Multiculturalism can be viewed as promoting positive intergroup relations in the public domain (neighbours, classmates) and heritage culture maintenance in the romantic domain (marriage). The present study examined this “two-sidedness” of multiculturalism by focusing on intergroup social distance in relation to endorsement of multiculturalism, group identifications, and group status. The study was conducted in Mauritius amongst 1,784 adolescents from the three main ethnic groups, Hindus (n = 844), Muslims (n = 630), and Creoles (n = 310). In agreement with the “two-sidedness,” participants made a distinction between public and romantic social distance, and intergroup differentiation in social distance was stronger in the romantic compared to the public domain. The endorsement of multiculturalism was associated to lower out-group public distance and lower in-group romantic distance. National identification predicted lower public and romantic out-group social distance. Ethnic identification was associated with higher out-group social distances and lower in-group social distances, particularly for the high-status group of Hindus.
ArnettJ. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
2.
AshmoreR. D.DeauxK.McLaughlin-VolpeT. (2004). An organising framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
3.
BarryB. (2001). Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
4.
BastianB.LusherD.AtaA. (2012). Contact, evaluation and social distance: Differentiating majority and minority effects. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 100–107. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.005
5.
BlauP. M.BeekerC.FitzpatrickK. M. (1984). Intersecting social affiliations and intermarriage. Social Forces, 62, 585–606.
6.
BrewerM. B. (1979). In-group bias in minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307
7.
BrewerM. B. (1997). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Can research inform practice. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 197–211.
8.
BrewerM. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict. In AshmoreR. D.JussimL.WilderD. (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (pp. 17–41). Oxford, UK: University Press.
9.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
BruceS. (2011). Secularization: In defence of an unfashionable theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
ByrneB. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications and programming (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
12.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
13.
CarrP. B.RattanA.DweckC. S. (2012). Implicit theories shape intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 127–165. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00003-2
14.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
15.
ChristopherA. J. (1992). Community, ethnicity and the census in Mauritius, 1830–1990. The Geographical Journal, 158, 57–64.
16.
Clark-IbáñezM.FelmleeD. (2004). Interethnic relationships: The role of social network diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 293–305. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00021.x
17.
CrispR. J.HewstoneM. (2007). Multiple social categorisation. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 163–254). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
18.
DeauxK.VerkuytenM. (2013). The social psychology of multiculturalism: Identity and intergroup relations. In Benet-MartinezV.HongY. Y. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity: Basic and applied psychological perspectives (pp. 118–138). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
De VriesR. E. (2003). Self, in-group and out-group evaluation: Bond or breach?European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 609–621. doi:10.1002/ejsp.173
20.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.SaguyT. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 3–20. doi:10.1177/1088868308326751
21.
DunhamY.SrinivasanM.DotschR.BarnerD. (2014). Religion insulates ingroup evaluations: The development of intergroup attitudes in India. Developmental Science, 17, 311–319. doi:10.11 11/desc.12105
22.
EisenlohrP. (2006). Little India: Diaspora, time and ethnolinguistic belonging in Hindu Mauritius. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1999). Social identity: Context, commitment and content. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
24.
EriksenT. H. (1994). Nationalism, Mauritian style: Cultural unity and ethnic diversity. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 36, 549–574.
25.
EriksenT. H. (1997). Tensions between the ethnic and the post-ethnic: Ethnicity, change and mixed marriages in Mauritius. In VermeulenH.GoversC. (Eds.), The politics of ethnic consciousness (pp. 254–276). London, UK: Macmillan.
26.
EriksenT. H. (1998). Common denominators: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of compromise in Mauritius. Oxford, UK: Berg.
27.
EriksenT. H. (2004). Ethnicity, class, and the 1999 Mauritian riots. In MayS.ModoodT.SquiresJ. (Eds.), Ethnicity, nationalism and minority rights (pp. 78–95). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
EssesV. M.WagnerU.WolfC.PreiserM.WilburC. J. (2006). Perceptions of national identity and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in Canada and Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 653–669. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.07.002
29.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
30.
HagendoornL.DrogendijkR.TumanovS.HrabaJ. (1998). Inter-ethnic preferences and ethnic hierarchies in the former Soviet Union. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 483–503.
31.
HempelL. M. (2009). Power, wealth, and common identity: Access to resources and ethnic identification in a plural society. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32, 460–489. doi:10.1080/01419870702722422
32.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
33.
HenryP. J. (2008). College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 49–71. doi:10.1080/10478400802049936
HuijnkW.VerkuytenM.CoendersM. (2010). Intermarriage attitude among ethnic minority and majority groups in the Netherlands: The role of family relations and immigrant characteristics. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41, 389–414.
36.
JohnstonR.BantingK.KymlickaW.SorokaS. (2010). National identity and support for the welfare state. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43, 349–377. doi:10.10170S0008423910000089
37.
KalmijnM. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, and trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.395
38.
LavilleR. (2000). In the politics of the rainbow: Creoles and civil society in Mauritius. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 18, 277–294.
39.
MarshH. W. (1989). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335–361. doi:10.1177/014662168901300402
MummendeyA.KlinkA.BrownR. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: National identification and out-group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 159–172. doi:10.1348/014466601164740
42.
NaveA. (2000). Marriage and the maintenance of ethnic group boundaries: The case of Mauritius. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23, 329–352. doi:10.1080/014198700329079
43.
ParekhB. (2000). Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
ParrilloV. N.DonaghueC. (2005). Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: A new national survey. The Social Science Journal, 42, 257–271. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.11
45.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
46.
OwenC. A.EisnerH. C.McFaulT. R. (1977). A half-century of social distance research: National replication of the Bogardus’ studies. Sociology and Social Research, 66, 80–98.
47.
QianZ. (2005). Breaking the last taboo: Interracial marriage in America. Contexts, 4, 33–37. doi:10.1525/ctx.2005.4.4.33
48.
QianZ.LichterD. T. (2007). Social boundaries and marital assimilation: Interpreting trends in racial and ethnic intermarriage. American Sociological Review, 72, 68–94. doi:10.1177/000312240707200104
49.
RattanA.AmbadyN. (2013). Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: An examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 12–21. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1892
50.
SmeekesA.VerkuytenM.PoppeE. (2012). How a tolerant past affects the present: Historical tolerance and the acceptance of Muslim expressive rights. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1410–1422. doi:10.1348/014466610X516235
51.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
52.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
53.
WakefieldJ. R. H.HopkinsN.CockburnC.ShekK. M.MuirheadA.ReicherS.van RijswijkW. (2011). The impact of adopting ethnic or civic conceptions of national belonging for others’ treatment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1599–1610. doi:101177/0146167211416131
54.
WarkC.GalliherJ. F. (2007). Emory Bogardus and the origins of the Social Distance Scale. American Sociologist, 38, 383–395. doi:10.1007/s12108-007-9023-9
55.
WeaverC. N. (2008). Social distance as a measure of prejudice among ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 779–795. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00326.x
