International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

The supporting and impeding effects of group-related approach andavoidance strategies on newcomers’ psychological adaptation

Christina Matschke ∗, Kai SassenbergKnowledge Media Research Center, Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 40, 72072 Tübingen, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Accepted 16 April 2007

Keywords:Social identificationDisidentificationApproach and avoidance strategiesAcculturation

a b s t r a c t

Migrating to another country makes a person a newcomer in the receiving society. The cur-rent research investigates the impact of group-related approach and avoidance strategieson the psychological functioning of newcomers in the receiving society. Research in theinterpersonal domain has demonstrated that approach strategies have positive effects andavoidance strategies negative effects on people’s well-being. We propose that in an intercul-tural context group-related approach strategies also lead to a higher extent of well-being.Moreover, we expect that people’s attitude to contact and (dis)identification account forthis effect. As in the interpersonal domain, group-related avoidance strategies are expectedto lead to lower well-being. More specifically, we predict that avoidance strategies facilitatedisidentification, which, in turn, affects well-being negatively. Moreover, disidentification,being an unsuccessful integration into the group, is predicted to induce stronger achieve-ment effort as a compensation for unsuccessful integration. A longitudinal study with 51German first-year students in the Netherlands mainly confirmed these predictions. How-ever, the predicted mediation was not found for avoidance strategies. Results are discussedwith reference to approach/avoidance literature and acculturation research. The findingsunderline the importance of early strategy adoption to ensure long-term psychologicalfunctioning of migrants in the receiving society.

© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. General introduction

Imagine an international student at a foreign university. In order to integrate into the local student community, he mightfocus on dressing like his fellow students, using similar language, or behaving like typical local students. Imagine, on theother hand, an expatriate who is sent to work in a foreign country. In order to become part of the local society, she mighttake care to avoid expressing unpopular opinions, taking wrong decisions at work, or dressing improperly according to localstandards. The first example illustrates the adoption of group-related approach strategies by migrants: the application ofbehavior that encourages integration into the receiving society. The second example illustrates group-related avoidancestrategies: migrants will tend to avoid behavior that puts their integration into the receiving society at risk. Approach andavoidance strategies occur naturally in the social domain and are often related to each other (Elliot, 2006; Elliot, Gable, &Mapes, 2006; Gable & Strachman, 2008). New group members, such as migrants to another country, also apply approachand avoidance strategies when integrating into the group (Matschke & Sassenberg, in press; Matschke & Sassenberg, 2010).But little is known about the functionality of approach and avoidance strategies in the context of new group memberships.The purpose of the current research is to identify the effects of group-related strategies on the psychological functioning ofnewcomers in groups.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 7071 979 201; fax: +49 7071 979 200.E-mail address: c.matschke@iwm-kmrc.de (C. Matschke).

0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.04.008

466 C. Matschke, K. Sassenberg / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474

1.1. The effect of approach and avoidance strategies on well-being

When newcomers focus on positive experiences in a new group, they adopt group-related approach strategies: theirbehavior aims at increasing the likelihood of integration. When newcomers focus on negative experiences in the new group,they adopt group-related avoidance strategies: newcomers will avoid such behavior that puts integration into the new groupat risk. Both strategies, group-related approach and avoidance, are aimed at integration into the new group, but on differentroutes. It has been demonstrated that the adoption of approach and avoidance strategies1 in the pursuit of interpersonalrelations affects, in the long term, the well-being of individuals: interpersonal approach strategies are positively related towell-being, whereas interpersonal avoidance strategies are negatively related to well-being (Elliot et al., 2006). Applying thisfinding to intercultural relations, we predict that group-related approach strategies lead to higher levels of well-being, andgroup-related avoidance strategies lead to lower levels of well-being. These effects might occur due to a relation betweengroup-related strategies and acculturation attitudes.

1.2. Acculturation attitudes

We will first discuss the effects of acculturation attitudes on well-being, and then propose a relation between group-related strategies and acculturation attitudes.

In the intercultural domain, it has been proposed that well-being is affected by certain attitudes of migrants (i.e., newcom-ers in the receiving society): Their attitude towards (a) maintenance of their own primary cultural identity, and (b) contactwith and participation in the receiving society (Berry, 1997). Various findings support the assumption that the adoption ofboth attitudes leads to higher degrees of well-being (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton,1993; Nguyen, Messé, & Stollak, 1999; Phinney, Chavira, & Williamson, 1992; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001).The attitude towards maintaining of one’s own primary cultural identity refers to an established group membership, whereasthe attitude towards contact refers to a new group. As the current research focuses on group-related strategies which areaimed at integration into a new group, only the effects of the attitude towards contact will be considered.

