Notes on Identity Multiplicity, National Group Contact, and Acculturation

Overview

  • Article: Identity Multiplicity, National Group Contact, and Acculturation: The Role of Identity-Related Cognitions by Frederick Sixtus, Jenny S. Wesche, and Rudolf Kerschreiter (Freie Universität Berlin). Part of a special issue on migration and identity multiplicity.
  • Central question: Can PMB (persons with a migration background) become full, accepted members of the receiving society while maintaining their ethnic/religious identities? How do identity-related cognitions shape acculturation attitudes?
  • Design: Two-sample, cross-sectional study in Germany comparing two PMB groups differing in religion and origin to test a model linking contact with the national group to acculturation attitudes via three identity-related cognitions.
  • Samples:
    • Sample 1: Muslim Palestinians (N = 153) living in Germany (Palestinian migration background).
    • Sample 2: Christian Hungarians (N = 181) living in Germany (Hungarian migration background).
  • Data collection: Online survey (Feb–Sept 2017) via community groups and organizations; language options German, Arabic (sample 1), Hungarian (sample 2).
  • Key constructs: Positive and negative contact with the national (German) group; identity-related cognitions (permeability, compatibility, overlap); acculturation attitudes (cultural adoption and cultural maintenance).
  • Analytic approach: Path analysis (lavaan in R) with two-group (sample 1 vs. sample 2) model evaluation, mediation (permeability) and moderation (compatibility) tests, bootstrapped CIs; cross-group comparisons of structural paths.

Key concepts

  • Identity multiplicity: Simultaneous, potentially overlapping memberships across ethnic, national, and religious identities; cognitive representations of how these identities relate.
  • PMB (persons with migration background): Individuals with migration experiences or children of migrants; operationalized here to capture diverse backgrounds in Germany.
  • Identity-related cognitions:
    • Permeability: Perceived ease of crossing the boundary between ethnic and national identities (i.e., can one become German while maintaining ethnicity).
    • Compatibility: Perceived compatibility/incompatibility between ethnic and national identities (i.e., can both be held together).
    • Overlap: Perceived overlap between ethnic and religious identities (i.e., does being Palestinian imply being Muslim, etc.).
  • Acculturation model (bidimensional): Two independent attitudes toward the host culture and heritage culture:
    • Cultural adoption (integration in practice): Orientation toward the host/national culture.
    • Cultural maintenance (heritage culture): Orientation toward one’s ethnic heritage.
    • Outcomes are encapsulated in four acculturation strategies:
    • Integration: CA high, CM high.
    • Assimilation: CA high, CM low.
    • Separation: CA low, CM high.
    • Marginalization: CA low, CM low.
    • The model predicts that integration generally yields best psychosocial/sociocultural adaptation for PMB.

Theoretical background and rationale

  • Germany as a context: Not a classic immigrant nation historically, but now a major immigrant-receiving country; debates persist about which immigrants can integrate and become German.
  • Identity dynamics: National, ethnic, and religious identities interact in everyday interactions; identity-related cognitions are shaped by laws, policies, and day-to-day experiences of contact with the national majority.
  • Intergroup contact theory: Positive contact can reduce prejudice and improve attitudes; negative contact can worsen attitudes. In PMB, contact with the national group is linked to acculturation attitudes, potentially mediated by identity cognitions.
  • Religious context: Religion shapes and reshapes the interpretation of identity relations, especially in majority-Christian Germany where Islam is often perceived as foreign or incompatible with national identity.

Hypotheses (conceptual model in Figure 1)

