomen: The Importance of Value for Ingroup DomainsColette Van Laar a , Belle Derks a & Naomi Ellemers aa Leiden UniversityPublished online: 04 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Colette Van Laar , Belle Derks & Naomi Ellemers (2013) Motivation for Education and Work in YoungMuslim Women: The Importance of Value for Ingroup Domains, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35:1, 64-74, DOI:10.1080/01973533.2012.746609

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746609

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 35:64–74, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0197-3533 print/1532-4834 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01973533.2012.746609

Motivation for Education and Work in Young Muslim Women: The Importance of Value for Ingroup Domains

Colette Van Laar, Belle Derks, and Naomi Ellemers Leiden University

Much work has focused on how stereotypes and discrimination negatively affect well-being, motivation, and performance in disadvantaged groups. Relatively little work has identified positive factors that contribute to motivation/performance. We focus on identity-affirmation as a positive force, presenting two studies on the effect of value by others for domains of importance to Muslims on young Muslim women’s perspective on education/work. The results show how respecting identity domains that are central and salient for members of religious/ethnic minority groups maintains motivation in education/work, and secures majority-group identification. Rather than hampering societal integration, the results show that distinctive identities can be harnessed as positive sources.

Correspondence should be sent to Colette Van Laar, Social and Organizational Psychology, Department of Psychology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands. E-mail: cvlaar@fsw.leidenuniv.nl

Since the attacks on the World Trade Center towers in September 2001, there has been much debate as to the risks and benefits of religious identification. In Europe, where Muslim minority groups tend to hold low socio-economic status, the tone of the debate has become more negative, with Muslim minority groups being increasingly viewed as threats to societal prosperity and safety. Concern has been expressed especially about the trajecto-ries of young Muslims, perceived as separating from the larger society, while failing to obtain the necessary start through education and employment that will allow for full integration into Western societies (e.g., Entzinger & Dourleijn, 2008; Korf, Nabben, Wouters, & Yesilgöz, 2006; Pels, de Gruijter, & Lahri, 2008).

We connect to Goffman’s early work on the management of tension with regard to stigmatized identity (Goffman, 1963). We focus on the relationship of the stigmatized with his or her social environment in solving this tension, examining how this affects motivation for education and work among young Muslim women. We complement research on stigma that has demonstrated how stereo-types, prejudice, and discrimination negatively affect

well-being, motivation, and performance in disadvan-taged groups and build on our prior work that suggests ways to maintain a positive sense of self and pursue indi-vidual advancement in society in the face of various threats and challenges by the outgroup and larger social context (for overview, see Van Laar, Derks, Ellemers, & Bleeker, 2010). Specifically, we examine how motivation for work and education in young Muslim women in the Netherlands is affected when domains important to their identity—such as their religion and culture—are acknowl-edged and valued by the majority group.

INTEGRATION OF YOUNG MUSLIM WOMEN

We focus on young Muslim women as a group of particu-lar interest (see also Prins & Saharso, 2008; Roggeband & Verloo, 2007). Young Muslim women are perceived to be at risk of having the benefits of freedom and choice offered by modern democracies withheld as a result of the religious and cultural rules and traditions of their group. Thus, in many Western European nations young Muslim women face substantial pressure to assimilate to Western norms and practices, and to forgo ethnic and religious identities and traditions (Entzinger, 2003; Joppke, 2004; Vasta, 2007; Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005). At the same time, pluralistic or multicultural perspectives

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

VALUE FOR IDENTITY DOMAINS AND MOTIVATION 65

highlight the importance of recognizing and appreciating cultural differences (cf. Berry, 1984; Fowers & Richardson, 1996; Markus, Steele, & Steele, 2002; Schlesinger, 1992; Verkuyten, 2006; Yinger, 1994). This resonates with debates in social psychology that emphasize the impor-tance of minimizing the salience of stereotypes and prejudice, on one hand, and noting the importance of recognizing distinct (sub)group identities as a way to foster intergroup cooperation on the other (Brewer, 1996; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2007, 2009; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000).

There are consistent reports of difficulties encountered by young Muslim women in educational and work settings and in following their religious practices (European Commission, 2008; EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2009; Grubben, 2002). In fact, in a recent comparative analysis of data from seven European nations it was Muslim women rather than Muslim men who reported encountering the most religious prejudice (Open Society Institute, 2009). At the moment, as a group, Muslim women in the Netherlands show very low educational and labor market outcomes and are least engaged civically and politically, forming a major concern for societal institu-tions that monitor these developments (Merens & Hermans, 2009). However, there have been indications recently that young Muslim women may be displaying signs of a “catch-up” trajectory—showing better average school results, showing higher civic and political engage-ment, and beginning to overtake their male counterparts in higher education (Keuzenkamp & Merens, 2006). This raises the question as to how young Muslim women respond to the positive versus negative value given to domains of importance to their group (“ingroup domains”; cf. Derks, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2007a) by others in the larger society, and how this affects their perspective on education and work—issues of central importance to their personal development and societal integration. Moreover, young Muslim women are a group facing strong pressures from both ingroup and outgroup as they pursue upward mobility, and thus form an excel-lent group in which to examine processes related to the threats and challenges faced by traditionally underrepre-sented groups more generally as they pursue upward mobility.