Group-related strategies refer to the type of contact that newcomers seek with their new group, while acculturationattitudes refer to the extent of contact. Nevertheless, there is evidence in interpersonal research that the strategy adopted byindividuals will affect the extent to which they seek contact. Gable (2006) proposes that individuals who adopt approachstrategies for building good relationships actively seek positive contact experiences, and this search will lead to strongerexposure to positive contact experiences. The adoption of avoidance strategies, on the other hand, neither affects their searchfor nor their exposure to contact, but the impact of contact experiences. Based on these findings, we propose that group-related strategies affect seeking contact with the new group. We predict that stronger group-related approach strategies(but not avoidance strategies) are positively related to the attitude towards contact (Hypothesis 1).

Furthermore, we propose that the attitude towards contact affects (dis)identification with the new group.

1.3. (Dis)identification

Firstly, the impact of (dis)identification on well-being will be discussed. Secondly, we propose that acculturation attitudesand group-related strategies affect (dis)identification.

According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), new group memberships induce self-concept changes: Therelationship with the group is included into a person’s self-concept (Smith & Henry, 1996). A positive relationship – inthis case: successful integration into the group – will result in the development of social identification. Members feel, self-categorize, and act on behalf of their group membership (Sassenberg & Matschke, 2010; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). A negativerelationship to a self-relevant group – failed integration – is mirrored in disidentification. Members feel, self-categorize, andact contrary to the group (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007).

There is a large body of literature proposing the beneficial effects of social identification on well-being (Branscombe,Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Brewer, 1991; Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe, 2003; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).We therefore predict that stronger social identification with a new group is related to higher degrees of well-being (Hypothesis2). The relation between disidentification and well-being has not yet been investigated. There are several reasons why weexpect that disidentification affects well-being. Firstly, negative interpersonal relations have a negative impact on well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and negative relationships to groups are likely to have similar effects. Secondly, being adisidentified member implies two conflicting cognitions: “I am a member of the group” and “I have a negative relationshipwith that group”. These contradict each other and are likely to lead to cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), a disagreeablestate of tension. Thus, we predict that stronger disidentification with a new group is related to lower degrees of well-being(Hypothesis 3).

On the other hand, success in the academic world may compensate for problems in the social sphere. Schwartz, HopmeyerGorman, Duong, and Nakamoto (2008) have demonstrated that academic achievement buffers the negative effect of having

1 Though Gable and co-workers name the construct social approach and avoidance goals, their instruments rather measure on the level of goal strategiesapplied to reach a goal (i.e., establish relationships). We therefore refer to interpersonal approach and avoidance strategies.

C. Matschke, K. Sassenberg / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474 467

Fig. 1. The hypothesized model of group-related strategies, attitude towards contact, self-concept changes, and long-term consequences.

relatively few friends on depressive symptoms of children. In line with that, Sleebos, Ellemers, and de Gilder (2006) foundthat disrespect of groups makes members increase their self-serving effort in achievement tasks aimed at leaving the group.We therefore expect that stronger disidentification leads to a stronger achievement effort in relevant academic domains(Hypothesis 4).

Furthermore, we propose that people’s attitude towards contact and group-related strategies affect their(dis)identification. A strongly developed attitude towards contact leads to better socio-cultural adaptation (Nguyen et al.,1999; Ward & Kennedy, 1994; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999). In other words, it increases the likelihood of a positive, anddecreases the likelihood of a negative relationship with the new group. Therefore we predict that a strong attitude towardscontact leads to higher degrees of social identification (Hypothesis 5) and weaker disidentification (Hypothesis 6).

Moreover, there may also be a positive relation between group-related avoidance strategies and disidentification. Inter-personal avoidance strategies are known to be related to greater loneliness, negative social attitudes, and relationshipinsecurity (Elliot et al., 2006; Gable, 2006). Thus, avoidance strategies lead to negative outcomes of relationships. As disiden-tification reflects a negative relationship to a group in one’s self-concept, we assume that group-related avoidance strategiesfacilitate disidentification (Hypothesis 7).

2. Overview

A longitudinal study with two measurement times was conducted. At Time 1 (T1), the continuous predictors group-related approach and avoidance strategies were measured. In order to control whether interpersonal, instead of group-relatedstrategies, were behind the predicted effects, interpersonal approach and avoidance strategies were measured as controlvariables. Taking into account that most of the outcome criteria could not be measured at T1, they were first measuredat Time 2 (T2). Three continuous mediators (attitude towards contact, social identification, and disidentification) and twodependent variables (well-being and achievement effort) were also measured at T2.

Fig. 1 demonstrates the hypothesized model in full. We predict that stronger group-related approach strategies leadto higher levels of well-being, whereas stronger group-related avoidance strategies lead to lower levels of well-being. Weexpect that these effects are mediated by acculturation attitudes and self-concept changes. We expect stronger group-relatedapproach strategies, but not avoidance strategies, to be positively related to people’s attitude towards contact (Hypothesis1). Group-related avoidance strategies are predicted to lead to stronger disidentification (Hypothesis 7). Attitude towardscontact is predicted to be positively related to social identification (Hypothesis 5), and negatively related to disidentification(Hypothesis 6). Stronger social identification is expected to be related to higher levels of well-being (Hypothesis 2). We predictthat disidentification leads to lower levels of well-being (Hypothesis 3), but to stronger achievement effort (Hypothesis 4).

