Changes in migrants‘ personal stereotypes while acculturating to their host countries - PowerPoint Presentation

Changes in migrants‘ personal stereotypes while acculturating to their host countriesAdrian StanciuDissertation Defense ColloquiumFebruary 14, 2017 On the cognitive adaptation of migrants

2 Introduction INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION

This thesis is about:3 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Stereotypes Cultures Migration Romania & Romanians

The thesis is about adaptation of migrants4 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Adaptation – the outcome of acculturation process (Ward, Bochner , & Furnham , 2001) Migrants – individuals who relocate from their country of birth to another country because of personal preferences or socio-economic disadvantages in their countries(Sam & Berry, 2006) Affect Behavior Cognition

The thesis is about adaptation of migrants5 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Adaptation – the outcome of acculturation process (Ward, Bochner , & Furnham , 2001) Migrants – individuals who relocate from their country of birth to another country because of personal preferences of socio-economic disadvantages in their countries(Sam & Berry, 2006) Affect Behavior Cognition How I feel in this country What I do in this country What I believe about people in this country

What I believe about people in this country6 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Cognitive adaptation of migrants – to date, predominantly about ethnic/national stereotypes (e.g., Lonnqvist et al., 2003) BUT Stereotypes – beliefs about characteristics of social groups(Hilton & von Hippel, 1996)

The thesis is about: 7 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Whether individuals’ stereotypes change while acculturating to their host countries & Under which factors is this process more likely to occur

The thesis is about: 8 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Whether individuals’ stereotypes change while acculturating to their host countries & Under which factors is this process more likely to occur

Thesis overview9 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION

Presentation overview10 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION The Integrative Model of Stereotype Accommodation Within-Culture Variation Empirical Cultural stereotypes in Romania Conceptual A theoretical framework: tIMoSA Stereotype Accommodation Empirical Cross-cultural differences in stereotypes in Romania, Germany and France Stereotype Accommodation of Romanian migrants in Germany and France

11 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Contribution

Stereotypes12 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION ( Bigler & Liber, 2006) (Kashima, 2000) Personal Subjective beliefs (Devine, 1989) Cultural Shared beliefs (Devine, 1989) Stereotypes – beliefs about characteristics of social groups (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996)

Stereotypes13 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Cultural Shared beliefs (Devine, 1989) Personal Subjective beliefs (Devine, 1989) ( Bigler & Liber, 2006) Situated social cognition (Smith & Semin , 2004) Personal stereotypes are Dynamic Specific to situation/context

Stereotypes14 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Cultural Shared beliefs (Devine, 1989) Personal Subjective beliefs (Devine, 1989) Stereotype Content Model (SCM) (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Cuddy et al.,2009; Stanciu, Cohrs, Hanke , & Gavreliuc , 2016) Cultural situation of personal stereotypes Stereotypes described as: warmth & competence ( Bigler & Liber, 2006)

Stereotypes15 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Cultural Shared beliefs (Devine, 1989) Personal Subjective beliefs (Devine, 1989) Cultural situation of personal stereotypes ( Bigler & Liber 2006; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Cuddy et al.,2009; Stanciu, Cohrs, Hanke , & Gavreliuc, 2016) Personal stereotypes are about pertinent/salient social groups in one’s cultureCultural stereotypes shape one’s personal stereotypes

During the acculturation process, how do migrants incorporate the cultural stereotypes of their host countries into their existing stereotypes? 16 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION

The Integrative Model of Stereotype Accommodation (tIMoSA) 17 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Individual-Related Differences Cross-Cultural Differences Disconfirming Information Learning Opportunities Stereotype Accommodation Cognitive Processes

18 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION A process whereby migrants incorporate the stereotype-relevant information that they learn in their host countries into their existing stereotypes Stereotype Accommodation

19 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Towards cultural stereotypes of host country Towards cultural stereotypes of home country Neither towards cultural stereotypes of host country nor towards cultural stereotypes of home country Stereotype Accommodation

The Integrative Model of Stereotype Accommodation (tIMoSA) 20 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Individual-Related Differences Cross-Cultural Differences Disconfirming Information Learning Opportunities Stereotype Accommodation Cognitive Processes

