Immigration comes with potential for increased opportunities but poses multifarious challenges to social integration. The local perception that immigration is unsustainable fuels identity threats that lead to surges in nationalism rather than multiculturalism. This paper reports three case studies of Maltese migrants to the UK. Adopting the migrants’ points of view, the paper documents how acculturation takes shape in a situation where immigrants face a social reality in which their own cultural point of view is that of a stranger. This furthers the study of points of view in cultural psychology by reconciling this focus with the socio-cognitive literature on perspectives and their relative propensity to interrelate. The form acculturation takes for individual migrants is demonstrated to be associated with the perspectives immigrants demonstrate and the extent to which they interrelate with cultural diversity.
de AbreuG.LambertH. (2003). The education of Portuguese students in England and the Channel Islands schools. University of Bedfordshire.
2.
BerryJ. W. (2011). Integration and multiculturalism: Ways towards social solidarity. Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1–2.21.
3.
BrownR.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
ChryssidesA.DashtipourP.KeshetS.RighiC.SammutG.SartawiM. (2009). We Don’t Share! The Social Representation approach, Enactivism and the fundamental incompatibilities between the two. Culture & Psychology, 15, 83–95.
5.
ChryssochoouX. (2004). Cultural diversity: Its social psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
6.
ClémenceA. (2001). Social Positioning and Social Representations. In DeauxK.PhilogèneG. (Eds.), Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 83–95). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
7.
DenchG. (1975). Maltese in London: A case-study in the erosion of ethnic consciousness. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
8.
DetweilerR. A. (1980). Intercultural interaction and the categorisation process: A conceptual analysis and behavioral outcome. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 275–293.
9.
Farrell, G., & Oliveri, F. (Eds.) (2006). Achieving social cohesion in a multicultural Europe: Concepts, situation and developments. Trends in Social Cohesion, No. 18 (pp. 13-22). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
10.
FlickU. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd edn.). London, UK: Sage.
11.
GervaisM.-C.JovchelovitchS. (1998). The health beliefs of the Chinese community in England: A qualitative research study. London, UK: Health Education Authority.
12.
GillespieA. (2006). Becoming other: From social interaction to self-reflection. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
13.
GillespieA.RichardsonB. (2011). Exchanging social positions: Enhancing perspective taking within a cooperative problem solving task. European journal of social psychology, 41(5), 608–616.
14.
GruberH. E. (1990). The cooperative synthesis of disparate points of view. In RockI. (Ed.), the Legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in Cognition and Social Psychology (pp. 143–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
JovchelovitchS. (2007). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture. London, UK: Routledge.
16.
JovchelovitchS. (2008). The rehabilitation of common sense: Social Representations, science and cognitive polyphasia. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 431–448.
17.
KosicA. (2002). Acculturation attitudes, Need for Cognitive Closure and Adaptation of Immigrants. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(2), 179–201.
18.
KrechD. (1949). Notes towards a psychological theory. Journal of Personality, 18, 66–87.
19.
KruglanskiA. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
20.
LeVineR. A. (2010). Commentary: From the mother’s point of view. Ethnos, 38, 458–460.
21.
MarkováI. (2003a). Constitution of the self: Intersubjectivity and dialogicality. Culture & Psychology, 9, 249–259.
22.
MarkováI. (2003b). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
MoghaddamF. M. (2006). From the terrorists’ point of view: What they experience and why they come to destroy. New Delhi, India: Pentagon Press.
24.
MoghaddamF. M. (2010). The new global insecurity: How terrorism, environmental collapse, economic inequalities, and resource shortages are changing our world. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Security International.
25.
PeacockJ. L.HollandD. C. (1993). The Narrated Self: Life Stories in Process. Ethos, 21(4), 367–383.
26.
PettigrewT. F. (1959). The measurement and correlates of category width as a cognitive variable. Journal of Personality, 26, 532–544.
27.
RokeachM. (1951a). A method for studying individual differences in “Narrow-Mindedness.”. Journal of Personality, 20, 219–233.
28.
RokeachM. (1951b). “Narrow-mindedness” and personality. Journal of Personality, 20, 234–251.
29.
RosaA. (2008). Idiographic science: Explaining or understanding?. In SalvatoreS.ValsinerJ.Strout-JagodzynskiS.CleggJ. (Eds.), Yearbook of idiographic science (Volume 1, pp .95–104). Rome, Italy: Firera & Liuzzi.
30.
SammutG. (2011). Civic solidarity. The negotiation of identity in modern societies. Papers on Social Representations, 20, 4.1–4.23.
31.
SammutG.GaskellG. (2010). Points of view, social positioning and intercultural relations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 40, 47–64.
32.
SchuetzA. (1944). The stranger: An essay in social psychology. American Journal of Sociology, 50, 499–507.
33.
TsirogianniS.AndreouliE. (2011). Beyond social cohesion: The role of “Fusion of Horizons” in inter-group solidarities. Papers on Social Representations, 20(1), 5.1–5.25.