RESPECT FOR INGROUP DOMAINS

Based on prior experimental work and theoretical analy-sis (e.g., Derks, Scheepers, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2011; Derks, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2006), we argue that, rather than discouraging members of stigmatized groups from engaging in education and work, value by others in the society for domains of importance to members of stig-matized groups should actually move these individuals

toward domains that are central to status improvement and societal functioning. Our prediction that value by others in the context of domains of importance to members of stigmatized groups will have positive effects on integration through education and work, and through links with the majority group, comes from work in the social identity and stigma traditions (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Research on identity respect has shown that having one’s identity respected by others is an important concern, especially for members of minority-, low-status, and stigmatized groups. Group identities are key for many reasons: They provide an important base for self-definition and allow individuals to maintain or enhance their distinctiveness, to avoid subjective uncertainty, and to enhance positive views of the self (Ethier & Deaux, 1994; Hamilton & Sherman, 1996; Hogg, 2000; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Turner, 1982; see also Correll & Park, 2005). In fact, previous work has shown that when important identities or subgroup identities are neglected, individuals respond by increasingly affirming these identities, also resisting the expression of identification with—and loyalty to—other or superordinate identities (Barreto & Ellemers, 2002). Respect versus neglect of (sub)group identities has been found to decrease intergroup bias and increase identifica-tion with a larger (superordinate) social group (e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2002; Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1994; Gomez, Dovidio, Huici, Gaertner & Cuadrado, 2008; Gonzalez & Brown, 2003; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a; Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996; Jetten, Schmitt, Branscombe, & McKimmie, 2005). Similar evidence for the importance of outgroup attitudes for members of low-status (sub)groups can be found in work on acculturation (Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997).

Acknowledgment of identity has been found to be par-ticularly important when individuals are highly identified with their group, when identities are associated with highly visible cues, when feelings of esteem are challenged by stigmatization, and when status differences between the groups are perceived to be illegitimate and imperme-able (Bettencourt, Charlton, Dorr, & Hume, 2001; Crisp, Walsh, & Hewstone, 2006; Dovidio et al., 2007, 2009; Huo & Molina, 2006; Postmes & Branscombe, 2002; Simon & Brown, 1987; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006). All of these factors are present for the current Muslim group. On the other hand, positive effects of multiple identities in educa-tion and work are by no means a given. Role-conflict the-ories and goal-setting theories would lead one to expect difficulties in the combining of multiple roles, leading to lower persistence, ambiguity, and uncertainty (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2010, Peterson et al., 1995; Williams & Alliger, 1994). Moreover, considerable work on superordi-nate identity highlights the benefits of identifying with a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

66 VAN LAAR, DERKS, ELLEMERS

larger group and minimizing competing identities (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993). Also, motivational and identity theories might expect that more emphasis on ethnic- or religious identities would lead members of stigmatized groups to focus their efforts on domains in which a posi-tive view of the self and group is more easily achieved, further disidentifying from domains on which their group does not do well (Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1998; Osborne, 1995; Tesser, 1988, 2000). We predict, however, that as Muslim identity is often central, salient, and highly visible for young Muslim women, fail-ure to make room for, acknowledge, and value domains of importance to young Muslim women will negatively influ-ence their perspective on education and work and their identification with the majority group.

We examined support for this reasoning in two stud-ies. In Study 1, young Muslim women’s perceptions of value for Islam by the majority group were measured in an Internet survey. In Study 2, we manipulated the majority group’s value for religious and cultural domains in an experimental study, comparing the effect of a sin-gular focus on the work domain to a condition in which religious and cultural domains were also given room and acknowledged. Following work on threat to group identity, we examine reductions in perceived threat as a mediator in the relationship between value for ingroup domains, on one hand, and the outcome variables, on the other (Hewstone, Turner, Kenworthy, & Crisp, 2006). Threat to identity occurs when the group is criti-cized, downgraded, or attacked and when the distinc-tiveness of a person’s group and self-chosen categorization are not respected (Brown & Wade, 1987; Hogg & Hornsey, 2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; see also Brewer, 1991). We thus expect that value for the ingroup domain will lead to a more positive perspective on edu-cation and work by lowering the threat perceived by young Muslim women in the domains of education and work, leading them to feel more secure, calm, and less anxious (Barreto & Ellemers, 2002; Derks, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2007b; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a; Lemaine, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

STUDY 1

Young Muslim women were recruited to participate in an Internet survey. As perceived value for Islam by others in the society could be affected by the value that participants themselves give to this ingroup domain, we controlled for the participants’ personal value for Islam in all analyses. We examined the relationship between perceived value by the majority group for this ingroup domain and young Muslim women’s perspective on education and work. Addressing one of the most commonly reported issues facing Muslim women at work in Europe, we also asked

Muslim women how they would feel dealing with a dis-agreement regarding the headscarf at work as a function of the value they perceived the majority group to hold for the ingroup domain Islam (Grubben, 2002; Open Society Institute, 2009). Such issues can become major conflicts but can also be dealt with as are other disagreements at work, causing only minor discomfort. Last, we examined whether value by the majority for the ingroup domain Islam increases identification with the majority outgroup (here, the native Dutch). Based on previous work showing how acknowledgment of subgroup identity can benefit identification with a larger social group (e.g., Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kafati, 2000; Huo & Molina, 2006) we expected value by others for the ingroup domain Islam to be positively related to identification with the majority group among young Muslim women.

