Perceived Ethnic Discrimination and Problem Behaviors in Muslim Immigrant Early Adolescents

Abstract

Previous research has identified ethnic group identification as a moderator in the relationship between perceived ethnic discrimination and problem behaviors in ethnic minority children. However, little is known about the influence of religious and host national identification on this relationship. This study investigated the moderating role of ethnic, religious, and host national identification on the relationship between perceived discrimination and problem behaviors in Muslim immigrant early adolescents living in the Netherlands. Analyses revealed gender-specific moderating effects for ethnic and religious group identification. For boys, no moderating effects were found. For girls, strong religious group identification increased the relationship between perceived ethnic discrimination and problem behaviors, whereas a strong ethnic identification served a buffering role. No moderating effects were found for host national identification. The findings underline the importance of including different types of group identification in research on the relation between perceived discrimination and immigrant adolescent problem behaviors.

Keywords

perceived ethnic discrimination ethnic identification religious identification national identification internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors

In almost all countries in the world, early adolescents from ethnic minority and immigrant groups are confronted with stigmatization, discrimination, and unfavorable images of their own group. Compared with ethnic majority peers, they have to deal with these negative messages more often and sometimes on a regular basis. Ethnic discrimination is an attack upon and a negative response to something about the self that is difficult to change, namely, one’s ethnic background. For early adolescents, this negative response typically includes name calling, teasing, and being excluded from peer groups (Verkuyten, Kinket, & Van der Wielen, 1997). Ethnic discrimination may have negative emotional and behavioral consequences, such as increased depression, anxiety, anger, and psychological distress, and decreased well-being, life satisfaction, and self-esteem (e.g., Pascoe & Richman, 2009; Verkuyten, 1998).

The present study provides an examination of the link between perceived ethnic discrimination and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors in early adolescents. We focus not only on perceptions of personal discrimination but also on group discrimination, because perceptions of group discrimination have been found to be relatively common (Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990), whereas the majority of studies on the psychological consequences of discrimination have predominantly relied on perceptions of personal discrimination (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). Moreover, we examined the moderating role of three types of group identification: ethnic, religious, and host national identification.

Although there is some research on the psychological consequences of perceived discrimination in Western Europe and particularly in the Netherlands (see Verkuyten, 2005), the great majority of previous studies has been conducted in the United States. However, this research has not focused on religious minority groups and research outside the U.S. context allows us to examine whether, and under which circumstances, similar moderator effects (i.e., the buffering and sensitizing effects detailed below) apply in different countries and for different minority groups. The current study focuses on Muslim immigrant early adolescents living in the Netherlands.

Perceived Ethnic Personal and Group Discrimination

Ethnic discrimination can be directed at an individual as member of an ethnic group (i.e., personal discrimination) or at the group as a whole (i.e., group discrimination). Previous studies mainly focused on the relation between perceived personal discrimination and adolescent emotional and behavioral problems (see Pascoe & Richman, 2009). However, perceiving that one’s group is discriminated can also be painful independent of one’s personal experiences (Taylor, Wright, & Porter, 1994).

Although the detrimental effects of personal discrimination have been established in research, the few studies on the role of group discrimination mainly focused on self-esteem as an outcome and showed inconsistent results. Some studies revealed that perceived group discrimination is unrelated to self-esteem (e.g., Shorey, Cowan, & Sullivan, 2002), others found that higher perceived group discrimination is related to lower self-esteem (e.g., Verkuyten, 1998), and still others found evidence for a positive association between perceived group discrimination and personal self-esteem (Armenta & Hunt, 2009; Bourguignon, Seron, Yzerbyt, & Herman, 2006). The latter finding has been explained by different mechanisms. For instance, perceptions of group discrimination might allow people to believe that “one is not alone in one’s plight” (Bourguignon et al., 2006, p. 785) or may even make people’s personal situation look relatively favorable (Bourguignon et al., 2006; Mussweiler, 2003). In addition, compared with perceived personal discrimination, perceived group discrimination may not, or to a lesser extent, lead to self-blame, because people cannot be held directly responsible for what happens to their fellow group members (Major, Kaiser, & McCoy, 2003; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002).

Thus, there are some theoretical and empirical reasons to expect different associations with self-esteem when comparing perceived group discrimination and perceived personal discrimination, but the available knowledge is limited. By testing the associations of both forms of discrimination to internalizing and externalizing problems in early adolescents, this study aims to increase our understanding of this association. Based on available theory, we expected smaller effects on problem behaviors of perceived group discrimination than perceived personal discrimination.

Ethnic, Religious, and Host National Identification

Several theoretical notions have been developed and empirically tested with regard to the moderating role of ethnic group identification. However, especially Muslim immigrants may not only identify with their ethnic group but also with their religious group and the host national society (Deković, Pels, & Model, 2006; Verkuyten, Thijs, & Stevens, 2012). Research in the Netherlands indicates that Turkish and Moroccan immigrant youth who more strongly identify with their ethnic group also tend to consider being a Muslim more important (Phalet & Güngör, 2004; Stevens, Pels, Vollebergh, & Crijnen, 2004; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Yet, both group identifications cannot be reduced to one another (Phalet & Güngör, 2004). Socialization and development of Muslim immigrant adolescents also takes place in the surrounding majority society (e.g., Oppedal, 2006) and not just in their ethno-religious community. Consistent with this notion, adolescents do not only identify with their ethnic and religious group but also develop a sense of host national belonging (Berry, 1980; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, & Solheim, 2009; Verkuyten et al., 2012).

Considering the importance of ethnic, religious, and host society identification for Muslim immigrant early adolescents, the question arises whether host national and religious group identification, in addition to ethnic identification, affect the relationship between perceived ethnic discrimination and problem behaviors. To answer this question, the present study investigated these three group identifications as separate moderators in the association between perceived ethnic discrimination and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors.

