The Integration Paradox: Empiric Evidence From the Netherlands

Abstract

The integration paradox refers to the phenomenon of the more highly educated and structurally integrated immigrants turning away from the host society, rather than becoming more oriented toward it. This article provides an overview of the empirical evidence documenting this paradox in the Netherlands. In addition, the theoretical arguments and the available findings about the social psychological processes involved in this paradox are considered. The existing evidence for the integration paradox and what might explain it form the basis for making suggestion for future theoretical work and empirical research, and for discussing possible policy implications.

Full text

American Behavioral Scientist
2016, Vol. 60(5-6) 583 –596
© 2016 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0002764216632838
abs.sagepub.com
Article
The Integration Paradox:
Empiric Evidence From the
Netherlands
Maykel Verkuyten
1
Abstract
The integration paradox refers to the phenomenon of the more highly educated and
structurally integrated immigrants turning away from the host society, rather than
becoming more oriented toward it. This article provides an overview of the empirical
evidence documenting this paradox in the Netherlands. In addition, the theoretical
arguments and the available findings about the social psychological processes involved
in this paradox are considered. The existing evidence for the integration paradox and
what might explain it form the basis for making suggestion for future theoretical work
and empirical research, and for discussing possible policy implications.
Keywords
education, integration, relative deprivation, national belonging
The so-called “immigrant paradox” has received considerable attention in the litera-
ture on immigrant integration. This paradox concerns the notion that first-generation
immigrants and less acculturated individuals are sometimes found to outperform sec-
ond generations and more acculturated individuals on a variety of adaptation out-
comes, such as academic achievement and health behaviors (see Garcia Coll et al.,
2012). While originally documented in research in the United States (e.g., Fuligni,
1998; Palacios, Guttmanova, & Chase-Lansdale, 2008), studies also have shown these
differences with respect to sociocultural adaptation outcomes in several European
countries that have experienced large-scale immigration in recent decades (Sam,
Vedder, Liebkind, Neto, & Virta, 2008; van Geel, & Vedder, 2011).
Another phenomenon regarding immigrant integration that has received much less
attention in the research literature is the integration paradox. This paradox describes
1
Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Maykel Verkuyten, ERCOMER, Utrecht University, padualaan 2, Utrecht 3584 CS, the Netherlands.
Email: m.verkuyten@uu.nl
632838ABSXXX10.1177/0002764216632838American Behavioral ScientistVerkuyten
research-article2016
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

584 American Behavioral Scientist 60(5-6)
the situation of the economically more integrated and highly educated immigrants
turning psychologically away from the host society, instead of becoming more ori-
ented toward it (Buijs, Demant, & Hamdy, 2006; Entzinger & Dourleijn, 2008). Media
reports in Western Europe have suggested that policy makers should be concerned
about relatively highly educated immigrants becoming disenchanted and disengaged
from the host country. Education and structural integration would not always lead to a
stronger orientation on the host country but rather can have the opposite effect. The
current article provides an overview of the empirical research on the integration para-
dox conducted in the Netherlands. To my knowledge, there is no other country in
which this paradox has been investigated systematically.
Theoretically, the paradoxical nature of highly educated immigrants’ disengaging
from society is important and interesting. Classical immigration theories suggest that
structural integration (improving one’s educational and economic position) will be
conducive to other forms of integration, such as developing a sense of belonging and
a more positive attitude toward the host society (Alba & Nee, 2003; Esser, 2001;
Gordon, 1964). Yet education could also be an obstacle for developing positive atti-
tudes toward natives and the host society. A key reason for this might be that higher
educated immigrants feel relatively deprived.
Relative Deprivation
Relative deprivation concerns the perception that oneself or one’s group is at an unfair
disadvantage in comparison with others (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Smith, Pettigrew,
Pippin, & Bialosiewicz, 2012). Feelings of relative deprivation contain three aspects
(Smith et al., 2012). First, there must be comparisons made at the individual or group
level. Second, the comparison must lead to the perception that one is at a relative dis-
advantage with respect to other individuals or groups. Third, the perceived disadvan-
tage should be seen as being unfair. There are a number of reasons to expect that
feelings of relative deprivation are higher among immigrants who are more integrated
structurally, especially in relation to their level of education.