In other words, we predict four mediations. We expect attitude towards contact to mediate the relation between group-related approach strategies and social identification (Mediation hypothesis 1). Social identification (Mediation hypothesis 2a)and disidentification (Mediation hypothesis 2b), in turn, are predicted to account for the relation between the attitude towardscontact and well-being. Additionally, disidentification is predicted to mediate the relation between group-related avoidancestrategies and well-being (Mediation hypothesis 3).

3. Method

3.1. Design and participants

Ninety-four German students (79 females, 15 males, age M = 20, range 18–23), who had just come to the Netherlands(on average 32 days ago) in order to study at the University of Groningen, participated in our study at T1. Forty-five percent (multiple answers were possible) of the participants indicated that they had chosen the Netherlands for their studiesbecause they were not admitted to their favorite subject at a German university, or because they wanted to study abroad(43 per cent). Groningen had been chosen by the participants because, they said, it was close to their hometown (40 per

468 C. Matschke, K. Sassenberg / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474

cent), because of the good reputation of that university (55 per cent) and the beauty of the city (64 per cent). Approximately12–16 weeks later, 51 of these students (44 females, 7 males) also participated at T2. For participating at T1, the studentsreceived a token from the university, for participation at both measurement times, they received book vouchers.

3.2. Drop-out analysis

Between T1 and T2, 43 students dropped out of the study. Participants who dropped out did not differ in age, group-relatedapproach or avoidance strategies from those who participated in the second wave, all ts < 1.02, all ps > .10. So drop-out wasnot systematically related to the group-related strategies investigated here.

3.3. Procedure

Participants were recruited in language courses (83 participants) and posted notices at the university (11 participants),referring to an intended study about experiences of German students in Groningen. At T1, participants filled in a German-worded questionnaire at the end of a Dutch language lesson before the start of the term, or online at the beginning ofterm. 85 per cent of the participants did not have any contact to Dutch students at T1. But as most of these students camefrom places near the German-Dutch border, they had probably met some Dutch people before. Within a larger battery ofmeasures, participants indicated their group-related approach and avoidance strategies in order to integrate into the groupof students in Groningen, their interpersonal approach and avoidance strategies, gave demographical data, and their e-mailaddresses. Participants who filled in the paper-pencil T1 questionnaire were stronger in interpersonal approach strategies(M = 6.22, SD = .65) than those who filled in the T1 questionnaire online (M = 5.64, SD = .48), t(49) = 2.25, p = .029, but otherwisethere were no differences in T1 measures between the groups, all ts < 1.78, all ps > .10. So we could assume that the modeof completion of our questionnaire did not affect any relevant criteria, and the analyses were conducted across the twogroups.

Approximately 12–14 weeks after T1 – before the start of the Christmas holidays – the online follow-up questionnaire wasadvertised via e-mail. Participants completed measures of their attitude towards contact, their social identification as wellas their disidentification with the Dutch students of Groningen. Dutch Students in Groningen were taken as a new referencegroup here, because they were likely to be the group that was most relevant to first-year students. Identification withGermans was not measured, as the measurement of such a distinct and predominant characteristic (e.g., Amiot, Sablonnière,Terry, & Smith, 2007; McGuire, McGuire, Child, & Fujioka, 1978) might have prevented the indication of social identificationwith the Dutch students. In addition, we asked the participants to fill in measures of well-being and achievement effort.After participation in both measurement times, the participants were thanked and debriefed.

3.4. Measures

Group-related approach strategies (e.g., “I am trying to grow into the group of Dutch students with my behavior”, ˛ = .76) andavoidance strategies (e.g., “I avoid deviating from the image of a typical student in the Netherlands”, ˛ = .76) were measuredwith a 12-item questionnaire, adapted from Matschke and Sassenberg (in press). Group-related approach strategies (M = 5.29,SD = .93) and avoidance strategies (M = 3.13, SD = 1.08) were intercorrelated (r = .36, p = .009), as has been reported earlier inthe social domain (Elliot et al., 2006).

The measures of interpersonal approach strategies (e.g., “I try to deepen my relationships with my friends”, ˛ = .63) andinterpersonal avoidance strategies (e.g., “I try to avoid disagreement and conflicts with my friends”, ˛ = .65) were a Germantranslation of the questionnaire of Elliot et al. (2006). Items were translated by ourselves, back-translation by a bilingualperson demonstrated that the translation had been satisfactory. Like group-related strategies, interpersonal approach andavoidance strategies were positively related (r = .38, p = .006).