The Moderating Role of Group Identification

For the moderating role of ethnic group identification, two contrasting hypotheses have been proposed. The buffering hypothesis stresses that high identification with one’s ethnic group acts as a buffer against the detrimental effects of perceiving ethnic discrimination (Mossakowski, 2003). Identifying with an ethnic group provides opportunities for social support from other in-group members, and a sense of group belonging and acceptance (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Mossakowski, 2003). The sensitizing hypothesis, by contrast, states that high identification with one’s ethnic group intensifies the detrimental effects of perceiving ethnic discrimination, because perceiving discrimination involves the recognition that an important part of the self (i.e., one’s group identity) is devalued by others. From this perspective, perceiving threats to one’s ethnic identity is psychologically painful, especially for individuals for whom this identity is important (McCoy & Major, 2003).

The moderating role of ethnic group identification has been examined in several studies, but results are inconclusive. Research among adults provides evidence for both the buffering (e.g., Mossakowski, 2003) and the sensitizing hypothesis (e.g., Noh, Beiser, Kaspar, Hou, & Rummens, 1999). Among adolescents, stronger support has been found for the buffering hypothesis. For instance, adolescent boys, but not girls, who reported that their racial identity was a more central part of the self, showed less violent behaviors when perceiving discrimination (Caldwell, Kohn-Wood, Schmeelk-Cone, Chavous, & Zimmerman, 2004). In their longitudinal research, Wong, Eccles, and Sameroff (2003) found buffering effects of a strong connection with one’s ethnic group for the relationship between perceived discrimination and young adolescents’ academic self-concept, school achievement, and externalizing problem behaviors, but not for mental health outcomes (e.g., depression, self-esteem, and anger). Another longitudinal study, however, revealed that racial identity does not moderate the relation between perceived racial discrimination and changes in psychological well-being (Seaton, Neblett, Upton, Hammond, & Sellers, 2011). Finally, one of the few studies focusing on children found no significant moderating effect of ethnic identity on the relationship between perceived discrimination and self-esteem (Dulin-Keita, Hannon, Fernandez, & Cockerham, 2011).

Although research on the role of ethnic identification in the relation between perceived discrimination and problem behaviors is inconclusive, most evidence suggests a buffering role. Research on the role of religious group identification is lacking. However, a sensitizing role may be expected for two reasons. First, religion tends to be a central element of the self and to have a special meaning for Muslim early adolescents (Verkuyten et al., 2012). Identifying with a religious group is different from ethnic and national identification, because religion invokes the sacred and divine and provides moral guidance for daily life (Ysseldyk, Matheson, & Anisman, 2010). This centrality of religion in Muslim early adolescents’ life makes it likely that especially this type of group identification is a core aspect of the self, which in turn may make them more vulnerable to stigma and perceived discrimination. Second, in contrast to being a member of an ethnic group, being a religious group member is more likely to be seen as a relatively voluntary choice, for which one more easily can be held responsible for by both self and others (Crocker & Major, 1989). Because of this self-responsibility, people are more likely to blame themselves for their stigmatizing condition. This self-blame in turn, makes individuals vulnerable to low self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989).

As with religious identification, research on the role of host national identification in the association between perceived discrimination and problem behaviors is lacking. A buffering role for host national identification seems unlikely, because early adolescents predominantly see discrimination as unjust behavior conducted by Dutch peers toward ethnic minority children (Verkuyten et al., 1997). Social support from the group that one views as the perpetrator of discrimination, therefore, will not be very helpful for alleviating the detrimental effects of discrimination. In contrast, we might expect a sensitizing role for host national identification. Adolescents who identify more with the host society tend to have more intergroup contacts and peer groups including Dutch adolescents (Agirdag, Van Houtte, & Van Avermaet, 2010). Being rejected by one’s peer group has clear detrimental effects, such as greater aggression and lower self-esteem (Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006). Furthermore, it has been found that ethnic minority children and adolescents with high intergroup contact were more likely to rate race-based exclusion as wrong than those with low intergroup contact (Ruck, Park, Killen, & Crystal, 2011). This tendency may make adolescents who identify more strongly with the host national group more vulnerable to perceptions of discrimination. Moreover, it might be that discrimination is especially harmful for those adolescents because not only is an important part of their self disregarded, but it is disregarded by members of a group they feel connected to.

Gender Differences

For the current sample of early adolescents, we expected stronger moderating effects of group identification for girls than for boys. This expectation is based on the notion that group identifications tend to be more meaningful for early adolescent girls than boys. First, research has shown that the earlier cognitive maturation of girls means that they are involved in processes of identity development at an earlier age (Kroger, 1997; Meeus, Van de Schoot, Keijsers, Schwartz, & Branje, 2010). Second, identity development in acculturating adolescents is not only an individual but also a dyadic and familial process (Parke & Leidy, 2013). Muslim girls may encounter situations that trigger identity search earlier than boys. For example, wearing a headscarf makes girls’ Muslim identity visible and this can elicit forms of peer discrimination like name calling and exclusion. In addition, ethnic socialization within the family tends to differ between boys and girls leading to differences in children’s cultural orientation and ethnic identity development (Brown & Chu, 2013). Compared with their male Muslim peers, Muslim immigrant girls are more often faced with family values and norms that impose restrictions on their autonomy and freedom of movement (Stevens et al., 2004). This gender-specific treatment may make them particularly aware of the differences between values and practices within their family and within the larger society (Dion & Dion, 2004). This awareness, in turn, can trigger girls’ exploration of group identifications, which makes commitments to their ethnic and religious groups more meaningful. As a result, these group identities may play a more important role in the relationship between perceived discrimination and problem behaviors for girls than for boys (Phinney, 1993).

To summarize, the present study examined ethnic, religious, and national group identification as moderators in the relation between perceived personal and group discrimination and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors in Muslim immigrant early adolescents aged 10 through 13 years. Overall, associations between perceived group discrimination were hypothesized to be less strong than associations for perceived personal discrimination, although the theoretical and empirical basis for this hypothesis is modest. Next, different moderating effects were expected for the different types of group identification. Ethnic identification was hypothesized to buffer against the detrimental effects of perceiving personal and group discrimination, whereas religious and national identification were expected to intensify the relation between perceived personal and group discrimination and problem behaviors. Furthermore, stronger moderating effects of group identification were expected for girls compared with boys.