Disconfirming Information21 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Existing stereotypes Disconfirming information – Information that challenges existing stereotypes ( H ewstone , Johnston, & Aird , 1992; Crisp & Turner, 2011) Cultural Shared beliefs (Devine, 1989)

Existing stereotypes: Cultural stereotypes in Romania 22 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Romania East-Europe EU member since 2007 Apprx . 20 million (INS, 2011) No typical WEIRD samples Mixed Western-Eastern culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov , 2010)Under-researched context (cf., David, 2015)

Existing stereotypes: Cultural stereotypes in Romania 23 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ1: What are pertinent cultural stereotypes in Romania? Samples: Romanian natives from four country-regions Approach: Quantitative Analyses: Χ 2 , EFA, CFA, Cluster Analyses, MANOVAs Measures: SCM – open ended question SCM – warmth ( α =.79,.93) and competence ( α =.80,. 94) Study 1 90 23.42 (7.07) 49.00% 58.89% Study 2 306 23.91 (6.98) 61.90% 72.90%

Existing stereotypes: Cultural stereotypes in Romania 24 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ: What are pertinent cultural stereotypes in Romania?

Disconfirming Information25 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Existing stereotypes Disconfirming information – Information that challenges existing stereotypes ( H ewstone , Johnston, & Aird , 1992; Crisp & Turner, 2011)

Disconfirming Information26 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Disconfirming information – Information that challenges existing stereotypes ( H ewstone , Johnston, & Aird , 1992; Crisp & Turner, 2011) Disconfirming information

Disconfirming Information The Integrative Model of Stereotype Accommodation ( tIMoSA ) 27 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Individual-Related Differences Cross-Cultural Differences Learning Opportunities Stereotype Accommodation Cognitive Processes

Cross-cultural differences28 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Cross-cultural differences – Say, in two countries/nations there are different values, traditions , etc. Cross-cultural similarities – S ay, in two countries/nations there are similar values, traditions , etc. (Bar-Yosef, 1968; Galchenko & van de Vijver, 2007) Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions(Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkow, 2010)Here: Individualism

Disconfirming Information29 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Disconfirming information – Information that challenges existing stereotypes ( H ewstone , Johnston, & Aird , 1992; Crisp & Turner, 2011) Disconfirming information

Disconfirming information: Cross-Cultural Differences in Stereotypes in Romania, Germany and France 30 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Romania Home country of migrants Germany & France Host countries of migrants Highly preferred destinations ( Fundația pentru o Societate Deschisă, 2006)

Cross-Cultural Differences in Stereotypes31 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ2: What are differences and similarities between Romanian cultural stereotypes and German and French cultural stereotypes? Samples: Romanian, German & French natives Approach: Quantitative Analyses: MG CFA, MANCOVAs Measures: 5 prototypical social groups SCM – warmth and competence ( α =.74, .92) 188 20.15 (2.26) 85.00 % 97.00 % 209 24.22 (5.17) 65.00 % 91.00 % 135 26.78 (6.61) 78.00 % 86.00 %

Cross-Cultural Differences in Stereotypes32 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ2: What are differences and similarities between Romanian cultural stereotypes and German and French cultural stereotypes?

Learning Opportunities The Integrative Model of Stereotype Accommodation ( tIMoSA ) 33 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Individual-Related Differences Cross-Cultural Differences Stereotype Accommodation Cognitive Processes Disconfirming Information

Disconfirming Information 34 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Disconfirming information – Information that challenges existing stereotypes ( H ewstone , Johnston, & Aird , 1992; Crisp & Turner, 2011) Disconfirming information

Opportunities to learn about disconfirming information35 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Learning opportunity – A situation which increases the migrants’ likelihood of becoming aware of the cultural stereotypes in their host countries Size of ethnic group ( Esser , 2010) Vitality of ethnic group (Giles, Bourhis , & Taylor, 1997; Esser , 2010; Ait Ourasse & van de Vijver , 2004) Length of stay in the host country (Demes & Geeraert , 2015) A small sized ethnic group A less vital ethnic group Longer stay in host country More opportunities to interact with natives = L earning about Cultural Stereotypes