The attitude towards contact was measured with four items (e.g., “I think it is important that German students have Dutchfriends”, ˛ = .90). Two items were adapted from Zagefka and Brown (2002), one item from Geschke, Mummendey, Kessler,and Funke (2007), and one item of our own was added.

An 11-item scale measured social identification (e.g., “I feel as a Dutch student” ˛ = .83). Seven items were taken fromthe identification scale introduced by Kessler and Hollbach (2005), one item was taken from the identification measure ofHinkle, Taylor, and Fox-Cardamone (1989), two items were adapted from the German version of the Organization CitizenshipBehavior Scale (Staufenbiel & Hartz, 2000), amended by another item developed by ourselves.

Disidentification (e.g., “I doubt that I will belong to the Dutch students much longer”, ˛ = .90) was measured with tenitems. All items were taken from the questionnaire of Matschke and Sassenberg (in press).

Well-being (e.g., “I consider myself a happy person”, ˛ = .92) was measured with the 13-item scale of Dalbert (1992).Three items in an open response format measured achievement effort (e.g., “How many hours per week do you usually spendstudying?”, ˛ = .70).

All items (except for achievement effort) were assessed on a 7-point scale (1 = I don’t agree at all, 7 = I fully agree). Meansserved as scale values. The items that were adapted or developed by us can be found in Appendix A.

C. Matschke, K. Sassenberg / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474 469

Table 1Pearson product moment correlations of predictor and outcome variables (N = 51).

Measure 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Group-related approach .36** .50*** .23 .31* .14 .03 −.02 −.022. Group-related avoidance −.17 .12 −.10 −.04 .11 −.29* −.033. Interpersonal approach .38** .25+ .07 .05 .17 −.064. Interpersonal avoidance .06 −.05 .05 .13 .105. Attitude towards contact .46** −.33* .31* .166. Social identification −.46** .47*** −.227. Disidentification −.38** .34*

8. Well-being −.069. Achievement effort

+ p < .10.* p < .05.

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

3.5. Analyses of data

In order to test the separate paths of the model proposed in Hypotheses 1–7, separate regression analyses were conducted.Each of the criteria was regressed on the predicted factor. Moreover, criteria were simultaneously regressed on the controlvariables that were predicted not to affect the criterion (i.e., the respective “counterpart” of the factor; in case of group-related strategies as predictors, criteria were additionally regressed on interpersonal strategies). By adopting this procedure,specific effects of predictors can be identified and alternative explanations can be ruled out. In addition, structural equationmodeling tested the overall fit of the model, as regression analyses only test parts of the model at the time. Finally, thepredicted Mediation hypotheses 1–3 were tested explicitly in separate Sobel tests.

4. Results

4.1. Regression analyses

The full correlation matrix of predictor and dependent variables is shown in Table 1. In order to test the paths of thehypothesized model, separate regression analyses were conducted, including those predictors where we either expected adirect effect or where we explicitly expected no effect (see Table 2).

In order to test Hypothesis 1, attitude towards contact was regressed on group-related approach strategies, group-relatedavoidance strategies, interpersonal approach strategies, and interpersonal avoidance strategies. As expected, only group-related approach strategies predicted the attitude towards contact, ˇ = .38, p = .042, whereas none of the other predictorswere related to the attitude towards contact, all ˇs < |.24|, all ps > .10.

Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested by regressing well-being on social identification and disidentification. As expected,stronger social identification was related to higher levels of well-being, ˇ = .38, p = .010. Descriptively, stronger disiden-tification led to lower levels of well-being, but the relation did not reach conventional levels of significance, ˇ = −.21,p = .139.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that disidentification increases achievement effort. Thus, disidentification and social identificationserved as predictors for achievement effort. As expected, stronger disidentification was related to stronger achievementeffort, ˇ = .31, p = .049, whereas there was no relation between social identification and achievement effort, ˇ = −.08, p = .597.

Table 2Standardized regression weights from multiple regression analyses of attitude towards contact, social identification, disidentification, well-being, andachievement effort.

Dependent measure

Acculturation contact Social identification Disidentification Well-being Achievement effort

Group-related approach .38*

Group-related avoidance −.23 .01 .07Interpersonal approach .02Interpersonal avoidance −.01 −.07 .06Attitude towards contact .47** −.33*

Social identification .38* −.08Disidentification −.21 .31*

+p < .10.* p < .05.

** p < .01.

470 C. Matschke, K. Sassenberg / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474

Fig. 2. The modified empirical model of group-related strategies, attitude towards contact, self-concept changes, and long-term consequences (N = 51).

In order to test Hypothesis 5, social identification was regressed on attitude towards contact, group-related avoid-ance strategies, and interpersonal avoidance strategies. The attitude towards contact was, as expected, positively relatedto stronger social identification, ˇ = .47, p = .001. Neither group-related avoidance strategies nor interpersonal avoidancestrategies predicted social identification, both ˇs < |.08|, both ps > .10.