Method

Participants

The data originate from a study in which 21 primary schools across the Netherlands participated. At each school, the early adolescents in the two highest grades were asked to participate. Although schools were selected from ethnically mixed neighborhoods, ethnic class composition of the 38 participating classes varied widely, with 0% to 94.7% Dutch students. The present study focused on 203 early adolescents with a Moroccan (n = 157) or Turkish (n = 46) background (i.e., with at least one parent born in Morocco or Turkey), as members of the largest Muslim minority groups in the Netherlands. Of the 242 early adolescents who met this criterion, 14 students (0.6%) did not receive permission from their parents and 13 students (0.5%) were absent during data collection or otherwise unable to fill out the questionnaires. Of the remaining 215 early adolescents, 142 (66.0%) had complete data. Little’s MCAR test (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) revealed that the data were missing completely at random, χ²(3667) = 3,782.56, p = .090. To retain power, missing values were imputed using the Relative Mean Substitution (RMS) approach (Raaijmakers, 1999). RMS resulted in 203 complete cases. The remaining 12 early adolescents were deleted from further analyses. Of the 203 early adolescents, 108 (53.2%) were boys and 95 (46.8%) were girls. Virtually all participants (95.6%) were born in the Netherlands and were raised within the Islamic tradition (96.6%). Participants were 10 to 13 years old ( $\bar{X}$ = 11.27, SD = 0.81).

Data were gathered from February 2011 to February 2012. Schools received a letter explaining the aim of the study and approximately 2 weeks later, the principals of the schools were contacted. Parents were informed about the upcoming study and could refuse participation of their child by returning an enclosed form. All participants were requested to fill out a 30-minute questionnaire during school hours. Trained research assistants were present to introduce the study and to answer possible questions about the questionnaire. The research assistants stressed that the anonymous answers would be treated confidentially. Afterwards, all participants received a small present and the schools obtained a remuneration of €100 per participating class.

Measures

Problem behaviors

Internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors were measured using a Dutch translation of the Youth Self-Report (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; De Groot, Koot, & Verhulst, 1996). This scale has been widely used among youth in the age of 11 to 18, and participants from different ethnic groups have been found to reliably report on the two broad band internalizing and externalizing scales (De Groot et al., 1996; Ebesutani, Bernstein, Martinez, Chorpita, & Weisz, 2011; Stevens, Vollebergh, Pels, & Crijnen, 2005). The internalizing scale consisted of 32 items, including the subscales anxious/depressed (e.g., “I cry a lot”), withdrawn/depressed (e.g., “I am too shy”), and somatic complaints (e.g., “I have headaches”). The externalizing scale also consisted of 32 items, including the subscales rule-breaking behavior (e.g., “I lie or deceive”) and aggressive behavior (e.g., “I fight a lot”). Respondents were asked to rate the occurrence of problems in the preceding 6 months, with 0 = not at all, 1 = a little/sometimes, and 2 = clearly/often. Scale scores were calculated by computing the sum of items. Reliabilities were high for both the internalizing and externalizing scale with Cronbach’s alphas of .88 and .84, respectively.

Perceived personal ethnic discrimination

Following previous research in the Netherlands, four items were used to measure whether the participants perceived they were discriminated against because of their ethnic background (e.g., Verkuyten & Thijs, 2006). Each item could be answered on a 5-point scale ranging from (0) no, not at all to (4) yes, definitely. The items asked whether the early adolescents perceived teasing, name calling, exclusion from play activities, and ridicule because of their ethnic background (e.g., “Are you at times being teased because you are Moroccan/Turkish?”). Scale scores were calculated by computing the mean score of the four items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived personal ethnic discrimination. Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s α = .59).

Perceived group ethnic discrimination

Six items were used to measure whether early adolescents perceived their ethnic group to be discriminated against in six situations (i.e., on the street, at school, in shops, by the police, at work, and in newspapers or on television) on a 5-point scale ranging from (0) never to (4) always (Stevens et al., 2005). Reliability was good with Cronbach’s alpha = .76.

Group identification

To measure ethnic group identification, seven items were used (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002), including “I am proud to be a Moroccan/Turkish person” and “It is important to me that I am a Moroccan/Turkish person.” Religious group identification was measured using a 5-item instrument developed by Phalet, Van Lotringen, and Entzinger (2000). Examples of items are “Being a Muslim is important to me” and “Being a Muslim is something I often think about.” National group identification was measured by seven items equivalent to the items used to measure ethnic group identification (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002), including “I am proud to be a Dutch person” and “It is important to me that I am a Dutch person.” All items were answered on a 5-point scale ranging from (0) no, not at all to (4) yes, definitely. Internal consistency was good for all scales, with Cronbach’s alphas of .81, .79, and .89 for ethnic, religious, and national group identification, respectively.

To test whether the three group identification measures assessed empirically distinctive constructs, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using Maximum Likelihood Estimation in Mplus 4.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2006). A correlated three-factor model was specified without cross-loadings. After freeing nine-factor error correlations (e.g., between “I am proud to be a Dutch person” and “It is important to me that I am a Dutch person,” between “I am similar to other Dutch persons” and “I am similar to other Turkish/Moroccan persons,” and between “I am similar to other Muslims” and “I am similar to other Turkish/Moroccan persons”), the fit of this model was acceptable to good¹: CFI = .93; RMSEA = .07; SRMR= .08, and χ²(140) = 294.74, p < .001.

Socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by the 5-item Family Affluence Scale (FAS; Currie et al., 2008). It reflects the material resources of the family and asks whether the family owns a car (0 = no, 1 = yes, one, 2 = yes, more than one), whether the adolescent has an own bedroom (0 = no, 1 = yes), whether the family went on holiday in the past year (ranging from 0 = not at all to 3 = more than twice), whether a computer was available (ranging from 0 = none to 3 = more than two), and whether the respondents think their family is rich (ranging from 0 = not rich at all to 4 = very rich). Scale scores were calculated by computing the sum of items. As was found in previous studies, reliability was low (α = .40).