Cognitive processes for the incorporation of disconfirming information36 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Cognitive process – An event that takes place inside the minds of individuals Motivation Ability Do I want to incorporate this disconfirming information? Am I able to incorporate this disconfirming information? e.g., Acculturation orientation (Berry, 1997) People desire to hold contextually consistent beliefs about objects or other people (Crisp & Turner, 2011; Petty & Cacioppo , 1986) People vary in the intensity/direction of this process ( Petty & Cacioppo , 1986; Petty & Wegener, 1999) e.g., Ecological context (Ward & Geeraert , 2016)

Initial test ofstereotype accommodation 37 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Romanian migrants In Germany In France Highly preferred destinations ( Fundația pentru o Societate Deschisă, 2006)

Stereotype Accommodation38 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ3: Do longer stay in the host country and acculturation orientations predict migrants’ personal stereotypes being similar to cultural stereotypes in their home or host countries? Samples: Romanian migrants in Germany and France Approach: Quantitative: Cross-sectional Analyses: Euclidean Distances, Multivariate regressions Measures: 5 prototypical social groups SCM – warmth and competence ( α =.68, .96) Length of stay (years) Acculturation orientations ( α =.73, .84) ( Suanet & van de Vijver , 2009) 171 33.03 (8.96) 66.00 % 10.00 % 54 31.98 (7.98) 69.00 % 17.00 %

Stereotype Accommodation39 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ3.1: Does longer stay in the host country predicts migrants’ personal stereotypes being similar to cultural stereotypes in Romania or in Germany ?

Stereotype Accommodation40 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ3.2: Does longer stay in the host country predicts migrants’ personal stereotypes being similar to cultural stereotypes in Romania or in France ?

Stereotype Accommodation41 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ3.3: Does desire to maintain the home culture predicts migrants’ personal stereotypes being similar to cultural stereotypes in Romania or in Germany ?

Stereotype Accommodation42 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ3.4: Does desire to maintain the home culture predicts migrants’ personal stereotypes being similar to cultural stereotypes in Romania or in France?

Stereotype Accommodation43 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ3.5: Does interest in the host culture predicts migrants’ personal stereotypes being similar to cultural stereotypes in Romania or in Germany ?

Stereotype Accommodation44 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION RQ3.6: Does the interest in the host culture predicts migrants’ personal stereotypes being similar to cultural stereotypes in Romania or in France ?

Learning Opportunities The Integrative Model of Stereotype Accommodation ( tIMoSA ) 45 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Individual-Related Differences Cross-Cultural Differences Stereotype Accommodation Cognitive Processes Disconfirming Information

Individual-related differences46 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Individual-related differences – Characteristics of individuals that distinguish among their Reliance on stereotypes in genera l: PNS (Schaller, Boyd, Yohannes , & O’Brien, 1995) ; prejudices (Crandall, Bahns, Warner, & Schaller, 2011) Predisposition to incorporate new information: age ( Meeus , van de Schoot , Keijsers , & Branje , 2012); openness to experience (Flynn, 2005) Identification with the target group (Tajfel, Bilig, Bundy, & Flament , 1977; Demoulin & Teixeira, 2010 )

47 Conclusion INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION

Learning Opportunities The thesis was about: tIMoSA 48 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Individual-Related Differences Cross-Cultural Differences Stereotype Accommodation Cognitive Processes Disconfirming Information

The thesis was about:49 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION Whether individuals’ personal stereotypes change while acculturating to their host countries & Under which factors is this process more likely to occur

Limitations50 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION tIMoSA partially tested Cross-sectional data Convenience samples Heterogeneity of personal and cultural stereotypes No explicit hypothesis for each “target group”

Limitations51 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION What about the un-expected direction of (some) findings ? Can tIMoSA explain them? Mutuality in “stereotype accommodation” How are “A” and “B” “accommodated” by tIMoSA ?

Implications and Contributions52 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION (How) Do migrants’ personal stereotypes change while acculturating to their host countries?