First, within the relative deprivation framework, it has been argued that the more
advantaged members of disadvantaged groups are most likely to engage in intergroup
comparisons (Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). Thus, higher educated immigrants may
feel more deprived because they increasingly compare their situation and opportuni-
ties with majority members. Higher education has been found to increase immigrants’
contact opportunities and actual contacts with majority members (Kalmijn & van
Tubergen, 2006; Martinovic, 2013), which makes the majority a more relevant com-
parison group. In addition, in most Western countries, the level of unemployment is
much higher among immigrant-origin groups compared with majority members, inde-
pendently of the educational level. Furthermore, compared with similarly educated
majority members, immigrants tend to have lower level employment and more tempo-
rary jobs (Alba & Nee, 2003; Hall & Farkas, 2008; Kogan, 2006). Thus, higher edu-
cated immigrants may feel more deprived because the relevant comparison with
similarly educated majority members turns out unfavorably.
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Verkuyten 585
Second, the theory of rising expectations suggests that immigrants who pursue
higher education and try to attain a good position in society develop higher expecta-
tions. They, therefore, are more strongly disappointed about unequal opportunities and
treatment, whereby their higher expectations are not met with equal rewards (Entzinger
& Dourleijn, 2008). The higher educated tend to be more sensitive to acceptance and
rejection by the majority population. In contrast to the lower educated, they can more
confidently claim that a lack of opportunities and discrimination, rather than a lack of
efforts and skills, prevents them and members of their group from gaining economic
parity with natives.
Third, higher education implies higher cognitive sophistication which can mean
that the higher educated immigrants are more aware of, and have a better understand-
ing of, processes of discrimination and reduced opportunities in society (Kane &
Kyyro, 2001; Wodtke, 2012). Education enables immigrants to become more informed
social critics who can seek to challenge discrimination and advocate policies that
redress group disadvantages.
Education and Perceived Discrimination
The “integration paradox” implies that the higher educated feel relatively deprived and
as a result distance themselves psychologically from the host society (see Figure 1).
The first link in this process involves the relation between education and relative
deprivation (Path 1 in Figure 1). This link has mainly been examined in terms of per-
ceived discrimination, opportunities, and feelings of acceptance. For immigrants, per-
ceptions of discrimination and lack of opportunities in the host society combine the
different aspects of relative deprivation. When immigrants have the sense of being
discriminated against, they will feel that they have an unfair disadvantage relative to
members of the majority group, either personally or as a group. And when immigrants
have the sense that their group lacks opportunities to succeed economically and to
freely enjoy their social and cultural life, they compare their position with the oppor-
tunities that are open to other groups in society and the majority in particular. This
means that it can be expected that in particular experiences and perceptions of nonac-
ceptance and discrimination, despite one’s efforts and achievements, lead immigrants
to distance themselves from society. Thus, the more successful ones would be more
sensitive to ethnic acceptance and equality, which in turn would drive their reactions
to the host society.
In support of Figure 1 (Path 1), research has found a positive relation between level
of education and perceived discrimination among immigrants in, for example, North
America and New Zealand (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
+ +
Educational attainment
relative deprivation host society disengagement
(1) (2)
Figure 1. The relations involved in the integration paradox.
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

586 American Behavioral Scientist 60(5-6)
[OECD], 2012; Sigelman & Welch, 1991; Sizemore & Milner, 2004; Wodtke, 2012).
Research in the Netherlands has also provided empirical evidence that the higher edu-
cated tend to perceive more discrimination and lower societal acceptance. This has
been found in large samples of the four main immigrant-origin groups (Turks,
Moroccans, Surinamese, and Antilleans; Gijsberts & Vervoort, 2007; Tolsma, Lubbers,
& Gijsberts, 2012), four refugee groups (Muller, 2011), and a sample of smaller immi-
grant groups (Afghani, Iraqi, Irani, Somali, Polish, and Chinese; van Doorn, Scheepers,
& Dagevos, 2013). Thus, there is among a variety of groups clear empirical evidence
for the higher educated perceiving more discrimination and less societal acceptance of
immigrants.
