Correspondence between minority and majority acculturation preferences reduces intergroup conflict

Evidence

A further innovation in acculturation research has been a shift away from a focus on individual acculturative outcomes to the effects of acculturation preferences on the positivity (or otherwise) of intergroup relations (e.g. Zick, Wagner, van Dick, & Petzel, 2001). Generally, this research has replicated patterns previously found for individual outcomes: Integration is the most beneficial strategy, and marginalization the least (Zagefka & Brown, 2002). Furthermore, this research has also shown that “fit” does indeed significantly predict intergroup outcomes. A good “fit” – that is, a good correspondence between minority and majority preferences – results in less conflictual intergroup relations (Zagefka & Brown, 2002; Zagefka et al., 2004). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 460

Acculturation researchers have also investigated how the preferences of minorities and majorities “fit” together. For instance, in their Interactive Acculturation Model, Bourhis et al. (1997) argue that a situation of good fit exists when – among other combinations – both minority and majority prefer assimilation. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 458

Categorization

• XREF: Gamma of the fit/correspondence idea with the earlier commitment/spillover work on intergroup antagonism; also echoes the Milgrom ‘fit’ institutions theme.
• DEFINE: The Interactive Acculturation Model’s ‘fit’ concept: outcomes depend on minority-majority preference matches, not just one side’s chosen strategy.
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 460; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 458