Implications and Contributions53 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION It is not only “ethnic/national” stereotypes that change in the process of acculturation Personal stereotypes are not „fixed“, they can change as a result of learning about new cultural stereotypes Expansion of acculturation literature on cognitive adaptation of migrants Stereotypes as culturally situated Expansion of literature on stereotypes as situated cognition Initial research applying the SCM in Romania Contributes to WEIRD samples debate

Implications54 INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTION CONCLUSION (How) Do migrants’ personal stereotypes change while acculturating to their host countries? YES, and I propose it depends on Cross-cultural differences, learning opportunities, cognitive processes and individual-related differences.

Thank you for your attention!a.stanciu@jacobs-university.de 55

56 Sample Distance scores to Predictor b SE b t (one-tailed) p ɳ 2 1-β Hyp. confirmed? Romanians in Germany Romanian C.S. Length of stay .06 .05 1.26 .11 .01 .24 no Interest host .11 .06 1.89 .03 .03 .47 yes Maintain home -.01 .06 -.24 .41 .01 .06 no German C.S. Length of stay -.12 .06 -2.01 .03 .03 .52 yes Interest host -.03 .07 -.41 .34 .01 .07 no     Maintain home -.03 .07 -.36 .64 .01 .06 no Romanians in France Romanian C.S. Length of stay -.09 .07 -1.32 .90 .04 .25 no Interest host .32 .11 2.88 .01 .17 .80 yes Maintain home .17 .12 1.41 .91 .05 .28 no French C.S. Length of stay -.17 .06 -2.99 .01 .18 .83 yes Interest host .04 .10 .38 .64 .01 .07 no     Maintain home .04 .10 .43 .34 .01 .07 no

57 Target group Personal stereotypes relative to Predictor b SE b t (one-tailed ) p ɳ 2 1-β Unemployed people Romanian C.S. N = 107 Length of stay .03 .03 1.05 .15 .01 .18 Interest Host -.07 .03 -1.93 .97 .04 .48 Maintain Home .05 .04 1.44 .08 .02 .30 German C.S. Length of stay .02 .03 .78 .22 .01 .12 Interest Host -.04 .04 -1.06 .15 .01 .18     Maintain home .04 .04 1.17 .12 .01 .21 Women Romanian C.S. N = 118 Length of stay .06 .04 1.54 .06 .02 .33 Interest Host .04 .05 .71 .24 .01 .10 Maintain Home -.05 .05 -.96 .17 .01 .16 German C.S. Length of stay .07 .04 1.86 .96 .03 .45 Interest Host .07 .05 1.44 .08 .02 .30     Maintain Home -.05 .05 -1.02 .16 .01 .17 Homosexuals Romanian C.S. N = 112 Length of stay .05 .04 1.21 .12 .01 .22 Interest Host .03 .06 .54 .30 .01 .08 Maintain Home .05 .06 .83 .21 .01 .13 German C.S. Length of stay .02 .04 .59 .28 .01 .09 Interest Host -.04 .04 -.91 .19 .01 .15     Maintain Home .10 .05 2.19 .02 .04 .58 Politicians Romanian C.S. N = 125 Length of stay .06 .05 1.26 .11 .01 .24 Interest Host .11 .06 1.89 .03 .03 .47 Maintain Home -.01 .06 -.24 .41 .01 .06 German C.S. Length of stay -.12 .06 -2.01 .03 .03 .52 Interest Host -.03 .07 -.41 .34 .01 .07     Maintain Home -.03 .07 -.36 .36 .01 .06 Rich people Romanian C.S. N = 111 Length of stay -.03 .03 -1.18 .12 .01 .22 Interest Host .04 .03 1.21 .12 .01 .22 Maintain Home -.02 .03 -.64 .26 .01 .10 German C.S. Length of stay -.04 .03 -1.33 .10 .02 .26 Interest Host .04 .03 1.26 .11 .02 .24     Maintain Home -.02 .03 -.59 .28 .01 .09