The regression analysis that tested Hypotheses 6 and 7 included disidentification as a criterion and group-related avoidancestrategies, interpersonal avoidance strategies, and attitude towards contact as predictors. The expected relation betweengroup-related avoidance strategies and disidentification was not found, ˇ = .07, p = .598, in other words, Hypothesis 6 was notsupported by the data. As expected, there was no effect of interpersonal avoidance strategies on disidentification, ˇ = .06,p = .680. In support of Hypothesis 7, a strong attitude towards contact was related to weaker disidentification, ˇ = −.33, p = .021.

Taken together, regression analyses supported most of the predicted relations in the hypothesized model and demon-strated that group-related strategies, instead of interpersonal strategies, are predictors of the group-related dependentmeasures. But the predicted relation between group-related avoidance strategies and disidentification was not found.Likewise, the data did not support the assumption that disidentification leads to lower levels of well-being. Therefore,these paths were omitted from the hypothesized model. In the modified model, a direct path from group-related avoid-ance strategies to well-being was allowed (as in the interpersonal domain; Elliot et al., 2006). Fig. 2 displays the modifiedmodel.

4.2. Structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis testing the full model

In order to test the paths of the full model simultaneously and assess the fit of the modified model to the observeddata, SEM was used. As the attitude towards contact, social identification, disidentification, and achievement effort couldnot be measured at T1, cross-legged analyses were not possible. A confirmative factor analysis was conducted on the sevenavailable measures using AMOS 7 (Arbuckle, 2006). Following prior research, the measurement errors of the group-relatedapproach and avoidance strategies were allowed to correlate (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot et al., 2006). Likewise, the errorvariables of the two self-concept-related measures social identification and disidentification were allowed to correlate. Assuggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Errorof Approximation (RMSEA) were used to evaluate the model fit.

All predicted relations in the modified model received empirical support, all ˇs > |27|, all ps > .05. Fig. 2 displays thepath regression coefficients. The modified model fitted well to the observed data, �2 (13, N = 51) = 15.08, p = .302, CFI = .962,TLI = .939, RMSEA = .057.

The original hypothesized model (see Fig. 1) fitted the data only poorly to moderately, �2 (12, N = 51) = 17.14, p = .145,CFI = .906, TLI = .836, RMSEA = .093 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). Likewise, alternative modelstesting the reversed causal relations and different causal relations between the variables collected at T2 (e.g., between theattitude towards contact and the group-related strategies) were poor in fitting to the data, all CFI < .85, TLI < .75, RMSEA > .11.

4.3. Mediation analyses in the full model

In order to test the predicted mediations separately, indirect effects were calculated with Amos 7 (Arbuckle, 2006).The indirect (twice mediated) effect of group-related approach strategies on well-being was ˇ = .07. Firstly, in Mediationhypothesis 1 we expected that the attitude towards contact accounts for the relation between approach strategies and socialidentification, ˇ = .14. Sobel’s test indicated that this indirect effect was marginally significant, z = 1.95, p = .063. Secondly,the relation between the attitude towards contact and well-being was, as expected in Mediation hypothesis 2a, accounted forby social identification, ˇ = 22, z = 2.67, p = .012. In the modified model, there was no direct effect of disidentification on well-being, thus the relation between attitude towards contact and well-being was not mediated by disidentification (as expectedin Mediation hypothesis 2b). Likewise, as there was no relation between group-related avoidance strategies and disidentifi-

C. Matschke, K. Sassenberg / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474 471

cation, the relation between group-related avoidance strategies and well-being was not mediated by disidentification (asexpected in Mediation hypothesis 3).

Taken together, SEM and mediation analyses confirmed the predictions of the modified model.

5. Discussion

The current research investigated, by means of longitudinal study, the effects of group-related approach and avoidancestrategies on the psychological functioning of cultural newcomers. We expected and found that group-related approachstrategies lead to a stronger attitude towards contact, which was in turn related to stronger social identification. Socialidentification led to higher well-being. Thus, group-related approach strategies positively affected long-term well-being.Avoidance strategies, on the other hand, led to lower levels of long-term well-being. This effect was not, as originallyhypothesized, accounted for by disidentification, but disidentification led, as expected, to stronger achievement effort. Astrong attitude towards contact, in turn, led to weaker disidentification.

5.1. The process induced by group-related strategies

The findings contribute to a better understanding of the underlying processes of the effects of approach strategies on well-being. In the interpersonal domain, Gable (2006) argues that stronger exposure to positive contact experiences and positiverelationship outcomes account for the relation between approach strategies and well-being. Likewise, in the current research,the effects of group-related approach strategies on well-being are mediated by the attitude towards contact experiences (i.e.,a stronger seeking of and exposure to contact with the receiving society), but the current data add a layer of self-conceptchanges to the model. We demonstrate that it is the inclusion of positive relationships into the self-concept (i.e., socialidentification) that accounts for the effects of approach strategies on well-being.