Method

Participants

Young Muslim women in the Netherlands (N = 328, Mage = 22.4, SD = 5.34) were recruited for an online survey study on Muslim women in education and work through various websites and organizations targeting Muslims, Muslim women, ethnic minorities, and Muslim youth/students. Most wore a headscarf/veil often (M = 6.83, SD = 3.09; 1 = never, 9 = always). The young women came from mostly Moroccan (64%) and Turkish (17%) ethnic backgrounds. The women had representa-tive levels of education (13% lower [vocational] educa-tion, 26% middle- vocational education, 26% higher vocational education, 14% university degree). Many of the women were born in the Netherlands (58%), and the rest had spent most of their life there (M = 18 years, SD = 7.63).

Procedure

Participants were asked a number of questions about their current situation and their outlook regarding educa-tion/work. Although the survey focused on various issues of relevance for Muslim women (e.g., importance of Koran in their lives, motivations for wearing a headscarf), of concern here are variables relevant to value for the ingroup domain Islam and those relevant to education and work. All items were assessed on 9-point scales, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). For descriptive statistics and correlations, see Table 1.

Measures

Control Variable

Personal value for ingroup domain. This was mea-sured with eight items (e.g., “Islam is an important part of my life”; α = .88).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

VALUE FOR IDENTITY DOMAINS AND MOTIVATION 67

Independent Variable

Perceived majority value for ingroup domain. This was measured with three items (e.g., “The native Dutch value my freedom to choose with regard to Islam”; α = .70).

Dependent Variables

Motivation for work/education. This was assessed with six items (e.g., “To what degree do you feel like putting effort into your education/work?”; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much; α = .71). Participants answered the ques-tions with regard to education or work, depending on which they primarily engaged in at that time.

Expected ability to perform well at work. This was assessed with five items (e.g., “How well do you expect to be able to perform in your work in the coming 20 years?”; 1 = very badly, 9 = very well; α = .75).

Dealing with identity related confl icts at school/work. This scale examined how much tension participants felt in dealing with a conflict regarding the headscarf at school/work (two items; “If my school/employer will not let me wear a headscarf at school/work then I would feel …”; 1 = not tense at all, 9 = very tense [reversed]; α = .67). Higher scores indicate less expected experienced tension in dealing with a conflict regarding the headscarf at school/work.

Identifi cation with the majority group. This was assessed with three items (e.g., “I feel a close bond with the native Dutch”; α = .83).

Mediator

Perceived threat. This was assessed with four items (e.g., “When I think of my situation in education/work I feel …”; 1 = not threatened at all, 9 = very threatened and 1 = not at ease at all, 9 = at ease [reversed]; α = .87).

Results

The relationship between majority value for the ingroup domain and the dependent variables was assessed using separate hierarchical multiple-regression analyses. As expected, controlling for personal value for the ingroup domain, the value the majority group was perceived to give to the ingroup domain was positively related to moti-vation for work/education (β = .12, p = .03, semipartial r2 = .02). Thus the more value the young Muslim women perceived the native Dutch to give to the ingroup domain, the higher their motivation for education and work. Similarly, controlling for personal value for the ingroup domain, the more value the young Muslim women perceived the majority to give to the ingroup domain, the better they expected to be able to perform at work in the future (β = .25, p < .001, semipartial r2 = .06); the less tension they anticipated experiencing when dealing with disagreements that might arise around the wearing of a headscarf at school/work (β = .10, p = .06, semipartial r2 = .01), the higher their identification with the majority group (β = .17, p = .008, semipartial r2 = .03) and the less threatened they felt about their work/school situation (β = –.22, p < .001, semipartial r2 = .05).1 Bootstrapping analyses for estimating direct and indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) confirmed that reductions in threat explained the positive relationships between majority value for the ingroup domain and each of the dependent variables (see Table 2). In each case, results (5,000 samples) indicated with 95% confidence that the indirect effect (i.e., difference between total and direct effects) was significant (full mediation for motivation for

1The control for personal value for the ingroup domain was signifi-cant for “Dealing with identity related conflicts at school/work” (β = –.34, p < .001) and marginally significant for “Perceived threat” (β = –.09, p = .09).

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Scales (Study 1)

Perceived Majority Value

for Ingroup Domain

Personal Value for Ingroup Domain

Motivation for Work/Education

Expected Ability to

Perform Well at Work

Dealing With Identity Related

Conflicts at School/Work

Identification With the Majority

GroupPerceived

Threat

M 5.00 8.26 7.44 5.57 2.87 5.10 3.43SD 2.18 1.29 1.38 1.39 2.22 2.15 1.90Perceived majority value for

ingroup domain –.10† .12* .26*** .13* .17** –.21***

Personal value for ingroup domain .04 –.04 –.35*** –.05 –.07Motivation for work/education .31*** –.03 .14* –.30***Expected ability to perform well

at work .19** .14* –.44***

Dealing with identity related conflicts at school/work

.07 –.10†

Identification with the majority group

–.16*

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p <.01. ***p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