58 Target group Personal stereotypes relative to Predictor b SE b t (one-tailed ) p ɳ 2 1-β Unemployed people Romanian C.S. N = 35 Length of stay -.02 .04 .31 .62 .01 .08 Interest Host .02 .08 .39 .77 .01 .06 Maintain Home .06 .07 .22 .44 .02 .12 French C.S. Length of stay -.05 .04 .14 .27 .04 .19 Interest Host .02 .08 .39 .77 .01 .06     Maintain home .05 .07 .25 .50 .02 .10 Women Romanian C.S. N = 42 Length of stay .06 .05 .12 .23 .04 .22 Interest Host -.02 .09 .40 .79 .01 .06 Maintain Home -.06 .08 .23 .45 .01 .11 French C.S. Length of stay .03 .06 .32 .63 .01 .08 Interest Host .05 .11 .32 .63 .01 .08     Maintain Home -.03 .09 .38 .76 .01 .06 Homosexuals Romanian C.S. N = 42 Length of stay .05 .07 .24 .48 .01 .11 Interest Host -.04 .12 .37 .74 .01 .06 Maintain Home -.06 .11 .31 .61 .01 .08 French C.S. Length of stay .05 .05 .19 .37 .02 .15 Interest Host -.06 .10 .27 .54 .01 .09     Maintain Home .04 .09 .31 .61 .01 .08 Politicians Romanian C.S. N = 45 Length of stay -.09 .07 .10 .19 .04 .25 Interest Host .32 .11 .01 .01 .17 .80 Maintain Home .17 .12 .09 .17 .05 .28 French C.S. Length of stay -.17 .06 .01 .01 .18 .83 Interest Host .04 .10 .36 .71 .01 .07     Maintain Home .04 .10 .34 .67 .01 .07 Rich people Romanian C.S. N = 39 Length of stay .02 .03 .26 .52 .01 .10 Interest Host .12 .05 .02 .04 .12 .56 Maintain Home -.05 .05 .17 .34 .03 .16 French C.S. Length of stay .01 .04 .35 .69 .01 .07 Interest Host .11 .07 .05 .10 .08 .38     Maintain Home -.02 .06 .39 .78 .01 .06

59 Extra slide Stereotype Accommodation, additional variables in the model Romanians in Germany

60 Extra slide Stereotype Accommodation, additional variables in the model Romanians in France

61Extra slideIoS measure (identification approximation) How do you judge the similarities and differences between yourself and politicians? Please tick a number below two circles which best represents the similarities and differences.

“Off the top of your head, what various types of people do you think today’s Romanian society categorizes into groups?” 62 Social group Bucharest Iași Timișoara Tîrgu-Mureș χ 2 (3, N = 90) p n % n % n % n % Adults 2 10.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.98 .26 Anarchists 2 10.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.98 .26 Ardeleni 2 10.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.98 .26 Artists 2 10.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.98 .26 Băsiști 2 10.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.98 .26 Children 2 10.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.98 .26 Extra slide Social Groups Identification

63

Cultural StereotypesWarmth – likeable, warm, amusing, good-natured, well-intentioned, & honest Competence – conscientious, organized, diligent, competent, efficient, & independent 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 64 Extra slide Cross-cultural comparison on cultural stereotypes

65Extra slideEmpirical work: Descriptive statistics for samples of natives     Romanian natives German natives French natives     Social group Dim. M SD α M SD α M SD α d1 d2 Unemployed W 3.07 .68 .86 2.80 .55 .83 2.73 .80 .90 0.43 0.45 C 2.54 .60 .84 2.31 .62 .87 2.36 .78 .89 0.37 0.25 Women W 3.77 .56 .84 3.69 .53 .84 3.52 .64 .88 0.14 0.41 C 3.85 .60 .82 3.52 .49 .78 3.61 .67 .86 0.60 0.38 Homosexual people W 3.10 .86 .89 3.57 .51 .81 3.49 .70 .90 0.66 0.49 C 3.13 .67 .88 3.19 .46 .80 3.37 .65 .92 0.10 0.36 Politicians W 1.77 .68 .83 2.39 .56 .76 2.24 .60 .78 0.99 0.73 C 1.86 .80 .88 2.87 .69 .81 2.54 .72 .77 1.35 0.89 Rich people W 2.58 .68 .85 2.55 .53 .82 2.32 .62 .82 0.05 0.40   C 3.54 .65 .89 3.62 .51 .74 3.32 .67 .80 0.13 0.33