The higher perception of discrimination among higher educated immigrants is not
only in the “eye of the beholder” but can be based on actual experiences. The theory
of exposure suggests that the higher educated are actually experiencing more dis-
crimination and lower acceptance in everyday life. The higher compared with the
lower educated more often use host country media and tend to have more negative
contacts with majority members on the labor market and in associations, and there-
fore are more exposed to discrimination and derogating messages. For example, in a
study among the four largest immigrant-origin groups in the Netherlands, it was
found that the higher educated are more interested in the often quite negative Dutch
political immigration and integration debate (van Heerden, de Lange, van der Burg,
& Fennema, 2014; Vasta, 2007) and therefore have a less positive attitude toward
Dutch society (Gijsberts & Vervoort, 2007). In another study among smaller immi-
grant groups, it was found that the link between educational attainment and discrimi-
nation can be explained by the higher educated participating more in associations,
being exposed more to Dutch politics in the media, and experiencing that their for-
eign education is not valued and that their job is below their educational level (van
Doorn et al., 2013).
Discrimination and Host Society Disengagement
As shown in Figure 1, the second link in the processes involved in the integration para-
dox concerns the association between relative deprivation and host society disengage-
ment. It has been shown that individuals who perceive more group relative deprivation
have more prejudiced attitudes toward out-groups (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Pettigrew &
Meertens, 1995), and less positive attitudes toward the social system, such as reduced
just-world beliefs, reduced confidence in political institutions, and higher support for
political protest (Corning, 2000; Klandermans, Roefs, & Olivier, 2001; Pettigrew
et al., 2008).
Among immigrant-origin groups, various studies have demonstrated that experi-
ences with discrimination and low public acceptance instigate processes of disen-
gagement. For example, the “rejection-identification model” argues that being a
target of discrimination leads individuals to identify more strongly with their ethnic
minority group and distance themselves from the majority (Branscombe, Schmitt, &
Harvey, 1999). Experimental and longitudinal evidence has shown that perceived
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Verkuyten 587
threats can indeed increase minority group identification and lead to greater emo-
tional attachment to one’s minority group (e.g., Jetten, Branscombe, Schmitt, &
Spears, 2001). Furthermore, research among immigrant-origin groups shows that
increased perceptions of discrimination predicts increased ethnic group identifica-
tion. This has been found, for example, in three studies among Turkish Dutch people
(Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007), in a longitudinal study among immigrants in Finland
(Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, & Solheim, 2009), and in a study among Latino students
in the United States (Cronin, Levin, Branscombe, van Laar, & Tropp, 2012).
Furthermore, this type of research has shown that higher perceived discrimination
also is associated with weaker identification with the host society (Jasinskaja-Lahti
et al., 2009). For example, in a large-scale research among the four main immigrant-
origin groups in the Netherlands, it was found that perceived discrimination was the
strongest negative predictor of host national identification (de Vroome, Verkuyten, &
Martinovic, 2014; see also Tolsma et al., 2012).
Yet low host national identification or little commitment to the host nation does not
have to indicate host society disengagement, whereby there is an adversarial stance in
which the host society is subjectively rejected. Low national identification implies that
aspects of the host society are not strongly connected to oneself but does not have to
consist of disconnecting these aspects from oneself (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004).
Disidentification is not merely the opposite of identification. The former consists of
immigrant minorities reacting against the host society and developing a so-called reac-
tive or oppositional identity in which people actively separate their minority identity
from the culture and defining aspects of the dominant group (Ogbu, 1993; Portes &
Zhou, 1993). Furthermore, studies in organizational contexts have shown that disiden-
tification is a different psychological state than identification (e.g., Elsbach &
Bhattacharya, 2001; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). Hence, perceived social rejection and
devaluation might not only result in decreased identification with the host society but
also increased disidentification with the nation. In a survey study among Turkish
Dutch people and using factor analysis, we found that the participants made a clear
empirical distinction between the construct of Dutch identification (e.g., “I identify
with the Dutch,” “I feel connected to the Dutch”) and Dutch disidentification (e.g., “I
would never say ‘we Dutch’,” “I certainly do not want to see myself as Dutch”;
Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007). Furthermore, a stronger Turkish identity was associated
with a weaker Dutch identification and independently also with a stronger disidentifi-
cation with the Dutch.
In a recent study among Turkish immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands, we
again found a clear empirical distinction between the two constructs of host society
identification and disidentification. Furthermore, higher perceived discrimination was
associated with stronger disidentification in Germany (N = 363, r = .19, p < .001) and
in the Netherlands (N = 425, r = .15, p = .003), while discrimination was also nega-
tively and independently associated with identification in Germany (r = −.16, p = .002;
Netherlands, r = −.06, p > .05). Thus, perceived discrimination is not only associated
with a lower sense of belonging to the host society but is also related to stronger psy-
chological disengagement from the host society (Path 2, Figure 1).