Avoidance strategies had, like in the interpersonal domain (Elliot et al., 2006), a negative effect on long-term well-being.This relation was, however, not mediated by negative relationship outcomes (as suggested by Gable, 2006) that are includedin the self-concept (i.e., disidentification). Research in the interpersonal domain suggests that the impact of avoidancestrategies on negative relationship outcomes is mediated by stronger reactivity towards negative events (Elliot et al., 2006;Gable, 2006; Gable & Strachman, 2008). Indeed, interpersonal avoidance strategies lead to facilitated memory of negativeinterpersonal events, and negatively biased interpretation of ambiguous interpersonal information (Strachman & Gable,2006). However, it is striking that, in this reasoning, avoidance strategies affect relationship outcomes in combination withnegative events. Unlike approach strategies, avoidance strategies do not affect exposure to the events that induce strategyeffects (Gable, 2006; Gable & Strachman, 2008). In other words, if there are no negative events, it is possible that avoidancestrategies will not affect relationship outcomes. The present study did not collect information about actual experiences withthe group, so it is possible that these people had not gone through many negative experiences. Moreover, disidentificationis an explicitly negative outcome criterion, something that is hardly socially desirable from the point of view of highlymotivated newcomers. So participants might not have wanted to express an explicitly negative relationship with their newgroup without stating reasons. Future investigations should control for the quality of contact experiences and include themotivational strength of newcomers to enter the group, in order to further clarify the process of the negative effects ofgroup-related avoidance strategies on well-being.

5.2. Implications for acculturation research

For acculturation research, the current findings are a contribution to the explanation of why people adopt a certainacculturation strategy. So far, demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, education), contextual factors (e.g., cultural similarity,permeability, social–political norms), and personal factors (e.g., self-efficacy, locus of control, pride) have been shown toinfluence the choice of acculturation strategy (Berry, 1997; Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; Liebkind, 2001;Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzálek, 2000). But these predictors are either outside the migrant, or address ratherstable and uncontrollable characteristics of migrants. By demonstrating that group-related approach strategies lead to astronger attitude towards contact, the present research considers procedural and flexible characteristics of newcomers,which concern their self-regulation in a specific situation that was new to them.

One might argue that the causal relationship between group-related strategies and acculturation strategies is reversed:Those people with positive attitudes towards contact will be inclined to focus on strategies that facilitate integration. Theo-retically, however, group-related approach and avoidance strategies can already be adopted when newcomers decide thatthey wish to be integrated into a new group, whereas acculturation attitudes are adopted as a reaction to the challenge ofacculturation induced by intercultural encounters (Berry, 1997). Thus, group-related strategies affect the integration processright at the start, or even before gaining access to the group, whereas acculturation attitudes are a reaction to contact withthe group after having entered that group. Empirically, the current findings demonstrate that the assumption of a reversedcausal relationship would not fit the data as well as the relationship proposed by us. Thus, group-related approach andavoidance strategies are changeable characteristics of migrants that predict acculturation attitudes at an early stage of theacculturation process.

472 C. Matschke, K. Sassenberg / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474

5.3. Coping with disidentification

Apart from short-term outcomes of disidentification (e.g., public criticism or counter-group actions, Elsbach &Bhattacharya, 2001), there is little research about consequences of disidentification. The present data did not supportthe assumption that disidentification leads to lower levels of well-being, but it was demonstrated that disidentification(i.e., unsuccessful integration) leads to stronger engagement in alternative dimensions (i.e., achievement; Schwartz et al.,2008). Germans with a good degree from a Dutch university might have performed well during their studies in orderto find a job in Germany more easily, so they “perform themselves out of the group” (as argued in Sleebos et al., 2006).The rejection–identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999) suggests that identification with alternative groups in faceof prejudice buffers the negative effect of prejudice on well-being. Likewise, it is possible that success in some alternativedimension buffers the negative effects of unsuccessful integration on the newcomers’ well-being, which might be the reasonfor the missing relation between disidentification and well-being. Further longitudinal investigations of creative coping withdisidentification – and consequences of successful coping on well-being – would be a valuable contribution to the currentevidence.

5.3.1. Context dependenceWe did not conceptualize achievement effort as a part of well-being. In acculturation research, however, achievement

success is often considered a part of well-being (e.g., Berry et al., 2006; Nguyen et al., 1999), or, to be more specific, ofsocio-cultural adaptation (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). If, likewise, we consider achievement effort to be a part ofwell-being, an alternative hypothesis may be derived from acculturation research: As one’s attitude towards contact affectsthat person’s well-being positively (Ward & Kennedy, 1994; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999), and this relation is mediated by(dis)identification, the relation between disidentification and achievement effort should be negative. However, the currentfindings have shown a positive relation between disidentification and achievement effort.