66 Model Target group χ 2 (df) χ 2 /df Δχ 2 (Δdf) CFI ΔCFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Comparison Decision Model 1: configural - - - Unemployed people 292.41 (123) 2.377 .946 .913 .053 .055 accept Women 252.09 (123) 2.050 .948 .916 .047 .043 accept Homosexual people 255.56 (123) 2.078 .959 .934 .047 .033 accept Politicians 219.12 (123) 1.781 .964 .942 .024 .040 accept   Rich people 260.59 (123) 2.119 .939 .903 .048 .053 accept Model 2: M.1 vs. M.2 metric invariance Unemployed people 323.18 (143) 2.260 30.77 (20) .943 .003 .921 .051 .063 accept Women 293.76 (143) 2.054 41.67 (20) .939 .009 .916 .047 .054 accept Homosexual people 294.59 (143) 2.060 39.03 (20) .953 .006 .935 .047 .036 accept Politicians 283.38 (143) 1.982 64.26 (20) .947 .017 .927 .064 .045 interpret with caution   Rich people 293.59 (143) 2.053 32.99 (20) .934 .005 .908 .047 .055 accept

67Extra slideEmpirical work: part 1 : Measurement Equivalence tests Model Target group χ 2 (df) χ 2 /df Δχ 2 (Δdf) CFIΔCFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Comparison Decision Model 3a: M.2 vs. M.3a full scalar invariance Unemployed people 452.64 (167) 2.710 129.46 (24) .909 .034 .892 .059 .066 reject Women 463.64 (167) 2.776 169.87 (24) .881 .058 .858 .061 .059 reject Homosexual peopl 432.47 (167) 2.590 137.87 (24) .917 .036 .902 .058 .039 reject Politicians 652.59 (167) 3.908 369.21 (24) .818 .099 .784 .077 .100 reject   Rich people 435.93 (167) 2.610 142.34 (24) .882 .053 .860 .058 .056 reject Model 3b: M.2 vs. M.3b partial scalar invariance Unemployed people 362.83 (153) 2.371 39.65 (10) .933 .010 .914 .053 .065 accept Women c 327.47 (147) 2.228 33.70 (4) .927 .012 .902 .051 .053 interpret with caution Homosexual people c 322.00 (147) 2.191 27.41 (4) .946 .007 .927 .050 .036 interpret with caution Politicians b 319.09 (149) 2.142 35.71 (6) .936 .011 .915 .048 .061 interpret with caution   Rich people a 333.01 (151) 2.205 39.41 (8) .920 .014 .895 .054 .055 accept

68 Model Target group χ 2 (df) χ 2 /df Δχ 2 ( Δdf ) CFI ΔCFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Comparison Decision Model 4: M.3b vs. M.4 structural invariance Unemployed people 387.30 (155) 2.499 24.46 (2) .926 .007 .906 .056 .063 accept Women 344.94 (149) 2.315 17.46 (2) .921 .006 .895 .053 .070 accept Homosexual people 404.03 (149) 2.712 82.02 (2) .921 .025 .895 .060 .118 interpret with caution Politicians 336.07 (151) 2.226 16.98 (2) .930 .006 .909 .050 .097 accept   Rich people 373.60 (153) 2.442 40.65 (2) .903 .017 .874 .055 .148   interpret with caution

69Extra slideEmpirical work: Descriptive statistics for samples of migrants     Romanians in Germany Romanians in France   Variable Dimension M SD α M SD α d Age - 33.03 8.96 31.98 7.98 0.12 Length of stay - 3.51 3.20 5.97 4.66 0.61 Interest home - 5.09 0.56 .80 5.48 0.78 .84 0.57 Maintain host - 4.98 0.95 .81 5.51 0.74 .73 0.62 Unemployed W 2.96 0.45 .92 3.00 0.32 .87 0.10 C 2.73 0.56 .91 3.07 0.40 .80 0.70 Women W 3.64 0.58 .88 3.61 0.67 .93 0.05 C 3.82 0.64 .89 3.79 0.55 .86 0.05 Homosexual people W 3.37 0.70 .94 3.25 0.64 .96 0.18 C 3.24 0.51 .91 3.18 0.42 .94 0.13 Politicians W 2.12 0.81 .88 2.27 0.80 .89 0.18 C 2.31 0.88 .89 2.22 0.75 .79 0.11 Rich people W 2.85 0.43 .87 2.93 0.42 .89 0.19   C 3.58 0.57 .88 3.44 0.45 .68 0.27