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

588 American Behavioral Scientist 60(5-6)
Education, Discrimination, and Disengagement
The integration paradox implies a relation of mediation, whereby the higher educated
feel relatively deprived and as a result disengage psychologically from the host soci-
ety. Thus, there should be an indirect negative relation between education on the one
hand and favorable attitudes toward the host society and natives on the other, via indi-
cators of relative deprivation (Figure 1).
We investigated these associations in a study among the four main immigrant-
origin groups in the Netherlands (de Vroome, Martinovic, & Verkuyten, 2014). The
samples were randomly drawn from the population registry and we analyzed the data
of 3,981 first- and second-generation participants. We examined feelings of relative
deprivation, in terms of the perception of discrimination and subgroup respect.
Discrimination implies unfair treatment and such treatment tells immigrants that they
are not equal members of society. Subgroup respect refers to immigrants’ sense of
whether the majority population recognizes and values their minority group and immi-
grants more generally (Huo & Molina, 2006). Thus, we focused on perceived negative
reactions (discrimination) and perceived positive reactions (respect) toward immi-
grants as two indicators of relative deprivation. Furthermore, we also tested whether
education in the host country and in the country of origin are differently related to
perceived discrimination and respect. According to the integration paradox, immi-
grants perceive that they themselves or members of their group get lower returns for
exactly the same educational investments in the host society. The native population is
a relevant comparison group for immigrants who are educated in the host society
(Zagefka & Brown, 2005) and probably less so for those who were educated in their
country of origin.
In the analysis, we first tested the measurement models, and confirmatory factor
analyses indicated that perceived discrimination and subgroup respect were two sepa-
rate latent constructs. In addition, tests of cross-group measurement equivalence indi-
cated that the two latent constructs were sufficiently comparable across the four
immigrant-origin groups and the two generations. So the hypothesized relations could
be validly compared across groups and generations (see de Vroome, Martinovic, et al.,
2014, for details).
In the second step, we tested the structural model with the expected relations and
investigated the robustness of the model across immigrant groups and generations. In
doing so, we controlled statistically for age, years since migration, gender, and occu-
pational status. The findings supported the indirect relationships proposed in the medi-
ation model (for details, see de Vroome, Martinovic, et al., 2014). Higher education
was positively related to perceived discrimination, and perceived discrimination, in
turn, was negatively related to favorable attitudes toward the host society (“level of
satisfaction with Dutch society”) as well as the native population (“general feeling”).
In addition, higher education was negatively related to perceived respect which, in
turn, was positively related to favorable attitudes toward the host society and the native
population. The proposed mediation model was found to be similar for the two genera-
tions and found support among all four immigrant-origin groups. Furthermore,
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Verkuyten 589
additional analyses (“curve estimation”) did not show significant quadratic or other
linear effects for education on the attitude toward the host society and native popula-
tion. Thus, there was no evidence that, for example, the lowest and highest educated
are more negative toward the Dutch than those with a moderate level of education.
Importantly, the findings further showed that higher education was associated with
lower perceived respect among immigrants who were educated in the Netherlands,
and not among those educated in the country of origin. Thus, the level of host country
education rather than origin country education was associated with a perceived lack of
respect. Origin and host country education were similarly related to perceived dis-
crimination. However, compared with perceived lack of respect, discrimination was,
in turn, less strongly associated with favorable attitude toward the host society. Thus,
the integration paradox seems most applicable to immigrants who have invested in
host country education. The education of majority members is probably a less relevant
standard of comparison for immigrants who are educated in the country of origin.
Education, Discrimination, and Positive Social Contacts
Higher education has been found to increase immigrants’ contact opportunities and
actual positive contacts with majority members (Kalmijn & van Tubergen, 2006;
Martinovic, 2013) which might lead to developing a more positive attitude toward the
host society and majority group members (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). The integration
paradox, however, implies that higher educated immigrants will have more negative
attitudes toward the host society and the majority population. This might mean that
there are two pathways. On the one hand, higher educated immigrants have more fre-
quent positive contacts with the majority population than lower educated immigrants,
and more contact is associated with a more favorable attitude toward the majority
population. On the other hand, higher educated immigrants will feel less accepted in
the country and perceive more discrimination (negative contact) than lower educated
immigrants, resulting in a less favorable attitude toward the majority population.