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were conducted using Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling (HLM 7.00). To avoid problems of collinearity, the continuous variables were centered and the variables gender (0 = boys) and ethnicity (0 = Moroccan) were dummy coded. Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) was used as estimation technique. Each set of analyses consisted of four models (i.e., perceived personal and group discrimination associated with internalizing and externalizing problems).

First, to investigate whether there was variance at the individual and the class level, two-level intercept-only models were tested. Second, to examine its associations with problem behaviors, perceived ethnic discrimination was added to the model, while controlling for gender, ethnicity, and SES. Third, to investigate whether the relation between perceived discrimination and problem behavior was moderated by group identifications, interaction terms of ethnic, religious, and national group identification with perceived ethnic discrimination were added to the model. Finally, to examine gender differences, three-way interactions (Gender × Group identification × Perceived discrimination) were included in the model. In case of significant interactions, models were run separately for boys and girls.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics of perceived (personal and group) ethnic discrimination, the different types of group identification, and problem behaviors, and the associations among these variables are displayed in Table 1 for boys and girls separately. The level of perceived personal discrimination was low and lower than the level of perceived group discrimination. Furthermore, the two types of perceived discrimination were only modestly related. The mean scores for ethnic and religious identification were comparably high, whereas scores on host national identification were substantially lower.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges and Correlations Among Study Variables (N = 203).

			Range
	Boys	Girls		Boys	Girls
Measure	$\bar{X}$ (SD)	$\bar{X}$ (SD)	Potential	Actual	Actual	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Personal discrimination	0.35 (0.60)	0.47 (0.66)	0-4	0-3	0-3	—	.21*	−.21*	−.16	.28**	.24*	.03
2. Group discrimination	1.19 (0.86)	1.11 (0.68)	0-4	0-3.5	0-2.83	.27**	—	.01	−.05	.06	.03	.10
3. Ethnic identification	3.34 (0.68)	3.05 (0.76)	0-4	0-4	0-4	.17	−.05	—	.78**	−.29**	−.12	−.07
4. Religious identification	3.32 (0.68)	2.97 (0.87)	0-4	0-4	0-4	.19	−.07	.74**	—	−.23*	−.07	−.21*
5. National identification	1.18 (0.94)	1.53 (0.88)	0-4	0-4	0-4	.15	.09	−.14	−.02	—	.03	−.06
6. Internalizing problems	8.90 (6.75)	11.73 (8.81)	0-66	0-28	0-41	.49**	.30**	.10	.06	.02	—	.37**
7. Externalizing problems	6.54 (5.32)	5.57 (5.49)	0-62	0-21	0-26	.24**	.20	−.07	−.21*	.01	.42**	—

Note. Intercorrelations for boys (n = 108) are presented above the diagonal, and intercorrelations for girls (n = 95) are presented below the diagonal.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Perceived personal discrimination was positively linked with internalizing problems for boys and girls, and with externalizing problems for girls. For girls, perceived group discrimination was positively linked with internalizing problems. No relation was found between perceived group discrimination and externalizing problems. Ethnic and national group identification were not associated with either type of problem behaviors. For both boys and girls, religious group identification was negatively associated with externalizing problems. Overall, a positive and strong link was found between religious and ethnic identification. For boys only, national identification was negatively associated with religious and ethnic identification.

Perceived Ethnic Discrimination and Problem Behaviors

Two-level intercept-only models

Before examining the relation between perceived ethnic discrimination and problem behaviors, individual and class level variances were investigated. Two-level intercept-only models revealed significant variance at both the individual and class level for internalizing problems (Table 2). This means that there were individual differences in internalizing problems, and that students in the same class scored more alike regarding internalizing problems than students from different classes. For externalizing problems, only the variance at the individual level was significant. To take the class effects into account, a multilevel approach was adopted in all subsequent analyses.

Table 2.

Variances and Fit Statistics of Two-Level Intercept-Only Models.

Level	Internalizing problems				Externalizing problems
Level	Variance	χ²	df	p	Variance	χ²	df	p
Individual	56.09				27.36
Class	5.93	53.40	31	.008	1.87	38.94	31	.155
Total	62.02				29.23

Gender differences

For externalizing problems, results revealed no significant interactions between gender and perceived personal or group discrimination (Table 3). Therefore, the model was rerun without the interaction term, revealing a positive association between perceived group, but not personal, discrimination and externalizing problems. In contrast, for internalizing problems, a gender interaction was found for both personal and group discrimination (Table 3). To examine these gender differences, analyses were run separately for boys and girls (Figure 1), revealing a stronger association between perceived personal discrimination and internalizing problems for girls (β = .49, p < .001) than for boys (β = .23, p = .019). Moreover, an association between perceived group discrimination and internalizing problems was found (Figure 1) for girls (β = .40, p < .001), but not for boys (β = .07, p = .474).

Table 3.

Multilevel Regression Models of the Relation Between Perceived Discrimination and Problem Behaviors.

Predictor	Internalizing problems			Externalizing problems
Predictor	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Personal discrimination
Gender	2.12	1.00	.13*	−1.27	0.77	−.12
Ethnicity	2.18	1.20	.12	0.92	0.91	.07
SES	−0.65	0.24	−.17**	−0.10	0.19	−.04
Perceived discrimination	2.16	1.13	.17	0.96	0.60	.11
Perceived Discrimination × Gender	4.35	1.55	.25**
Group discrimination
Gender	3.04	1.05	.19**	−1.05	0.76	−.10
Ethnicity	3.46	1.28	.18**	1.57	0.92	.12
SES	−0.56	0.25	−.14*	−0.13	0.19	−.05
Perceived discrimination	0.60	0.84	.06	1.23	0.49	.18*
Perceived Discrimination × Gender	3.72	1.36	.22**

Note. Gender is coded as 0 (boys) and 1 (girls). Ethnicity is coded as 0 (Moroccan) and 1 (Turkish). SES = socioeconomic status.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 1.