  • Exogenous predictors: Positive contact; Negative contact; Overlap (religious-ethnic overlap).
  • Mediator: Permeability of the ethnic-national boundary.
  • Moderator: Compatibility of ethnic and national identities.
  • Outcome: Cultural adoption (cultural adoption) and cultural maintenance (cultural maintenance).
  • General logic: Positive contact should increase permeability and compatibility, thereby promoting cultural adoption (and, via compatibility, maintenance). Negative contact should reduce permeability and compatibility, reducing adoption. Identity overlap should have differential effects depending on whether the PMB share the majority religion.
  • Hypotheses about direct/indirect effects (paraphrased):
    • H1: Positive contact with the national group relates positively to cultural adoption, mediated by permeability. (Positive path: positive contact → permeability → adoption)
    • H1a: Indirect effect of positive contact on adoption via permeability is significant.
    • H2: Negative contact with the national group relates negatively to cultural adoption, mediated by permeability. (Negative path: negative contact → permeability → adoption)
    • H2a: Indirect effect of negative contact on adoption via permeability is significant in at least one sample.
    • H3: Positive contact relates positively to perceived compatibility of ethnic and national identities.
    • H4: Negative contact relates negatively to perceived compatibility.
    • H5: Perceived compatibility moderates the association between cultural adoption and cultural maintenance (high compatibility supports integration; low compatibility reduces it).
    • H6: Perceived overlap of religious and ethnic identities relates to cultural adoption, mediated by permeability, when PMB do not share the majority religion.
    • H6a: Indirect effect of overlap on adoption via permeability.
    • H7: Perceived overlap relates to compatibility in the same context; if no shared religion, overlap reduces compatibility.
    • Summary: Overlap effects are expected to differ between Muslim Palestinian PMB (sample 1) and Christian Hungarian PMB (sample 2).
  • Conceptual model (Figure 1) dynamics:
    • Positive contact → permeability (+)
    • Negative contact → permeability (−)
    • Permeability → adoption (+)
    • Positive contact → compatibility (+)
    • Negative contact → compatibility (− or non-significant, depending on sample)
    • Overlap → permeability (−/0 or negative in sample 1; small/none in sample 2)
    • Overlap → compatibility (− or small in sample 1; negative in sample 2)
    • Adoption → maintenance (positive); compatibility moderates this path (interaction term).

Method: participants, procedure, measures

  • Participants and data collection:
    • Two samples collected online (February–September 2017) from PMB in Germany.
    • Sample 1: 153 Palestinians (Muslim) after exclusions (85 females, 68 males; age M = 41.34, SD = 13.15). 58 born in Germany; mean residence in Germany ~15.87 years.
    • Sample 2: 181 Hungarians (Christian) after exclusions (128 females, 52 males, 1 non-specified; age M = 36.21, SD = 13.15). 7 born in Germany; mean residence ~10.14 years.
  • Measures (all items on 7-point scales unless noted):
    • Positive/Negative national group contact: 4-item scales from Dhont & Van Hiel (2009).
    • Positive sample item example: “How often do you have friendly contact with Germans in Germany?”
    • Negative sample item example: “How often do you have hostile contact with Germans in Germany?”
    • Perceived overlap of religious and ethnic identities: 7 Venn-diagram items (Shamir & Kark, 2004) showing two circles (religious identity and ethnic identity) with increasing overlap.
    • Perceived permeability of the boundary between national/ethnic groups: 3-item scale (Mummendey et al., 1999).
    • Perceived compatibility of national/ethnic identities: 3 items (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012; Martinovic & Verkuyten, 2012) tapping identity and lifestyle compatibility.
    • Cultural adoption and cultural maintenance: Vancouver Index of Acculturation (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000) with 10 items per culture; domains include values, practices, social relationships; items like “I am interested in having German friends.” and “I often participate in Hungarian cultural traditions.”
  • Translation and quality control:
    • Original scales translated into German, then back-translated; discrepancies resolved within the research team.
    • German scales translated into Arabic and Hungarian following the same procedure.
  • Data characteristics and reliability:
    • All scales showed acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > .70) in both samples.
    • Total items: 35 items across 7 constructs; sample size: N = 334 (153 in sample 1; 181 in sample 2).
  • Statistical analyses:
    • Primary method: Path analysis using R (lavaan 0.6-3) with maximum likelihood estimation.
    • Rationale for approach: Too few cases to support a full multigroup SEM with measurement invariance; therefore, tested a two-group path model with 74 free parameters (configural approach).
    • Model specification (conceptual): Positive/Negative contact and overlap as exogenous predictors; permeability and compatibility as mediators/moderators; cultural adoption as the proximal outcome; cultural maintenance as the distal outcome.
    • Mediation and moderation tests:
    • Mediation: Indirect effects a*b tested with bootstrapped CIs (n = 5,000); indirect effects considered significant if CIs exclude zero.
    • Moderation: Interaction term (Adoption × Compatibility) predicting Maintenance; variables centered to compute interaction; mean-centering of all non-interaction predictors; following Dawson (2014).
    • Model fit assessment (configural model): χ²(14) = 39.290, p < .001; χ²/df = 2.806; CFI = .955; RMSEA = .104; SRMR = .047.
    • Power considerations: For sample size N = 334, 74 parameters approached the recommended 5:1 cases-to-parameters ratio (Tanaka, 1987).