We examined these two pathways in another study among different large samples
(N = 4,199) of the same four immigrant-origin groups in the Netherlands (ten Teije,
Coenders, & Verkuyten, 2013). Thus, we tried to replicate the findings of the previous
study by using a different attitude measure (extent to which participants considered the
native Dutch as honest, polite, helpful, hospitable, neat, tolerant, and friendly;
Cronbach’s alpha = .76) and by taking positive social contacts into account. For these
samples, there was only information available about education in the Netherlands and
not in the country of origin. Participants were again randomly selected from registers
of various municipalities. As indicators of relative deprivation, we focused on per-
ceived acceptance and perceived discrimination, against oneself as a minority member
(personal discrimination) and against one’s group in general (group discrimination).
In a first step of the analysis, we confirmed (confirmatory factor analysis) the
empirical distinction between these constructs, established measurement equiva-
lence across the four immigrant groups, and found no significant quadratic or other
nonlinear effects of education on the attitude toward the native Dutch. In the second
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

590 American Behavioral Scientist 60(5-6)
step, we tested the proposed structural model that is shown in Figure 2. We con-
trolled statistically for age, years since migration, generation, gender, occupational
status, and Dutch language proficiency. The findings supported the indirect relation-
ships proposed in the mediation model (Figure 2; for details, see ten Teije et al.,
2013). For the first pathway, the findings demonstrated that higher educated migrants
indeed had more contacts with the native Dutch and that contact was associated with
more positive attitude toward the native Dutch. More important, there was also
empirical evidence for the second pathway. Higher educated immigrants perceived
lower acceptance of ethnic minority groups in Dutch society and more group dis-
crimination than lower educated migrants. These perceptions were related to less
positive attitudes.
In addition, the unfair treatment of co-ethnics (group discrimination), rather than
personal experiences with discrimination, was found to be important for the attitude
toward the Dutch. This supports the idea that the more advantaged members of disad-
vantaged groups tend to engage in group comparisons and develop more negative
attitudes toward the advantaged group (Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). Higher educa-
tion might increase one’s awareness of and concerns about the vulnerable and rela-
tively marginal position of immigrants in society. In addition, when they perceive and
experience ethnic discrimination, higher status minority members might be more
assertive (Baumgartner, 1998). Although we did not explicitly test these interpreta-
tions, we did find that the higher educated perceived more group discrimination than
the lower educated, whereas there was no difference for personal discrimination. In
turn, and independently of personal discrimination, higher perceived nonacceptance of
migrant groups and of group discrimination were associated with a less favorable atti-
tude toward the native Dutch. The proposed mediation model was found to be quite
similar for the four immigrant-origin groups with most of the relations being compa-
rable in direction and also in size.
Figure 2. Path diagram with standardized direct and indirect effects of education on
immigrants’ attitude toward the native Dutch.
Note. Circles indicate latent variables and squares manifest variables.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Verkuyten 591
Future Directions
The “integration paradox” indicates that the more highly educated immigrants will
show relatively high levels of dissatisfaction with the host society and more negative
attitudes toward the native majority. Although research in the Netherlands has made
clear progress in documenting and understanding the integration paradox, many
important questions remain. A first question is whether the processes involved in the
integration paradox are limited to host society attitudes and immigrants’ feelings of
belonging. There are reasons to expect that this is not the case and that it also involves,
for example, behavior. A study showed that Moroccan Dutch youngsters who are on
custody awaiting trial are much better integrated in Dutch society than their Moroccan
Dutch noncriminal peers (Stevens, Veen, & Vollebergh, 2009). Relative to the latter,
the former group more often speaks the Dutch language fluently, has more contacts
with Dutch people, and self-identify more often as Dutch. Their relatively strong ori-
entation on Dutch society makes them extra sensitive to inequalities and negative ste-
reotypes. This increases the likelihood of feelings of relative deprivation with the
associated negative emotions of anger, resentment, and frustration that can lead to
crime (Agnew, 2001; Smith et al., 2012). Similarly, several studies in the United States
have found relative high levels of delinquency among ethnic minority youth who have
a strong orientation on American society (Samaniego & Gonzales, 1999; Vega, Gil,
Warheit, Zimmerman, & Apospori, 1993).