Regression lines for relations between perceived discrimination and internalizing problems as moderated by gender.

The Moderating Role of Group Identifications

The three-way interactions indicated differential effects for girls and boys, as shown by a significant three-way interaction for internalizing problems (Perceived personal discrimination × Ethnic identification × Gender; β = −.31, p = .018). As a consequence, all subsequent analyses were performed separately for boys and girls (Table 4).

Table 4.

Multilevel Regression Models of the Relation Between Perceived Discrimination and Problem Behaviors.

Predictor	Internalizing problems						Externalizing problems
	Boys^a			Girls^b			Boys^a			Girls^b
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Personal discrimination
Ethnicity	0.66	1.60	.04	3.23	1.89	.15	0.85	1.26	.07	1.81	1.36	.13
SES	−0.44	0.34	−.06	−0.76	0.37	−.18*	−0.07	0.27	−.01	−0.26	0.27	−.10
Perceived discrimination	2.88	1.30	.26*	7.46	1.23	.56***	0.41	1.03	.05	2.44	0.88	.29*
Ethnic identification	−1.01	1.55	−.10	−0.49	1.57	−.04	1.67	1.22	.21	0.83	1.13	.11
Religious identification	0.41	1.52	.04	−0.36	1.35	−.04	−3.04	1.19	−.39*	−2.49	0.97	−.39*
National identification	−0.74	0.76	−.10	−1.61	0.93	−.16	−0.57	0.60	−.10	−0.83	0.67	−.13
Perceived discrimination × Ethnic identification	−0.37	2.39	−.02	−9.98	3.42	−.41**	2.34	1.87	.17	−1.97	2.45	−.13
Perceived discrimination × Religious identification	1.20	2.74	.06	6.83	2.98	.30*	−2.60	2.15	−.16	1.54	2.14	.11
Perceived discrimination × National identification	−2.30	1.69	−.14	0.62	1.11	.05	0.99	1.33	.08	1.19	0.79	.17
Group discrimination
Ethnicity	2.42	1.58	.16	6.27	1.51	.26**	1.22	1.22	.06	2.68	1.43	.20
SES	−0.44	0.35	−.06	−0.57	0.32	−.13	−0.12	0.27	−.02	−0.23	0.84	−.09
Perceived discrimination	0.49	0.90	.06	4.73	1.53	.37**	0.92	0.70	.15	2.22	0.84	.27*
Ethnic identification	−0.56	1.66	−.06	1.73	1.57	.15	1.85	1.28	.24	1.16	1.08	.16
Religious identification	−0.18	1.59	−.02	−0.58	1.49	−.06	−2.97	1.23	−.38*	−2.20	0.92	−.35*
National identification	−0.10	0.74	−.01	−0.41	0.90	−.04	−0.64	0.57	−.11	−0.11	0.62	−.02
Perceived discrimination × Ethnic identification	−2.23	2.52	−.15	−5.03	2.46	−.42	0.34	1.96	.03	−1.44	1.84	−.19
Perceived discrimination × Religious identification	3.53	2.25	.28	5.63	2.12	.42*	0.03	1.74	.01	3.39	1.81	.41*
Perceived discrimination × National identification	1.17	0.95	.13	1.17	1.33	.10	0.95	0.73	.14	0.41	0.95	.05

n = 108.

n = 95.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Ethnic group identification

Table 4 shows that for boys there was no moderating role of ethnic group identification in any of the analyses. However, for girls, ethnic identification was a significant moderator of the relation between perceived personal discrimination and internalizing problems (Figure 2). Supporting the buffering hypothesis, for girls who strongly identified with their ethnic group, there was no significant relation between perceived personal discrimination and internalizing problems: b = −0.13, SE B = 2.63, t(85) = −0.05, p = .961. For girls who identified relatively weakly with their ethnic group, higher perceived personal discrimination was related to more internalizing problems: b = 15.04, SE B = 3.10, t(85) = 4.85, p < .001. The moderating effect of ethnic identification on the relation between perceived group discrimination and internalizing problems was in the same direction and moderate in effect size, but did not reach significance (β = −.42, p = .056). Ethnic identification did not moderate the association between perceived discrimination and externalizing problems.

Figure 2.

Regression lines for relations between perceived personal discrimination and internalizing problems for girls as moderated by ethnic group identification.

Religious group identification

Again for boys no moderating effect of religious group identification was found (Table 4). For girls, however, results revealed three significant moderating effects (Figure 3). First, in support of the sensitizing hypothesis, there was a significant positive relation between perceived personal discrimination and internalizing problems for girls who strongly identified with their religious group (b = 13.40, SE B = 2.84, p < .001), whereas this relation was not found for girls who weakly identified with their religious group (b = 1.51, SE B = 2.90, p = .604). Second, for girls who identified strongly with their religious group, results showed a significant positive association between perceived group discrimination and internalizing problems (b = 10.52, SE B = 2.68, p < .001), whereas this relation was not found for girls who weakly identified with their religious group (b = −1.05, SE B = 2.55, p = .681). Third, for girls who strongly identified with their religious group, higher perceived group discrimination was related to more externalizing problems (b = 5.18, SE B = 1.86, p = .007), whereas this relation was not found for low identifiers (b = −0.73, SE B = 1.71, p = .671). Religious group identification did not moderate the relation between perceived personal discrimination and externalizing problems.

Figure 3.

Regression lines for relations between perceived discrimination and problem behaviors for girls as moderated by religious group identification.

National group identification

For both boys and girls, national group identification did not moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and problem behaviors.

Discussion

Although research has found an association between perceived ethnic discrimination and problem behaviors, different psychological and behavioral effects of perceiving discrimination are to be expected for different individuals (McCoy & Major, 2003). Up till now, the most frequently tested moderator is ethnic group identification. However, Muslim immigrant early adolescents often identify with their ethnic and religious group as well as with the host nation (Verkuyten et al., 2012). In addition to distinguishing between perceived personal and group discrimination, this study adds to the literature by introducing religious and host national identification in addition to ethnic identification as potential moderators in the relation between perceived discrimination and problem behaviors. As expected, results indicated different moderating effects for the three types of group identification with apparent gender differences. Whereas for boys no moderating effects were found, for girls, ethnic group identification buffered the relation between perceived discrimination and internalizing problems. In contrast, religious group identification appeared to have a sensitizing effect. For girls who strongly identified with their religious group, the association between perceived discrimination and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors was stronger than for girls who weakly identified with their religious group. Finally, no moderating effects were found for host national identification.