68 VAN LAAR, DERKS, ELLEMERS

work/education and dealing with identity related conflicts at school/work; partial mediation for expected ability to perform well at work and identification with the majority group).2

STUDY 2

Study 1 was correlational, and stronger evidence as to the causal role of value for the ingroup domain will bolster the conclusion that value for the ingroup domain is a positive force in protecting young Muslim women’s perspective on education and work. Study 2 thus manipu-lated value for the ingroup domain by presenting young Muslim women with a description of a (hypothetical) company and asking how it would be to work at this com-pany. The description varied whether the company was portrayed as valuing the religious and cultural domain or as not valuing this domain. We wanted to be sure that if young Muslim women indicate higher interest and moti-vation when there is high value by others for the ingroup domain it is because of value for the ingroup domain and not because value for the ingroup domain leads the Muslim women to perceive less value (and thus less threat) for the status-relevant work domain on which they have been traditionally outperformed by the majority outgroup. We thus used a 2 (value for status-relevant work domain) × 2 (value for ingroup domain) design, making sure to manipulate not only value for the ingroup domain but at the same time whether the company placed high value on the status-relevant work domain on which

2In both studies, we checked that results remain the same when con-trolling for age, level of education, and (in Study 1) number of years living in the country. Moreover, we also examined whether those with higher versus lower personal value for the ingroup domain might show different relations, treating personal value for the ingroup domain also as a moderator rather than a control (Aiken & West, 1991). However, for this already highly identified group of Muslim women, personal value for the ingroup domain did not moderate participants’ responses in either of the two studies.

the women had been traditionally outperformed (Derks et al., 2007b). We again examined perceived threat as the mediator.

Method

Participants

Young Muslim women (N = 122, Mage = 29.5, SD = 7.66) were recruited for a study on Muslim women in educa-tion and work through various mosques, schools, Islamic organizations, and ethnic-minority organizations. Most wore a headscarf/veil often (M = 6.34, SD = 2.62; 1 = never, 9 = always), and most indicated the role of Islam was considerable in their lives (M = 7.34, SD = 2.08; 1 = very small, 9 = very large). The women all identified as Muslim and came from Moroccan (7%), Turkish (7%), Surinamese (72%), and Pakistani (11%) backgrounds. The women had representative levels of highest educa-tion (10% lower [vocational] education, 24% middle-vocational education, 27% higher vocational education, 11% university degree). Thirty-four percent were born in the Netherlands.

Procedure

Participants completed a questionnaire that contained the experimental manipulations. At the beginning, a (in reality fictitious) company was introduced. Participants were asked to consider how it would be to work at the company. They were given information about the company from an extensive study (ostensibly) conducted by a research organization. This contained the manipulations of value for the status-relevant work domain and value for the ingroup domain in the company. This was followed by the measures.

Manipulations

Participants were told that an external research organization had conducted a large-scale study among ethnic-majority and minority employees of the company,

TABLE 2 Mediation Analyses per Dependent Variable (Study 1)

Total Effect of Value for Ingroup

Domain on DV

Indirect Effect of Value for Ingroup Domain on DV Through Mediator

[95% CI]a

Direct Effect of Value for Ingroup Domain on DV (Once Mediator Taken Into Account)

Motivation for work/education .08* .04* [.018, .069] .04, nsExpected ability to perform well at work .16**** .06* [.026, .092] .11***Dealing with identity related conflicts at school/work .10† .02* [.004, .053] .08, nsIdentification with the majority group .16** .03* [.003, .076] .14*

Note. DV = dependent variable.aIndirect effects were tested with a 95% confidence interval (CI). If the 95% CI for the indirect effect does not include zero, the effect is statistically significant at the p < .05 level.†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ****p < .0001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

VALUE FOR IDENTITY DOMAINS AND MOTIVATION 69

examining the extent to which working hard and being successful was valued in the company (status-relevant work domain) and the extent to which there was value in the company for religion and culture (ingroup domain). Participants were presented with a summary of the results of the study and with quotes from employees that illus-trated the results. These differed by condition (see Purdie-Vaughns, Steele, Davies, Ditlmann, & Crosby, 2008 for similar methodology). Thus, for example, participants in the high value for the status-relevant/high value for the ingroup domain condition read that the majority of the employees indicated that within the company there is value both for aspects to do with work, such as working hard and pursuing a career, and for the cultural background and religious convictions of the employees. Employees in the low value for the status-relevant work domain/low value for the ingroup domain condition read that the majority of the employees indicated that within the company there is little value for the cultural background and religious convictions of the employees and that working hard and pursuing a career was not valued very much either.

Manipulation Checks

As part of the manipulation checks, the participants were given four statements that described the company. All participants correctly identified the statement describ-ing the company fitting their condition.3

Dependent Variables

All items were assessed on 9-point scales, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree), unless otherwise indicated. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3.

Motivation for work. This was assessed with three items (e.g., “If I worked in this company I would show high effort in my work”; α = .86).

Expected ability to perform well in the com-pany. This was assessed with four items (e.g., “Do you think you could perform well in this company?”; 1 = not well at all, 9 = very well; α = .80).

Perceived equality of opportunity in company. This was assessed with two items (e.g., “In this company it is much harder for ethnic/religious minority employees to achieve” [recoded]; α = .70).