A second question relates to the underlying processes. There can be various rea-
sons for why immigrants’ higher structural integration is associated with weaker feel-
ings of identification and belonging in the host society. I focused on one important
reason and that is that immigrants who have achieved higher levels of education also
develop higher expectations and therefore are more susceptible to feelings of relative
deprivation. However, the research discussed did not directly examine these feelings
but used perceptions of discrimination, acceptance, and subgroup respect as indica-
tors. This means that the role of feelings of relative deprivation should be examined
more fully and systematically. Feelings of relative deprivation depend on the indi-
vidual and group comparisons that people make and typically involve anger and
resentment (Smith et al., 2012). This means that future studies could examine justice-
related feelings and emotions directly and examine whether these more fully explain
the association between education and host society disengagement.
A third issue is that the research discussed relied on cross-sectional data and there-
fore we do not know the causal directions of the proposed relations. The path model
(Figure 1) was theoretically derived and other research has shown, for example, that
perceived discrimination drives immigrants’ attitudes toward the host society
(Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2009), but different and mutual directions of influence are pos-
sible. Longitudinal panel data are needed for examining the integration paradox more
fully. These kind of data are increasingly collected in North America and many
European countries and it might be possible to investigate the over-time associations
involved in the integration paradox by using existing panel data, or to incorporate
some measures in new data collections.
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

592 American Behavioral Scientist 60(5-6)
The research discussed is from a single country in Western Europe. Therefore, we
do not know the generalizability of the findings to other countries. Although there is
some qualitative evidence for similar processes in small-scale studies among minority
groups in the U.S. context (e.g., Baumgartner, 1998; Ogbu, 1993), there might be
country differences that moderate the associations found. For example, large-scale
research has shown that in the Netherlands, Canada, and New Zealand, discrimination
is more often reported by the highly educated immigrants compared with the low edu-
cated, while in other European countries, the low educated report more discrimination
(OECD, 2012). The reasons for these differences are not clear but might have to do
with the fact that European countries do not consider themselves as immigration soci-
eties such as Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. Yet this cannot explain why
there is evidence for the integration paradox in the Netherlands but less so in other
European countries (see Schneider, 2013).
Not only country characteristics are important to investigate in future studies on the
integration paradox but also differences between and within immigrant-origin groups.
In the Netherlands, evidence for the processes behind the paradox was found among
quite different groups, including relatively large groups that have a history of migrant
labor, ex-colonial groups, and more recent and smaller groups that migrated for various
reasons. This indicates that the phenomenon is quite robust and not specific for one
particular group. Yet there might be meaningful differences between immigrant-origin
groups within other countries that have an impact on the integration paradox. For exam-
ple, it might be the case that feelings of entitlements and relative deprivation are stron-
ger among immigrant-origin groups that have a long historical relationship with the
country of settlement, such as Pakistani and Bangladeshi in the United Kingdom.
Additionally, the economic and cultural (mis)match between the host country and coun-
try of origin might be important for how immigrants perceive their situation, feel about
the reactions of the majority population, and emphasize the importance of education.
There are important differences within each particular immigrant-origin group. The
fact that people originate from the same country tell us something, but not a whole lot.
Although we found no generational differences in the integration paradox processes, there
are other demographic differences that might be important, such as gender, age, length of
residence, and region (city, village) of origin and settlement. There also are important dif-
ferences in the immediate social context (neighborhood, community organizations,
schools) and the family context in which immigrants from a particular country of origin
are embedded. And there are differences in political orientations, ideological beliefs, and
religiosity that can be relevant for how immigrants perceive and evaluate their situation
and the opportunities and barriers in the host society. Future research could examine
whether and how these kinds of differences within an immigrant-origin group are relevant
for understanding the processes and conditions involved in the integration paradox.