Perceived Ethnic Personal and Group Discrimination

Research on the effects of personal and group discrimination on early adolescents’ well-being has been mainly conducted in the United States. The current study adds to the existing literature by examining the effects of perceived discrimination on Muslim immigrant early adolescents in a European country. In line with prior studies (Armenta & Hunt, 2009; Bourguignon et al., 2006; Leary et al., 2006), we found in most of our analyses associations between perceived personal and group discrimination and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. Furthermore, in line with the personal-group discrimination discrepancy (Taylor et al., 1994), we found that Muslim immigrant early adolescents, on average, perceived more discrimination directed at their group than at themselves.

Based on the few empirical studies on the relationship between both types of perceived discrimination and self-esteem (Shorey et al., 2002; Verkuyten, 1998) and available theory, it was expected that the associations would be more pronounced for perceived personal compared with group discrimination. In contrast, our results did not show substantially stronger associations for personal compared with group discrimination on either outcome. However, some indications were found that internalizing problems were more strongly associated with perceived personal discrimination than perceived group discrimination, whereas externalizing problems were more strongly related to perceived group discrimination than perceived personal discrimination. Compared with perceptions of personal discrimination, perceived group discrimination may have less impact on internalizing problems, because the latter might enable a person to discard self-blame or may result in feelings of shared hardship. However, perceptions of group discrimination may not make a person less angry about the situation of their ethnic group. Such an interpretation is in line with the findings of relative deprivation (RD) research in which a comparable distinction to that of personal and group discrimination is made. A person may believe that he or she is personally deprived (i.e., individual RD) or that the social group to which he or she belongs is deprived (i.e., group RD). In a meta-analysis on RD (Smith, Pettigrew, Pippin, & Bialosiewicz, 2012), it was found that individual RD was more strongly related to internalizing problems, such as psychological stress and depression (labeled as “internal responses”), than to externalizing problems, such as deviant behaviors, drinking alcohol, and other types of drug use (labeled as “non-normative individually oriented behaviors”). Group RD showed the opposite pattern of associations with these different forms of problem behavior.

The Moderating Role of Group Identification

Our findings on the moderating effects of group identification were mostly in line with the hypotheses. As expected, a strong sense of identifying with one’s ethnic group acted as a buffer against the detrimental effects of perceiving discrimination, but this was found only for internalizing and not for externalizing problems. These findings indicate that although a sense of ethnic belonging may prevent high identifying early adolescents from feeling anxious or depressed as a result of perceptions of discrimination, it may not prevent them from becoming angry or delinquent. These results are in line with earlier findings on female students showing that higher social identification buffers against the effects of perceiving social discrimination for self-directed anger, but not other-directed anger (Hansen & Sassenberg, 2006). Our findings differ from those of Wong and colleagues (2003) who revealed a buffering effect for adolescents’ externalizing problems and not for internalizing problems. Additional research on the issue is clearly needed.

In line with the hypotheses, religious group identification seems to serve a sensitizing role. There were stronger relations between perceived personal and group discrimination and both internalizing and externalizing problems for early adolescent girls scoring high on religious identification than for those scoring relatively low on religious identification. This sensitizing effect may be explained by the centrality and the more voluntary character of religious group identification (Crocker & Major, 1989; Ysseldyk et al., 2010). Religion is very important for Muslim early adolescents’ daily lives and religious group identification likely is a core aspect of the self. Furthermore, being a member of a religious group can to some extent be seen as a personal choice and responsibility which makes one more vulnerable for stigmatization. However, this line of reasoning does not imply that religious identification in itself is a risk factor for internalizing or externalizing problems. Our results clearly showed that higher levels of religious identification were associated with lower levels of externalizing problems.

Unexpectedly, we did not find a buffering or sensitizing effect for national identification. We expected that it would be especially harmful for early adolescents to perceive discrimination by the group they feel connected to, but we did not find support for this contention. It might be that the early adolescents do not hold “the Dutch” as a group responsible for their discrimination experiences and that Muslim immigrant early adolescents experience discrimination by other immigrant or ethnic minority peers as well. Alternatively, these early adolescents may differentiate between different Dutch subgroups enabling them to both feel connected to the Dutch and to perceive discrimination by the Dutch without being faced with an additional risk of problem behaviors. The absence of a correlation between perceptions of discrimination and national identification is in line with this notion. Another explanation for the lack of a moderating effect is that the early adolescents did not have a strong sense of belonging to the host nation. This low national identification in early adolescents might be due to the fact that immigrant parents are mainly concerned with ethnic and religious identification development of their children and not with the development of host national identification (Sabatier, 2008; Verkuyten et al., 2012).

Gender Differences

In line with the expectations, we found stronger moderating effects of ethnic and religious group identification for girls than for boys. It may be that the group identifications were more meaningful for girls than for boys. Girls this age are cognitively more mature than boys and therefore more involved in processes of identity development (Meeus et al., 2010). Furthermore, Muslim girls may more often encounter situations that trigger them to think about their group identifications. Cultural and religious practices unique to Muslim women, such as wearing a headscarf or traditional gender norms (Hu, Pazaki, Al-Qubbaj, & Cutler, 2009), may make Muslim girls, compared with boys, more aware of differences between values and practices within their family and the larger society (Dion & Dion, 2004). This greater awareness is likely to stimulate processes of identity exploration (Phinney, 1993).

It would be very interesting to examine whether our findings hold for other ethnic and religious groups in other countries, and for older adolescents. Caldwell et al. (2004), for example, found buffering effects of racial identification on the relation between perceived discrimination and violent behaviors for boys, but not for girls. Their participants, however, were African American young adults. It is unclear whether these different results could be explained by the different ethnic background and national context or the different age of the participants.