We propose that the nature of this relation depends on the context: There are groups where achievement is normative andintegration relies on good performance. In these contexts, disidentification would impede achievement effort. But if achieve-ment is an irrelevant characteristic in the group, integration is independent of performance. In such contexts, achievementis an alternative dimension, one in which disidentification with a group may be compensated. This assumption is supportedby the positive relation between disidentification and achievement effort, which we found in the current research, wherethe reference group was Dutch students at a Dutch university. Among these, the norm is to achieve results which are justgood enough (“zesjescultuur”) to pass exams (VSNU, 2007; cited in Binnenland, 2007), probably especially among youngstudents at the beginning of their studies. Additional data (Matschke & Sassenberg, 2009) from expatriates in developmentwork demonstrate that there is a norm not to disidentify from the receiving culture (M = 2.12, SD = 1.93, which differed sig-nificantly from the midpoint of the 7-point-scale, t(16) = −4.02, p = .001). In this context, stronger disidentification is relatedto smaller achievement effort (r = −.52, p = .031, N = 17). Future research should investigate the impact of disidentification onachievement effort in contexts with varying group achievement norms.

5.4. Conclusions

The current findings demonstrate the importance of smooth integration into new groups for psychological functioningof newcomers. In a world that recurringly requires adaptation to new groups, individuals can contribute to their ownpsychological functioning by adopting certain strategies when they enter a new group: group-related approach strategiesimprove their well-being, avoidance strategies decrease it. Moreover, in the intercultural domain, a strong attitude towardscontact is helpful for self-concept adaptation and the psychological functioning of migrants. These findings have variouspractical implications for the selection of newcomers, and also for training and coaching migrants. In many countries, politicalactivities that are aimed at successful integration of migrants into the receiving society start only months, if not years aftertheir arrival. Most acculturation research so far has investigated migrants years after their arrival, or even second- or third-generation migrants. The current findings demonstrate that there are motivational forces in migrants that affect self-conceptchanges right at, or even before their contact with the receiving society. Future research should seek to investigate migrantsat early stages of their migration, in order to capture those processes that take place at the beginning. Moreover, the findingsunderline the importance of an early beginning of training and integration arrangements, because certain motivationalstrategies of newcomers begin to work on arrival in the group, but lay the foundation of newcomers’ long-term functioningin the receiving group.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dan Landis and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on an earlier versionof this paper. Moreover, the authors wish to express their gratitude to the organizational and social psychology labs at the

C. Matschke, K. Sassenberg / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474 473

University of Groningen for their fruitful contributions in the context of various discussions. Furthermore, we would like tothank Margaret van der Kamp and the teachers at the language center at the University of Groningen, Joana Rosenkranz fromthe office of International relations at the University of Groningen, Katrin Bannach from the “Friedrich-Naumann Stiftungfür die Freiheit”, and Ton Rooiers from the department of Psychology at the University of Groningen for their cooperation indata collection. Moreover, we thank Magdalena Huber, Jennifer Fehr and our student assistants at the KMRC Tübingen fortheir help with data collection and preparation.

Appendix A. Complete list of items (except for well-being and interpersonal strategies)

Scale Items

Group-related approach strategies “I am trying to mentally grow into the group of Dutch students”, “I am striving to be accepted as afull member of the group of Dutch students”, “I am striving to be seen as a real group member bythe other Dutch students”, “I am striving to see myself as a real Dutch student”, “I am trying togrow into the group of Dutch students with my behavior”, “I am striving to see myself as acompatible member of the Dutch students”.

Group-related avoidance strategies “I avoid deviating from the image of a typical student in the Netherlands”, “When I am with Dutchstudents, I am trying to distinguish my behavior from other Germans”, “I want my behavior todeviate as little as possible from the Dutch students”, “I avoid being too similar to people that arenot Dutch students”, “It is important to me not to differ too much from the Dutch students”, “Iavoid to appear as a typically German when I am with Dutch people”.

Attitude towards contact “I think it is important that German students spend free time with Dutch people”, “I think it isimportant that German students have Dutch friends”, “German students in the Netherlandsshould actively seek contact with Dutch people”, “It is important that German students often keepcompany with Dutch people”.

Social identification “I like to be part of the group of Dutch students”, “I often regret to be part of the group of Dutchstudents” (reversed), “I feel strong ties to the Dutch students”, “I am happy to belong to the Dutchstudents”, “I feel as a Dutch student”, “I perceive myself as a Dutch student”, “It is important to meto be a part of the group of Dutch students”, “I identify as being a Dutch student”, “I help otherDutch students when they are overloaded”, “I am thinking about how to improve things for theDutch students”, “I stand up for improvements for Dutch students”.