Conclusion
In addition to the “immigrant paradox” (Garcia Coll et al., 2012), the integration para-
dox presents another surprising and troublesome phenomenon. This paradox relates to
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Verkuyten 593
what happens when immigrants and their children advance their educational and socio-
economic position. Classical immigration theories as well as policy makers and politi-
cians typically argue that education is the road to other forms of integration, including
a sense of belonging and a positive attitude toward the host society. There are many
important reasons for being concerned about educational arrears or underachievement
of immigrants and for putting every effort in trying to improve their educational out-
comes. Yet educational investments without paying close attention to processes of dis-
crimination and feelings of relative deprivation can lead to a distancing or disengagement
from society. Integration policies that focus on structural integration will not necessar-
ily be successful in developing a sense of belonging and a positive attitude toward a
host society. Questions of relative deprivation, and of ethnic discrimination and sub-
group respect in particular, also need to be addressed. Higher education and structural
integration more generally make immigrants more aware of discrimination in society
and more sophisticated social critics. There is a serious problem regarding the per-
ceived (equality of) opportunities in society for those immigrants who meet the educa-
tional requirements and make a strong effort to integrate, but find that key positions in
society are not open to them. Not really being accepted or being treated as a second-
class citizens despite one’s educational investments and efforts undermines the devel-
opment of a sense of belonging to the country of settlement and a positive attitude
toward the dominant majority. The lack of feelings of belonging can put a strain on the
cohesion of society because such feelings are generally considered a prerequisite for
national solidarity, a unified society, and effective democracy. Conditions that hamper
immigrants’ orientation to the host society should therefore be addressed and research
on the integration paradox can make a contribution for doing so.
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.
References
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of a general strain theory: Specifying the types
of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime &
Delinquency, 38, 319-361.
Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contempo-
rary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baumgartner, M. P. (1998). Moral life on the cultural frontier: Evidence from the experience of
immigrants in modern America. Sociological Focus, 31, 155-179.
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimi-
nation among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149.
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

594 American Behavioral Scientist 60(5-6)
Buijs, F. J., Demant, F., & Hamdy, A. (2006). Strijders van eigen bodem: Radicale en democ-
ratische Moslims in Nederland [Home grown fighters: Radical and democratic Muslims in
the Netherlands]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Corning, A. F. (2000). Assessing perceived social inequity: A relative deprivation framework.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 463-477.
Cronin, T. J., Levin, S., Branscombe, N. R., van Laar, C., & Tropp, L. R. (2012). Ethnic identi-
fication in response to perceived discrimination protects well-being and promotes activism:
A longitudinal study of Latino college students. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
15, 393-407.
de Vroome, T., Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2014). The integration paradox: Level of edu-
cation and immigrants’ attitudes towards natives and the host society. Cultural Diversity &
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 166-175.
de Vroome, T., Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2014). Host national identification of immi-
grants in the Netherlands. International Migration Review, 48, 1-27.
Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not:
Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science,
12, 393-413.
Entzinger, H., & Dourleijn, E. (2008). De lat steeds hoger: De leefwereld van jongeren in een
multi-etnische stad [Increasing demands: The world of youth in a multi-ethnic city]. Assen,
Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Esser, H. (2001). Integration und Etnische Schichtung [Integration and ethnic segrega-
tion]. Mannheim, Germany: Arbeitspapiere—Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische
Sozialforschung.
Fuligni, A. J. (1998). The adjustment of children from immigrant families. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 7, 99-103.
Garcia Coll, C., Patton, F., Marks, A. K., Dimitrova, R., Yang, R., Suarez, G. A., & Patrico, A.
(2012). Understanding the immigrant paradox in youth: Developments and contextual con-
siderations. In A. Masten, K. Liebkind, & D. J. Hernandez (Eds.), Realizing the potential of
immigrant youth (pp. 159-180). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gijsberts, M., & Vervoort, M. (2007). Wederzijds beeldvorming [Mutual images]. In J. Dagevos
& M. Gijsberts (Eds.), Jaarrapport Integratie 2007 [Annual Report Integration 2007]
(pp. 282-308). The Hague, Netherlands: Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. London, England: Oxford University
Press.
Hall, M., & Farkas, G. (2008). Does human capital raise earnings for immigrants in the low-skill
labor market? Demography, 45, 619-639.
Huo, Y. J., & Molina, L. E. (2006). Is pluralism a viable model of diversity? The benefits and
limits of subgroup respect. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 359-376.
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To identify or not to identify? National
disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Applied
Psychology, 58, 105-128.
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebel with a cause: Group
identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204-1213.
Kalmijn, M., & van Tubergen, F. (2006). Ethnic intermarriage in the Netherlands: Confirmations
and refutations of accepted insights. European Journal of Population, 22, 371-397.
Kane, E. W., & Kyyro, E. K. (2001). For whom does education enlighten? Race, gender, educa-
tion, and beliefs about social inequality. Gender & Society, 15, 710-733.