70 Nr . Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Age -.01 -.51** .59** .21 .20 .06 -.20 2 Male -.12 .01 .06 .17 -.18 .05 .14 3 Student -.33** -.08 -.61** -.15 -.13 -.01 .28 t 4 Length of stay (ln) .46** -.11 .02 .15 .12 -.13 -.42** 5 Maintain home -.09 -.07 -.07 -.17* .19 .03 .03 6 Interest host .15* -.15 t -.03 .08 .26** .28 t .03 7 D.S. Romanian cultural stereotypes .01 -.19* .07 .13 .01 .18* .30* 8 D.S. host cultural stereotypes -.16 t -.01 -.05 -.18* -.01 -.06 -.23* Extra slide Empirical work: part 2 : Inter-correlations of the combined data

71Extra slideEmpirical work: part 2 :Euclidean Distance computation logic Competence Warmth X Host X Home i IM X Host X Home i IM X Home i IM X Host i Host W = |iIM – XHostW|i Home W = | i IM – X Home W|iHostC = |iIM – XHostC|iHomeC = | iIM – XHomeC|ystrelW = (iHostW – iHomeW)*(-1)ystrelC = (iHostC – iHomeC)*(-1) If ystrel positive = iIM closer to HostIf ystrel negative = iIM closer to Home

SCM: Social groups on Warmth and Competence Fiske, Cuddy , Glick, & Xu, 2002, Fig. 1, p. 885 72

73 SCM Research

74 BMBF_Herkunftslaender

Acculturation orientation (Suanet & van de Vijver, 2009)11: Maintain Home – “ I like having Romanian friends” 11: Interest Host – “I like having German/ French friends” 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)Length of stay in the host country (in years) Personal stereotypesWarmth – likeable, warm, amusing, good-natured, well-intentioned, & honest Competence – conscientious, organized, diligent, competent, efficient, & independent 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree ) 75 Extra slide Measures Stereotype Accommodation

76 Stereotype Accommodation Prior knowledge about a social group that is pertinent in the host society is required. (e.g., Blanz & Aufderheide , 1999) Migrants learn (new) stereotype-relevant information about this social group Migrants incorporate/do not incorporate this new information Stereotype Acquisition Migrants have no previous knowledge about a social group that is pertinent in the host society Migrants hold no previous stereotypes about the social group Migrants learn both the social category and the associated stereotypes e.g., Pãkehã (NZ; Sibley et al., 2011), Rednecks (USA)

77 Extra slide Examples of Cognitive Adaptation: Introverts and Extroverts, Finland vs. USA Sallinen-Kupainen , McCroskey , Richmond, 1991)

78Extra slideExamples of Cognitive Adaptation: People with tattoo, Japan vs. EU & USA "Abroad, having a tattoo is proof you were in the military. In Japan, it's proof you are low class .“ http ://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/09/why-is-there-a-tattoo-stigma-in-japan/

79OK, but so what?The implication of this research is:

80Still…The implication of this research is:

81 Category label Country specific representatives Extra slide Stereotype Accommodation – Further clarification

82Extra slide5 target groups in Romania HW & LC EUROSTAT: HW & HC GII& GGG LW & HC WWS w.5 – justifiable (1-10) M = 2.08 LW & LC WWS w.5 – confidence in parties (1-10) M = 43% not much LW & HC UN Dev. Prog . – income ineq . Indx . = .33 Oct 2014 Dec 2014 Febr 2015 6.7 6.6 6.4 GII GGG 2013 score 2013 score .32 .69

83