“They Keep an Eye on You”: Minority Pressure and its Implications for Dual Identity Among Six Immigrant Groups in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study analyses perceived pressure to conform to minority group norms and examines its implications for identity (in-)compatibility among six immigrant groups in the Netherlands ( N = 5,783). We analyzed whether orientation toward the majority and minority and the perceived diversity climate explained individual and group differences in perceived minority pressure. Subsequently, we estimated multigroup models to examine whether perceived pressure moderated the association between minority and majority identifications. We found substantial group differences in perceived pressure that were not well explained by orientation toward the majority and minority groups, or the perceived diversity climate. Immigrants who had spent a larger proportion of their life in the receiving society experienced more, but those who had more work experience in the Netherlands experienced less pressure. Perceived pressure was higher the more the Netherlands was perceived as hospitable for immigrants, but also at higher levels of perceived intergroup hostility. Minority and majority group identifications were negatively associated across all six immigrant groups, but only among the Moroccan-Dutch did perceived pressure significantly moderate this association. Specifically, identifications became more compatible (i.e., more positively associated) at lower levels of pressure, a trend that we also observed among all other groups except the Turkish-Dutch; yet in these groups the interaction, though similar in magnitude and direction, was not statistically significant. We concluded that minority group dynamics may contribute to the (in-)compatibility of multiple group identifications, but more research is needed to understand the group characteristics that explain perceived minority pressure and its implications for minority members’ identification patterns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".