3Also, to ensure that the manipulations did not lead participants to perceive different proportions of native Dutch versus ethnic minority or Muslim versus non-Muslim employees in the company (a contextual cue that has been found to affect feelings of psychological safety; see Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008), we asked participants at the end of the study to indicate their perceived percentage of employees from each of these groups in the company. Analyses of variance revealed no differ-ences between the conditions.

Work-related esteem. This was assessed with three items based on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale, altered to refer to the work domain (e.g., “If I worked in this company I would feel positive about my work”; α = .55).

Mediator

Perceived threat. This was assessed with eight items (e.g., “If I worked at this company I would feel threat-ened”; “… feel at ease” [reversed]; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much; α = .92).

Results

Effects of Double Versus Single Value

Two-way analyses of variance showed significant inter-actions between value for the status-relevant work domain and value for the ingroup domain on motivation for work, F(1, 118) = 4.80, p = .03, η2 = .04; expected ability to per-form well in the company, F(1, 118) = 6.80, p = .01, η2 = .06; perceived equality of opportunity in the company, F(1, 118) = 5.37, p = .02, η2 = .04; and a marginal interaction on work-related esteem, F(1, 118) = 3.32, p = .07, η2 = .03. As expected, in each case the simple main effect under high value for the status-relevant work domain comparing high and low value for the ingroup domain was significant (ps = .001, <.001, <.001, .02, respectively), whereas the simple main effect under low value for the status-relevant work domain was not. As shown in Figures 1 to 4, partici-pants evidenced higher motivation for work, expected to

FIGURE 1 Effects of double versus single value on Motivation for work (Study 2). Note. Standard deviations appear above bars in parentheses.

TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics (Study 2)

M SD

Motivation for work 7.36 1.51Expected ability to perform well in the company 6.92 1.18Perceived equality of opportunity in company 5.16 1.63Work-related esteem 6.93 1.20Perceived threat 2.91 1.42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

70 VAN LAAR, DERKS, ELLEMERS

for the status-relevant work domain was also significant but smaller, p < .001, η2 = .10). Participants under double-value perceived lower threat than participants under single-value (Figure 5).

Mediation Through Threat

Mediated-moderation analyses confirmed that reduc-tions in perceived threat explained the interaction of value for the status-relevant domain with value for the ingroup domain on the dependent variables. First, separate regres-sions confirmed that threat predicted the dependent vari-ables, β = –.41, t(122) = –4.99, p < .001, R2 = .17; β = –.69, t(122) = –10.54, p < .001, R2 = .48; β = –.41, t(122) = –4.85, p < .001, R2 = .16; β = –.39, t(122) = –4.66, p < .001, R2 = .15, respectively. We then used Hayes’s (2012) PROCESS-macro, regressing the predictor variables, their interac-tion term, and threat on the dependent variables. As expected, in each of the analyses, when threat was added to the model predicting the dependent variable, the inter-action no longer predicted the dependent variable, but threat remained a significant predictor (see Table 4). Hayes’s bootstrapping macro with 5,000 iterations for testing the conditional indirect effect confirmed that in each case the 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect of the interaction term through the mediator on the dependent variable (controlling for main effects of inde-pendent variables) did not include zero, thus establishing mediated moderation.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Two studies illustrated how valuing the identity of Muslim women affects variables of importance to inte-gration in education, work, and the larger society. Specifically, Study 1 showed that young Muslim women who perceive that members of the majority group value domains of importance to their group showed a more positive perspective on education and work and higher identification with the majority group. An experimental

FIGURE 2 Effects of double versus single value on Expected ability to perform well in the company (Study 2). Note. Standard deviations appear above bars in parentheses.

FIGURE 3 Effects of double versus single value on Perceived equality of opportunity in the company (Study 2). Note. Standard deviations appear above bars in parentheses.

FIGURE 4 Effects of double versus single value on Work-related esteem (Study 2). Note. Standard deviations appear above bars in parentheses.

be able to perform better in the company, perceived more equality of opportunity, and had higher work-related esteem under double-value for the status-relevant work domain and the ingroup domain than under single-value for only the status-relevant domain.

Results on the mediator perceived threat showed a main effect of value for the ingroup domain and no main effect of value for the status-relevant work domain, again, as expected, qualified by an interaction, F(1, 118) = 7.67, p = .007, η2 = .06. The simple main effect under high value for the status-relevant work domain was again signifi-cant, p < .001, η2 = .30 (simple main effect under low value

FIGURE 5 Effects of double versus single value on Perceived threat (Study 2). Note. Standard deviations appear above bars in parentheses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

VALUE FOR IDENTITY DOMAINS AND MOTIVATION 71

manipulation of value for ingroup domains (Study 2) led young Muslim women to show a more positive perspec-tive toward work when not only the work domain but ingroup domains were valued as well. Mediation analyses showed that the effects were explained by reductions in perceived threat. Whereas Study 1 consisted of a correla-tional study, leaving possible questions as to causation, Study 2 involved the actual manipulation of value for the ingroup domain. Also, we made sure to examine value for the ingroup domain in the context of value for the status-relevant work domain, ruling out a potential trading off between value for ingroup domains and the status-relevant work domain as a possible explanation. The results show how respecting identity domains that are central and salient for members of religious/ethnic-minority groups maintains interest and motivation in education and work and identification with the majority group. Rather than hampering integration into the larger society, the results show that value for ingroup domains of importance to these groups function as a positive source that can lower threat and increase outcomes on domains of concern to society at large.