Disidentification “I doubt that I will belong to the Dutch students much longer”, “I am thinking about quitting mystudies in the Netherlands”, “I am thinking about dropping out of the University in theNetherlands”, “I tell myself I have a number of other groups in which I can play a part”, “I ratherinvest time and effort in other groups”, “I convince myself that I have other groups that areimportant to me”, “I feel bad when I meet Dutch students”, “I sometimes have a really bad feelingwhen I am with Dutch students”, “I often go with a queasy feeling to activities with Dutchstudents”, “I feel bad when I spend my time with Dutch students”.

Achievement effort “How many hours per week do you usually spend studying?”, “How many hours did you spendstudying last week?”, “Compared to your fellow students, how much do you study for yourclasses?”

References

Amiot, C. E., Sablonnière, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 4, 364–388.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS.Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,

117, 497–529.Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68.Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An international

Review, 55, 303–332.Binnenland, A. D. (2007). Zesjescultuur bij studenten [Six-culture in students] retrieved from the World Wide Web. URL: http://www.ad.nl/

binnenland/article1469438.ece, 20/02/2009.Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International

Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386.Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification

and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149.Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).

Newbury Part, CA: Sage Publications.Dalbert, C. (1992). Subjektives Wohlbefinden junger Erwachsener: Theoretische und empirische Analysen der Struktur und Stabilität [Subjective well-being

in young adults: Theoretical and empirical analyses of structure and stability]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 13, 207–220.Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111–116.Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

72, 218–232.Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 378–391.Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association.

Organizational Science, 12, 393–413.Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Oxford, England: Row, Peterson.Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality, 74, 175–222.Gable, S. L., & Strachman, A. (2008). Approaching social rewards and avoiding social punishments: Appetitive and aversive social motivation. In J. Y. Shah,

& W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science. New York:: Guilford Press (pp. 561–575)

474 C. Matschke, K. Sassenberg / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 465–474

Geschke, D., Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., & Funke, F. (2007). Three facets of majority members’ acculturation orientations as predictors and effects of attitudesand behaviours towards migrants. Unpublished manuscript. Germany: University of Jena.

Hinkle, S., Taylor, L. A., & Fox-Cardamone, D. L. (1989). Intragroup identification and intergroup differentiation: A multicomponent approach. British Journalof Social Psychology, 28, 305–317.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In M. A. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.),Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 173–190). Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. StructuralEquation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Kessler, T., & Hollbach, S. (2005). Group based emotion as determinants of ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 677–685.Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–27.LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412.Liebkind, K. (2001). Acculturation. In R. Brown, & S. C. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 386–408). Malden,

MA: Blackwell.Matschke, C., & Sassenberg, K. (2010). Approach strategies and intrinsic motivation facilitate social identification with a new group. Unpublished manuscript.

Germany: Knowledge Media Research Center.Matschke, C., & Sassenberg, K. (2009). The impact of (dis)identification on well-being and achievement effort. Unpublished data. Tübingen, Germany: Knowledge

Media Research Center.Matschke, C., & Sassenberg, K. (in press). Does rejection lead to disidentification? The role of internal motivation and avoidance strategies. European Journal

of Social Psychology.McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function of one’s ethnic distinctiveness

in the social environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 511–520.Nguyen, H. H., Messé, L. A., & Stollak, G. E. (1999). Toward a more complex understanding of acculturation and adjustment. Cultural involvements and

psychosocial functioning in Vietnamese youth. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 5–31.Phinney, J. S., Chavira, V., & Williamson, L. (1992). Acculturation attitudes and self-esteem among high school and college students. Youth and Society, 23,

299–312.Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social

Issues, 57, 493–510.Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzálek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1–26.Sassenberg, K., & Matschke, C. (2010). The impact of exchange programs on the integration of the host-group into the self-concept. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 40, 148–159.Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–12.Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Schwartz, D., Hopmeyer Gorman, A., Duong, M. T., & Nakamoto, J. (2008). Peer relationships and academic achievement as interacting predictors of depressive

symptoms during middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 289–299.Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. (2006). The paradox of the disrespected: Disrespected group members’ engagement in group-serving efforts. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 413–427.Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 635–642.Staufenbiel, T., & Hartz, C. (2000). Organizational citizenship behavior: Entwicklung und erste Validierung eines Messinstruments [Development and first

validation of a measurement instrument]. Diagnostica, 46, 73–83.Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. (2006). What you want (and do not want) affects what you see (and do not see): Avoidance social goals and social events.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1446–1458.Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations

(pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Verkuyten, M., & Yildiz, A. A. (2007). National (dis)identification and ethnic and religious identity: A study among Turkish-Dutch muslims. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1448–1462.Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd edition). Hove, UK: Routledge.Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. Inter-

national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–343.Ward, C., & Rana-Deuba, A. (1999). Acculturation and adaption revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 422–442.Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: Immigrant-majority relations in

Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 171–188.