Limitations, Implications, and Future Directions

There are several limitations of the current study that should be mentioned. First, by using a cross-sectional design, we were unable to examine the causal directions of the associations. Not only may higher levels of perceived discrimination lead to higher levels of problem behaviors but high levels of problem behaviors may also result in higher perceived discrimination (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2009). Second, we examined the moderating role of ethnic, religious, and national group identification separately, whereas work on multiple identifications has shown that with age there can be important intersections resulting in increasingly hybrid or integrated identities (Amiot, de la Sablonnière, Terry, & Smith, 2007). For example, in acculturation research, it has been argued that some migrants may identify with their ethnic group, the host society, neither, or both (Berry, 1980). Furthermore, as found in our sample, there can be a strong association between ethnic and religious group identification whereby the one defines the other (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). It is beneficial for future research to consider possible connections between multiple identities to provide evidence for the (in)coherent or integrated nature of the self (Erikson, 1968) and to understand identity development of ethnic minority and immigrant children in its broader developmental context. Future research is needed to shed light on the interplay between the different group identifications and its moderating role in the relationship between perceived discrimination and problem behaviors.

Third, the measure of perceived discrimination focused on ethnic discrimination and not on perceived religious discrimination. Because we focused on a Muslim immigrant population, disentangling perceptions of discrimination based on ethnicity and on religion may be difficult for both the perpetrators and victims of discrimination. This implies that the inclusion of a measure of perceived religious discrimination is not likely to change the results, but future studies should confirm this. Fourth, we relied on self-reports. Using additional informants such as teachers and parents would provide additional information especially about early adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems (Stevens et al., 2003). Fifth, our sample included both Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch early adolescents. Both groups may have different experiences, but further subdividing our sample would have led to serious power issues. Sixth, the levels of perceived personal and group discrimination were quite low. In general, the early adolescents did not report much discrimination. Thus, it is unclear whether the same associations and gender differences apply for early adolescents who have more frequent experiences with being ethnically discriminated. For example, compared with girls, boys might react more strongly to more systematic forms of discrimination. Yet, despite the low levels of perceived discrimination, clear relations between perceived discrimination and problem behaviors were found for girls.

Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, the current findings indicate the importance of including different types of group identification in research examining the relationship between perceived ethnic discrimination and problem behaviors. Moreover, different associations hold for boys and girls and both perceived personal and group discrimination are related to problem behaviors. Longitudinal research designs can provide more insight into the causal pathways of the relationships under investigation and examine whether the gender-specific relations are typical for early adolescents or part of a more consistent pattern over time.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Marlies Maes, MSc, is a PhD researcher at the Department of School Psychology and Child and Adolescent Development, KU Leuven, Belgium. Her research interests include adolescent socioemotional and behavioral development, loneliness and attitudes towards aloneness, ethnic diversity, and peer relationships.

Gonneke W. J. M. Stevens is an assistant professor at the Utrecht Centre for Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. In her research, she attempts to unravel the alleged risks of immigration to child development, by focusing among others on personality characteristics, perceived discrimination, acculturation, parent–child relationships, ethnic density, and receiving country comparisons.

Maykel Verkuyten is a professor in interdisciplinary social science and the academic director of the European Research Center on Migration and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER) at Utrecht University. His main research interest is in ethnic identity and interethnic relations, especially among young people.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

Rescorla

L. A.

(2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles: An integrated system of multi-informant assessments. Burlington, VT: ASEBA.

Agirdag

Van Houtte

Van Avermaet

(2010). Ethnic school context and the national and sub-national identification of pupils. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34, 357-378.

Amiot

C. R.

de la Sablonnière

Terry

D. J.

Smith

J. R.

(2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 364-388.

Armenta

B. E.

Hunt

J. S.

(2009). Responding to societal devaluation: Effects of perceived personal and group discrimination on the ethnic group identification and personal self-esteem of Latino/Latina adolescents. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 23-39.

Berry

J. W.

(1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In Padilla

A. M.

(Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9-25). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bourguignon

Seron

Yzerbyt

Herman

(2006). Perceived group and personal discrimination: Differential effects on personal self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 773-789.

Branscombe

N. R.

Schmitt

M. T.

Harvey

R. D.

(1999). Perceiving discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149.

Brown

C. S.

Chu

(2013). Gendered conceptions of ethnicity: Latino children in middle childhood. In Chuang

S. S.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(Eds.), Gender roles in immigrant families (pp. 139-153). New York, NY: Springer.

Caldwell

C. H.

Kohn-Wood

L. P.

Schmeelk-Cone

K. H.

Chavous

T. M.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2004). Racial discrimination and racial identity as risk or protective factors for violent behaviors in African American young adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 91-105.

10.

Crocker

Major

(1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

11.

Currie

Molcho

Boyce

Holstein

Torsheim

Richter

(2008). Researching health inequalities in adolescents: The development of the Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) Family Affluence Scale. Social Science and Medicine, 66, 1429-1436.

12.

De Groot

Koot

H. M.

Verhulst

F. C.

(1996). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Youth Self-Report and Teacher’s Report Form cross-informant syndromes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 651-664.

13.

Deković

Pels

T. V. M.

Model

(Eds.). (2006). Child rearing in six ethnic families: The multi-cultural Dutch experience. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

14.

Dion

K. K.

Dion

K. L.

(2004). Gender, immigration generation, and ethnocultural identity. Sex Roles, 50, 347-355.

15.

Dulin-Keita

Hannon

III. Fernandez

J. R.

Cockerham

W. C.

(2011). The defining moment: Children’s conceptualization of race and experiences with racial discrimination. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34, 662-682.

16.

Ebesutani

Bernstein

Martinez

J. I.

Chorpita

Weisz

J. R.

(2011). The Youth Self-Report: Applicability and validity across younger and older youths. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 338-346.

17.

Erikson

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.

18.