We believe this work is important. The studies were conducted among Muslim women, a group that is diffi-cult to reach and difficult to mobilize to take part in research studies. Although there is much discussion about this group, very little actual research has been done among this group. We believe that similar results are likely for young Muslim men and for other (cultural, religious, or other) groups for whom identities are cen-tral and who face considerable societal pressure to forgo their identities. The results are consistent with work on identity respect (e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2002, 2003; Huo & Molina, 2006) and on the effectiveness of dual (vs. single) identities (e.g., Binning, Unzueta, Huo, & Molina, 2009; Crisp, 2006; Eggins, Haslam, & Reynolds, 2002; Feliciano, 2001; Gonzalez & Brown, 2006;

Hewstone, 1996; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000b) in encourag-ing positive intergroup attitudes and higher well-being. The results are also consistent with work showing that a multicultural perspective may be beneficial for inter-group attitudes and relations between groups (Luijters, Van der Zee, & Otten, 2008; Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004; Verkuyten, 2006; Wolsko et al., 2000). In our work, in contrast, we have focused on important societal outcome domains such as education and work, domains that not only are signifi-cant for the economy at large but, crucially, play in important role in improving the actual status of the minority groups themselves (see Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005). The results emphasize the important role played by others in the context in affecting key out-comes and performance: Acknowledging and valuing domains of importance to members of ethnic/religious minority groups affects their motivation for education, work, and identification with the majority group. As such, value in one domain by one group has effects on other quite distant domains valued by another (see also Baysu, Phalet, & Brown, 2011).

Although the current studies focused on young Muslim women, we expect the processes identified to be found more generally in traditionally underrepresented groups pursuing upward mobility: how to negotiate pressures from the ingroup and outgroup while pursuing work and education in settings in which one’s group faces low expectations, potential prejudice, and discrimi-nation. The current work suggests that these groups too will benefit in terms of attitudes toward work and educa-tion and increased identification with the high-status and majority outgroup. Work in other areas is coming to similar conclusions as to the importance of contextual value in motivation and achievement (see, e.g., Byrd & Chavous, 2011; Chavous et al., 2003; Rivas-Drake, 2011). Also the work fits well with other work exploring the

TABLE 4 Mediated-Moderation Analyses per Dependent Variable (Study 2)

Indirect Effect of Interaction on DV Through

Mediator [95% CI]a

Effect of Threat on DV in Mediated-

Moderation Model

Direct Effect of Interaction on DV

(Once Mediator Taken Into Account)

R2 for Mediated-Moderation Model

Motivation for work .48* [.091, 1.147] b = –.41*** b = .68, ns .44****Expected ability to perform

well in the company.71* [.229, 1.234] b = –.61**** b = .33, ns .71****

Perceived equality of opportunity in company

.40* [.107, .838] b = –.32** b = .86, ns .52****

Work-related esteem .46* [.146, 1.000] b = –.39**** b = .30, ns .51****

Note. The Hayes macro to conduct mediated-moderation produces unstandardized (B), but not standardized (β), regression weights. Therefore, we report Bs and not βs for these analyses. DV = dependent variable.aIndirect effects were tested with a 95% confidence interval (CI).*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ****p < .0001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

72 VAN LAAR, DERKS, ELLEMERS

benefits of identity affirmation, identity respect, and public regard for well-being in minority groups—from our perspective, all similar concepts that focus on valu-ing identity and identity domains (see, e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2002; Huo & Molina, 2006; Huo, Molina, Binning, & Funge, 2010).

Our work suggests that policymakers and organiza-tions interested in improving the position of minority groups would benefit from examining what messages are currently being given about value for ingroup domains of importance to these individuals. Research in social psychology is increasingly showing the significance of subtle contextual messages for members of minority groups (e.g., Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009; Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2005; Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007; Pronin, Steele, & Ross, 2004; Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). When these messages (implicitly) communicate rejection, low value, or disinterest, members of minority groups are likely to respond with caution, choosing not to engage, or to leave the setting altogether. Future work is likely to increasingly concen-trate on the negotiation of identity as majority and minority groups come together and interact, with both parties bringing various needs and goals to the table, goals that are not always immediately consistent with one another. In our work we are thus increasingly con-centrating on this negotiation (see, e.g., Van Laar, Bleeker, & Ellemers, 2012a, 2012b). Similar perspectives are being taken by others (see, e.g., Dovidio et al., 2007; Huo & Molina, 2006). This focus on the negotiation of identity in contact between the stigmatized and others was already there in the early work by Goffman but is only recently becoming empirically examined in the field, which has traditionally taken either the perspec-tive of the majority-nonstigmatized group or more recently the target’s perspective (cf. Shelton, 2000). One of the major challenges is in combining the target and perpetrator perspectives to come to effective solutions for real-world social conflict, solutions that work for both groups. We believe our work takes us a step in that direction, showing how value for identity domains of importance to minority groups positively affects out-comes on precisely those domains of concern to society at large: education, work, and connections with the larger society.