Key results and interpretations

  • Direct and indirect effects on cultural adoption (Hypotheses 1, 1a, 2):
    • Positive contact → Adoption: direct positive effects in both samples (sample 1: β = .490; sample 2: β = .417; both p < .001).
    • Positive contact → Permeability → Adoption: significant indirect effect in both samples (sample 1 indirect = .101; sample 2 indirect = .065; both p < .05).
    • Negative contact → Adoption: mixed results by sample (sample 1 direct β = .087, not significant; sample 2 direct β = −.160, p < .05); indirect via permeability not significant in either sample (sample 1 indirect = −.009; sample 2 indirect = −.041).
  • Role of identity-related cognitions: permeability and compatibility (Hypotheses 3, 4, 5):
    • Positive contact → Compatibility: significant in both samples (sample 1 β = .481; sample 2 β = .361; both p < .001).
    • Negative contact → Compatibility: non-significant in sample 1 (β = .031) and negative and significant in sample 2 (β = −.304, p < .001).
    • Permeability as mediator: positive associations with adoption when mediated by permeability; the direct effect of permeability on adoption was strong (sample 1 β = .234; sample 2 β = .171; both p < .001 or p < .05).
    • Permeability x (Overlaps) relations (Overlaps affecting permeability): Overlap predicts permeability negatively in sample 1 (β = −.204, p < .01) and non-significant in sample 2 (β ≈ −.015).
    • Compatibility as moderator (Hypothesis 5): Interaction Adoption × Compatibility predicting Maintenance was significant in both samples (sample 1 β = .296, p < .01; sample 2 β = .166, p < .05); compatible identifications bolster the positive link between Adoption and Maintenance.
    • Adoption → Maintenance: positive in both samples, stronger in sample 1 (sample 1 β = .654, p < .001) than sample 2 (β = .144, not significant).
    • Compatibility → Maintenance: negative in both samples (sample 1 β = −.367, p < .001; sample 2 β = −.200, p < .05).
  • Overlap of religious and ethnic identities (Hypotheses 6, 6a, 7):
    • Sample 1 (Muslim Palestinians): Perceived overlap related negatively to Adoption directly (β = −.176, p < .01) and indirectly via permeability (indirect = −.048, p < .05); also negatively related to Compatibility (β = −.147, p < .05).
    • Sample 2 (Christian Hungarians): Overlap had no significant direct or indirect associations with Adoption or Compatibility (direct = .057; indirect = −.003; both non-significant).
    • Implication: Overlap effects are context-dependent; in Muslim-Palestinian PMB, stronger overlap reduces adoption by diminishing permeability and compatibility; in Christian-Hungarian PMB, overlap effects are negligible.
  • Exploration of simple slopes (moderation results):
    • For high perceived compatibility (1 SD above mean): Adoption strongly predicts Maintenance in both samples (sample 1 slope ≈ 0.511; z > 4.8; p < .001; sample 2 slope ≈ 0.351; z ≈ 2.60; p ≈ .009).
    • For low compatibility (1 SD below mean): Maintenance slope remains positive but weaker (sample 1 ≈ 0.211; p ≈ .005; sample 2 ≈ 0.044; not significant, p ≈ .586).
  • Structural equivalence across groups (Model comparisons, Table 3):
    • Unconstrained model (m0) fit worse than fully constrained models; however, a fully constrained model across all paths (m1) significantly worsened fit (χ² increase, CFI drop), indicating non-equivalence of paths across groups.
    • Tests showed that removing constraints on the three paths from perceived overlap (m2) improved fit relative to m1 but still worse than unconstrained (m0).
    • Further removing constraints from negative contact (m3) improved fit but still worse than unconstrained.
    • The final model with partial equivalence (m4) where only the constraint on paths from perceived overlap, negative contact on adoption via permeability, and positive contact on adoption were relaxed showed a fit not significantly worse than unconstrained, indicating partial structural equivalence:
    • Conclusion: Perceived overlap paths are non-equivalent across groups; some equality constraints hold (e.g., permeability-related pathways for some predictors) but not all, particularly those involving overlap and its downstream effects.