Hansen

Sassenberg

(2006). Does social identification harm or serve as a buffer? The impact of social identification on anger after experiencing social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 983-996.

19.

Pazaki

Al-Qubbaj

Cutler

(2009). Gender identity and religious practices of first-generation Muslim women immigrants in the U.S. Making Connections, 11, 50-63.

20.

Jasinskaja-Lahti

Liebkind

Solheim

(2009). To identify or not to identify? National disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 105-128.

21.

Kroger

(1997). Gender and identity: The intersection of structure, content, and context. Sex Roles, 36, 747-770.

22.

Leary

M. R.

Twenge

J. M.

Quinlivan

(2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111-132.

23.

Major

Kaiser

C. R.

McCoy

S. K.

(2003). It’s not my fault: When and why attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 772-781.

24.

McCoy

S. K.

Major

(2003). Group identification moderates emotional responses to perceived prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1005-1017.

25.

Meeus

Van de Schoot

Keijsers

Schwartz

S. J.

Branje

(2010). On the progression and stability of adolescent identity formation: A five-wave longitudinal study in early-to-middle and middle-to-late adolescence. Child Development, 81, 1565-1581.

26.

Mossakowski

K. N.

(2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic identity protect mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 318-331.

27.

Mussweiler

(2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472-489.

28.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

29.

Noh

Beiser

Kaspar

Hou

Rummens

(1999). Perceived racial discrimination, depression, and coping: A study of Southeast Asian refugees in Canada. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 193-207.

30.

Oppedal

(2006). Development and acculturation. In Sam

D. L.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 97-112). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Parke

R. D.

Leidy

M. S.

(2013). Gender and immigration: Reflections on research and policy. In Chuang

S. S.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(Eds.), Gender roles in immigrant families (pp. 191-207). New York, NY: Springer.

32.

Pascoe

E. A.

Richman

L. S.

(2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531-554.

33.

Phalet

Güngör

(2004). Religieuze dimensies, etnische relaties en burgerschap: Turken en Marokkanen in Rotterdam [Religious dimensions, ethnic relations, and citizenship: Turks and Moroccans in Rotterdam]. In Phalet

Ter Wal

(Eds.), Moslim in Nederland (SCP Working document No. 106c, pp. 1-91). Hague, The Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

34.

Phalet

Van Lotringen

Entzinger

(2000). Islam in de multiculturele samenleving: Opvattingen van jongeren in Rotterdam [Islam in the multicultural society: Adolescent views in Rotterdam]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: University of Utrecht.

35.

Phinney

J. S.

(1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. In Bernal

M. E.

Knight

G. P.

(Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 61-80). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

36.

Raaijmakers

Q. A. W.

(1999). Effectiveness of different missing data treatments in surveys with Likert-type data: Introducing the Relative Mean Substitution approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 725-748.

37.

Ruck

M. D.

Park

Killen

Crystal

D. S.

(2011). Intergroup contact and evaluations of race-based exclusions in urban minority children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 633-643.

38.

Sabatier

(2008). Ethnic and national identity among second-generation immigrant adolescents in France: The role of social context and family. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 185-205.

39.

Schmitt

M. T.

Branscombe

N. R.

(2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 167-199.

40.

Seaton

E. K.

Neblett

E. W.

Upton

R. D.

Hammond

W. P.

Sellers

R. M.

(2011). The moderating capacity of racial identity between perceived discrimination and psychological well-being over time among African American youth. Child Development, 82, 1850-1867.

41.

Shorey

H. S.

Cowan

Sullivan

M. P.

(2002). Predicting perceptions of discrimination among Hispanics and Anglos. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24, 3-22.

42.

Smith

H. J.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Pippin

G. M.

Bialosiewicz

(2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 203-232.

43.

Stevens

G. W. J. M.

Pels

Bengi-Arslan

Verhulst

F. C.

Vollebergh

W. A. M.

Crijnen

A. A. M.

(2003). Parent, teacher and self reported problem behavior in the Netherlands: Comparing Moroccan immigrant with Dutch and with Turkish immigrant children and adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 576-585.

44.

Stevens

G. W. J. M.

Pels

T. V. M.

Vollebergh

W. A. M.

Crijnen

A. A. M.

(2004). Patterns of psychological acculturation in adult and adolescent Moroccan immigrants living in the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 689-704.

45.

Stevens

G. W. J. M.

Vollebergh

W. A. M.

Pels

Crijnen

A. A. M.

(2005). Predicting externalizing problems in Moroccan immigrant adolescent in the Netherlands. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40, 571-579.

46.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

47.

Taylor

D. M.

Wright

S. C.

Moghaddam

F. M.

Lalonde

R. N.

(1990). The personal-group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 254-262.

48.

Taylor

D. M.

Wright

S. C.

Porter

L. E.

(1994). Dimensions of perceived discrimination: The personal/group discrimination discrepancy. In Zanna

M. P.

Olson

J. M.

(Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (pp. 233-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

49.

Verkuyten

(1998). Perceived discrimination and self-esteem among ethnic minority adolescents. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 479-493.

50.

Verkuyten

(2005). The social psychology of ethnic identity. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

51.

Verkuyten

Kinket

Van der Wielen

(1997). Preadolescents’ understanding of ethnic discrimination. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158, 97-112.

52.

Verkuyten

Martinovic

(2012). Social identity complexity and immigrants’ attitude towards the host nation: The intersection of ethnic and religious group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1165-1177.

53.

Verkuyten

Thijs

(2002). Multiculturalism among minority and majority adolescents in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 91-108.

54.

Verkuyten

Thijs

(2006). Ethnic discrimination and global self-worth in early adolescents: The mediating role of ethnic self-esteem. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 107-116.

55.

Verkuyten

Thijs

Stevens

G. W. J. M.

(2012). Multiple identities and religious transmission: A study among Moroccan-Dutch Muslim adolescents and their parents. Child Development, 83, 1577-1590.

56.

Wong

C. A.

Eccles

J. S.

Sameroff

(2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197-1232.

57.

Ysseldyk

Matheson

Anisman

(2010). Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 60-71.