As cultural diversity is inevitable in most modern societies, it is only by understanding the role of identi-ties that we can develop effective solutions to conflicts that may arise. Increased understanding among policy-makers, organizational leaders, and individuals of majority groups as to the benefits of considering iden-tity for the motivation of ethnic/religious minority groups offers hope and scope toward greater integration and greater contribution of minority groups in Western societies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by a grant from the Dutch National Science Foundation (NWO): grant 261-98-906. We thank Naima El Hannouche and Sangita Paltansing for assistance in data collection and the Social Identity and Intergroup Relations Group at Leiden University for helpful comments on the article.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and inter-preting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2002). The impact of respect versus neglect of self-identities on identification and group loyalty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 629–639.

Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2003). The effects of being categorised: The interplay between internal and external social identities. In M. Hew-stone & W. Stroebe (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 139–170). Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

Baysu, G., Phalet, K., & Brown, R. (2011). Dual identity as a two-edged sword: Identity threat and minority school performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74, 121–143.

Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies: Alternatives to segregation and their sociopsychological implications. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group perme-ability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542.

Binning, K. R., Unzueta, M. M., Huo, Y. J., & Molina, L. E. (2009). The interpretation of multiracial status and its relation to social engagement and psychological well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 35–49.

Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.

Brewer, M. B. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 20, 291–303.

Brown, R., & Wade, G. (1987). Superordinate goals and intergroup behaviour: The effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 131–142.

Byrd, C. M., & Chavous, T. (2011). Racial identit y, school racial climate, and school intrinsic motivation among African American youth: The importance of person–context congruence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 849–860.

Chavous, T. M., Bernat, D. H., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Caldwell, C. H., Kohn-Wood, L., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). Racial identity and academic attainment among African American adolescents. Child Development, 74, 1076–1090.

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060.

Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 341–359.

Crisp, R. J. (2006). Commitment and categorization in common ingroup contexts. In R. J. Crisp & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Multiple

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

VALUE FOR IDENTITY DOMAINS AND MOTIVATION 73

social categorization: Processes, models and applications (pp. 90–111). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Crisp, R. J., Walsh, J., & Hewstone, M. (2006). Crossed categoriza-tion in common ingroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1204–1218.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. M. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4th, pp. 504–553). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 276–287.

Derks, B., Scheepers, D., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2011). The threat vs challenge of car parking for women: How self- and group affirmation affect cardiovascular responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 178–183.

Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2006). Striving for success in outgroup settings: Effects of contextually emphasizing ingroup dimensions on stigmatized group members’ social identity and perfor-mance styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 576–588.

Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2007a). The beneficial effects of social identity protection on the performance motivation of mem-bers of devalued groups. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 217–256.

Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2007b). Social creativity strikes back: Improving low status group members’ motivation and perfor-mance by valuing ingroup dimensions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 470–493.

Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697–711.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kafati, G. (2000). Group identity and intergroup relations: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. In S. R. Thye, E. J. Lawler, M. W. Macy, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 17, pp. 1–34). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 296–330). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

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, 3–20.

Eggins, R. A., Haslam, S. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2002). Social identity and negotiation: Subgroup representation and superordinate consen-sus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 887–899.

Entzinger, H. (2003). The rise and fall of multiculturalism: The case of the Netherlands. In C. Joppke & E. Morawska (Eds.), Toward assimilation and citizenship (pp. 59–86). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Entzinger, H., & Dourleijn, E. (2008). De lat steeds hoger: De leefwereld van jongeren in een multi-etnische stad [Raising the bar: The environment of youth in a multi-ethnic city]. Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243–251.

EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2009). European Union minorities and discrimination survey. Data in focus report: Muslims. Vienna, Austria.

European Commission. (2008). Special Eurobarometer 296, Discrimination in the European Union: Perceptions, attitudes and experiences. Brussels, Belgium.

Feliciano, C. (2001). The benefits of biculturalism: Exposure to immi-grant culture and dropping out of school among Asian and Latino youths. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 865–879.

Fowers, B. J., & Richardson, F. C. (1996). Why is multiculturalism good? American Psychologist, 51, 609–621.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recatego-risation and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias. Small Group Research, 25, 224–249.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled iden-tity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gomez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Huici, C., Gaertner, S. L., & Cuadrado, I. (2008). The other side of we: When outgroup members express common iden-tity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1613–1626.

Gonzalez, R., & Brown, R. (2003). Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and superordinate group identifications in intergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 195–214.

Gonzalez, R., & Brown, R. (2006). Dual identities in intergroup contact: Group status and size moderate the generalization of positive attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 753–767.

Grubben, G. (2002). Een onfortuinlijke positie; Discriminatie van moslima’s in Nederland [An unfortunate position: Discrimination of muslim women in the Netherlands]. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Landelijk Bureau ter Bestrijding van Rassendiscriminatie.

Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Hewstone, M. (1996). Contact and categorizaton: Social psycholog-ical interventions to change intergroup relations. In N. Macrea, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 323–368). New York, NY: Guilford.

Hewstone, M., Turner, R. N., Kenworthy, J. B., & Crisp, R. J. (2006). Multiple social categorization: Integrative themes and future research priorities. In R. J. Crisp & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Multiple social categorization: Processes, models and applications (pp. 271–310). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255.