Discussion and interpretation

  • Positive contact with the national group consistently supports cultural adoption directly and indirectly via permeability in both samples, underscoring its broad facilitative role for integration.
  • Negative contact’s effects are sample-dependent: robust negative associations with permeability, compatibility, and adoption were observed primarily in the Hungarian-Christian sample (sample 2), suggesting contextual or group-specific sensitivity to discrimination or rejection cues.
  • Identity-related cognitions matter: permeability and compatibility serve as mechanisms/moderators linking contact experiences to acculturation attitudes; overlap between ethnic and religious identities shows significant consequences for PMB’s acculturation in the Muslim-Palestinian sample but is less influential in the Christian-Hungarian sample.
  • Moderation by compatibility highlights that when PMB feel their ethnic and national identities are compatible, the link between adoption and maintenance strengthens, supporting an integration strategy; when compatibility is low, the adoption-maintenance link weakens or reverses depending on the sample.
  • Group context matters: Muslims in Germany face stronger social climates that cast Islam as foreign; Christians share the majority religion, potentially reducing identity conflict; these contexts influence how overlap and religious identity interact with acculturation processes.
  • The authors emphasize that different immigrant groups face different integration contexts; hence, comparing across groups provides richer insight into identity multiplicity and its role in acculturation.

Religious identity and cross-group differences

  • Muslim Palestinian sample (sample 1): Overlap of religious and ethnic identities negatively relates to adoption and compatibility; high overlap → lower permeability and compatibility, leading to reduced adoption and greater perceived incompatibility with the German national identity.
  • Christian Hungarian sample (sample 2): Overlap effects are negligible for adoption and compatibility, suggesting that shared religion with the majority mitigates overlap’s inhibiting role.
  • Implication: Religious identity’s impact on acculturation is not uniform; it depends on whether the majority religion of the host society is shared and on broader socio-political climates.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

  • Cross-sectional design: Causality cannot be inferred; longitudinal designs are needed to establish directionality.
  • Single-source data: Self-report measures raise concerns about common-method variance; future studies could include behavioral or observational data, or data from multiple reporters.
  • Measurement invariance: Due to sample size, a full multigroup SEM with measurement invariance could not be conducted; future studies with larger samples should test measurement equivalence more rigorously.
  • Generalizability: The two samples differ on more than religion (e.g., cultural background, integration opportunity, duration of residence), which may confound results. Replication with more diverse groups and in different host-country contexts is needed.
  • Measurement refinements: The authors note that positive contact was measured in a generic way; future work should differentiate forms of positive/negative contact (quality, contact type, motive) to unpack nuanced effects on identity cognitions.
  • Additional identity cognitions: Other factors such as perceived legitimacy and stability of boundaries could be integrated to broaden understanding of identity dynamics in acculturation.

Implications for policy, practice, and future research directions

  • Promote positive contact opportunities across domains (schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, public institutions) to foster permeability and compatibility perceptions, which in turn support integration.
  • Reduce negative contact through anti-discrimination policies and interventions while recognizing that positive contact can have strong, beneficial effects beyond reducing prejudice.
  • Recognize and address context-specific needs: In contexts where religious identity is more salient and contested (e.g., Muslim PMB in Germany), interventions may need to focus more on reducing perceived incompatibilities and increasing boundary permeability.
  • Education and curriculum ideas: Cross-cultural/faith-inclusive programs in schools may help develop a shared identity that respects both heritage and national belonging, potentially mitigating the negative impact of overlap in some groups.
  • Theoretical contributions: The study introduces identity-related cognitions as mechanisms linking intergroup contact to acculturation, enriching intergroup contact theory with a focus on relationships among social identities rather than identities in isolation.