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Verkuyten 595
Klandermans, B., Roefs, M., & Olivier, J. (2001). Grievance formation in a country in transi-
tion: South Africa, 1994-1998. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 41-54.
Kogan, I. (2006). Labor markets and economic incorporation among recent immigrants in
Europe. Social Forces, 85, 697-721.
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational
identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-27.
Martinovic, B. (2013). The inter-ethnic contacts of immigrants and natives in the Netherlands:
A two-sided perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39, 69-85.
Muller, P. (2011). Identificatie, acceptatie en discriminatie [Identification, acceptance and
discrimination]. In E. Dourleijn & J. Dagevos (Eds.), Vluchtelingen in Nederland: Over
de integratie van Afghaanse, Iraakse, Iraanse en Somalische migranten [Refugees in the
Netherlands: On the integration of migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Somalia]
(pp. 190-206). The Hague, Netherlands: SCP.
Ogbu, J. (1993). Differences in cultural frame of reference. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 16, 483-506.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Settling in: OECD indica-
tors of immigrant integration. Paris, France: Author.
Palacios, N., Guttmanova, K., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2008). Early reading achievement of
children in immigrant families: Is there an immigrant paradox? Developmental Psychology,
44, 1381-1395.
Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., Meertens, R. W., Van Dick, R., & Zick, A. (2008).
Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 385-401.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Europe. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its
variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 53, 74-97.
Sam, D., Vedder, P., Liebkind, K., Neto, F., & Virta, E. (2008). Immigration, acculturation and
the paradox of adaptation in Europe. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5,
138-158.
Samaniego, R. Y., & Gonzales, N. A. (1999). Multiple mediators of the effects of acculturation
status on delinquency for Mexican American adolescents. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 27, 189-210.
Schneider, L. (2013). The integration paradox: Investigating the relation between education
and perceived discrimination among immigrants in Europe (Master’s thesis). ERCOMER,
Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1991). Black American’s views of racial inequality: The dream
deferred. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
Sizemore, D. S., & Milner, W. T. (2004). Hispanic media use and perceptions of discrimina-
tion: Reconsidering ethnicity, politics, and socioeconomics. Sociological Quarterly, 45,
765-784.
Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation:
A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16,
202-232.
Stevens, G., Veen, V. C., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2009). Marokkaanse jeugddelinquenten:
Een klasse apart? [Moroccan juvenile delinquents: A class of their own?]. The Hague,
Netherlands: Nicis Institute.
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

596 American Behavioral Scientist 60(5-6)
Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations. New York, NY:
Praeger.
ten Teije, I., Coenders, M., & Verkuyten, M. (2013). The paradox of integration: Educational
attainment and immigrants’ attitudes towards the native population. Social Psychology, 44,
278-288.
Tolsma, J., Lubbers, M., & Gijsberts, M. (2012). Education and cultural integration among
ethnic minorities and natives in the Netherlands: A test of the integration paradox. Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 793-813.
van Doorn, M., Scheepers, P., & Dagevos, J. (2013). Explaining the integration paradox among
small immigrant groups in the Netherlands. International Migration and Integration, 14,
381-400.
van Geel, M., & Vedder, P. (2011). The role of family obligations and school adjustment in
explaining the immigrant paradox. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 187-196.
van Heerden, S., de Lange, S. L., van der Burg, W., & Fennema, M. (2014). The immigration
and integration debate in the Netherlands: Discursive and programmatic reactions to the
rise of anti-immigration parties. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40, 119-136.
Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the
shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30, 713-740.
Vega, W. A., Gil, A. G., Warheit, G. J., Zimmerman, R. S., & Apospori, E. (1993). Acculturation
and delinquent behavior among Cuban American adolescents: Toward an empirical model.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 113-125.
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, 33, 1448-1462.
Wodtke, G. T. (2012). The impact of education on intergroup attitudes: A multiracial analysis.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 80-106.
Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2005). Comparisons and perceived discrimination in ethnic minority
settings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 467-482.
Author Biography
Maykel Verkuyten is a professor in Interdisciplinary Social Science at the Faculty of Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He is also the academic director
of the European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic relations at Utrecht University. He
has published widely on questions related to ethnic identity and cultural diversity.
by guest on April 17, 2016abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from