Hogg, M. A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2006). Self-concept threat and multiple categorization within groups. In M. Hewstone & R. J. Crisp (Eds.), Multiple social categorization: Processes, models and applications (pp. 112–135). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Subgroup relations: A compar-ison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup iden-tity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242–256.

Huo, Y. J., & Molina, L. E. (2006). Is pluralism a viable model of diver-sity? The benefits and limits of subgroup respect. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 359–376.

Huo, Y. J., Molina, L. E., Binning, K. R., & Funge, S. P. (2010). Subgroup respect, social engagement, and well-being: A field study of an ethnically diverse high school. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 427–436.

Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superor-dinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7, 40–45.

Jetten, J., Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & McKimmie, B. M. (2005). Suppressing the negative effect of devaluation on group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5

74 VAN LAAR, DERKS, ELLEMERS

identification: The role of intergroup differentiation and intragroup respect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 208–215.

Joppke, C. (2004). The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy. British Journal of Sociology, 55, 237–257.

Keuzenkamp, S., & Merens, A. (2006). Sociale atlas van vrouwen uit etnische minderheden [Social atlas of ethnic minority women]. Hague, the Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

Korf, D. J., Nabben, T., Wouters, M., & Yesilgöz, B. (2006). Van vasten tot feesten: Leefstijl, acceptatie en participatie van jonge moslims [From fasting to feasting: Lifestyle, acceptance and participation of young muslims]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Forum.

Lemaine, G. (1974). Social differentiation and social originality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 17–52.

Luijters, K., Van der Zee, K. I., & Otten, S. (2008). Cultural diversity in organizations: Enhancing identification by valuing differences. Inter-national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 154–163.

Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Cop-ing with negative stereotypes about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 34–50.

Markus, H. R., Steele, C. M., & Steele, D. M. (2002). Color blindness as a barrier to inclusion: Assimilation and nonimmigrant minorities. In R. A. Shweder, M. Minow, & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Engaging cultural differ-ences: The multicultural challenge in liberal democracies (pp. 453–472). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Merens, A., & Hermans, B. (2009). Emancipatiemonitor 2008 [Emanci-pationmonitor 2008]. Hague, the Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885.

Nguyen, A.M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2010). Multicultural iden-tity: What it is and why it matters. In R. J. Crisp (Ed.), The psychol-ogy of social and cultural diversity (pp. 87–114). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

Open Society Institute. (2009). Muslims in Europe: A report on 11 EU cities. New York, NY: Open Society Institute.

Osborne, J. W. (1995). Academics, self-esteem, and race: A look at the underlying assumptions of the disidentication hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 449–455.

Pels, T., de Gruijter, M., & Lahri, F. (2008). Jongeren en hun islam: Jongeren over hun ondersteuning als moslim in Nederland [Youth & Islam: Youth about their support as muslims in the Netherlands]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Verwey-Jonker Instituut.

Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., … Viedge, C. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429–452.

Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20, 444–446.

Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). Influence of long-term ra-cial environmental composition on subjective well-being in African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 735–751.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 717–731.

Prins, B., & Saharso, S. (2008). In the spotlight: A blessing and a curse for immigrant women in the Netherlands. Ethnicities, 8, 365–384.

Pronin, E., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. (2004). Identity bifurcation in response to stereotype threat: Women and mathematics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 152–168.

Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615–630.

Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multicultur-alism versus color-blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417–423.

Rivas-Drake, D. (2011). Public ethnic regard and academic adjustment among Latino adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 537–544.

Roggeband, C., & Verloo, M. (2007). Dutch women are liberated, migrant women are a problem: The evolution of policy frames on gender and migration in the Netherlands, 1995–2005. Social Policy and Administration, 41, 271–288.

Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Person-ality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 40–62.

Schlesinger, J. A. M. (1992). The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society. New York, NY: Norton.

Shelton, J. N. (2000). A reconceptualization of how we study issues of racial prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4, 374–390.

Simon, B., & Brown, R. (1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority–majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 53, 703–711.

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, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In B. Leonard (Ed.), Advances in experimental so-cial psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tesser, A. (2000). On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mecha-nisms. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4, 290–299.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York, NY: Blackwell.

Van Laar, C., Bleeker, D., & Ellemers, N. (2012a). Ingroup and outgroup support for upward mobility: Divergent responses to ingroup identifica-tion in low status groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Van Laar, C., Bleeker, D., & Ellemers, N. (2012b). Ingroup support as a significant resource for the upward mobility of members of low status groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Van Laar, C., Derks, B., Ellemers, N., & Bleeker. (2010). Valuing social identity: Consequences for motivation and performance in low status groups. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 602–617.

Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30, 713–740.

Verkuyten, M. (2006). Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: A social identity perspective. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 148–184). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2006). Understanding multicultural attitudes: The role of group status, identification, friendships, and justifying ideologies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 1–18.

Verkuyten, M., & Zaremba, K. (2005). Interethnic relations in a changing political context. Social Psychology, 68, 375–386.

Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837–868.

Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind per-spectives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 78, 635–654.

Yinger, J. M. (1994). Ethnicity: Source of strength? Source of conflict? Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

KU

Leu

ven

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:15

27

Febr

uary

201

5