Key numerical and methodological notes (selected items)

  • Sample sizes and data characteristics:
    • Overall N = 334 (Sample 1 n = 153; Sample 2 n = 181).
    • Cronbach’s alphas for all scales > .70 in both samples.
  • Model fit (configural, all paths free): χ²(14) = 39.290, p < .001; χ²/df = 2.806; CFI = .955; RMSEA = .104; SRMR = .047.
  • Path coefficients (selected, bootstrapped 95% CIs):
    • Positive contact → Adoption: sample 1 β = .490; sample 2 β = .417
    • Positive contact → Permeability: a1 = .432* (sample 1); a1 = .383* (sample 2)
    • Permeability → Adoption: b = .234*** (sample 1); b = .171* (sample 2)
    • Indirect effects (anb): Positive contact via Permeability → Adoption: indirect1 = .101* (sample 1); .065* (sample 2)
    • Overlap → Adoption: direct3 = −.176** (sample 1); .057 (sample 2)
    • Overlap → Permeability: a3 = −.204** (sample 1); −.015 (sample 2)
    • Positive contact → Compatibility: sample 1 β = .481; sample 2 β = .361
    • Negative contact → Compatibility: sample 1 β = .031 (n.s.); sample 2 β = −.304***
    • Compatibility → Maintenance: sample 1 β = −.367**; sample 2 β = −.200
    • Adoption → Maintenance: sample 1 β = .654***; sample 2 β = .144 (n.s.)
    • Interaction term (Adoption × Compatibility) → Maintenance: sample 1 β = .296*; sample 2 β = .166
  • Model comparison for structural equivalence (Table 3):
    • m0 (unconstrained) has acceptable fit; m1 (all paths constrained) shows substantial deterioration in fit; m2–m4 (progressively relaxing constraints) improve fit but remain worse than m0; final indication of partial equivalence: some paths equal across groups (e.g., permeability paths for adoption), but perceived overlap paths differ significantly across groups.

Conclusions

  • Identity multiplicity, operationalized via permeability, compatibility, and overlap, is a productive lens for understanding PMB acculturation in contexts of contact with the national group.
  • Positive contact generally promotes integration via permeability and compatibility; the role of overlap is context-dependent, showing substantial effects in Muslim-Palestinian PMB but not in Christian-Hungarian PMB.
  • Compatibility between ethnic and national identities acts as a moderator: when compatibility is high, adoption and maintenance align more positively, supporting integration; when compatibility is low, the adoption-maintenance link weakens.
  • The study highlights the need to consider multiple identity facets (national, ethnic, religious) and their cognitive representations when examining immigrant acculturation, and it emphasizes the contextual sensitivity of identity processes across immigrant groups.
  • Policy implications emphasize fostering positive contact and reducing negative contact, with attention to religious identity’s role in different national contexts. Future work should pursue longitudinal designs, broader identity cognitions, and more rigorous measurement invariance to strengthen causal inferences and cross-group comparisons.

Notes on terminology and references

  • PMB: Persons with migration background; defined in the German statistical context as someone who was or has at least one parent born without German citizenship.
  • The study situates itself within intergroup contact theory and social identity theory, drawing on foundational work by Allport (1954), Tajfel (1981), Tajfel & Turner (1986), and subsequent work on acculturation and identity complexity (Berry et al.; Verkuyten et al.; Fleischmann et al.).
  • The article contributes to the Special Issue on immigration and identity multiplicity, with ongoing dialogue about how multiple identities interact in real-world integration contexts.

Formulas and key representations (for quick reference)

  • Acculturation strategies (bidimensional model):
    • Integration: CA ext{ high}, ext{ } CM ext{ high}
    • Assimilation: CA ext{ high}, ext{ } CM ext{ low}
    • Separation: CA ext{ low}, ext{ } CM ext{ high}
    • Marginalization: CA ext{ low}, ext{ } CM ext{ low}
  • Indirect and total effects:
    • Indirect effect: ext{Indirect} = a imes b
    • Total effect: ext{Total} = c + (a imes b)
  • Moderation (interaction):
    • Maintenance influenced by Adoption, Compatibility, and their interaction: Maintenance = eta0 + eta1 ext{Adoption} + eta2 ext{Compatibility} + eta3 ( ext{Adoption} imes ext{Compatibility}) + ext{error}
  • Model representation (conceptual): Positive/Negative contact, Overlap as exogenous inputs; Permeability and Compatibility as mediators/moderators; Adoption as proximal outcome; Maintenance as distal outcome.

If you’d like, I can condense these notes further into a quick-reference cheat sheet with only the most test-relevant points (hypotheses, core model, and key results) or expand any section with additional detail from the text.