Becoming an American and Liking It as Functions of Social Distance and Severity of Initiation

Anthony Walsh, Boise State University

This paper examines the effects of social distance among a sample of immigrants in the process of becoming United States citizens. Using the Bogardus Social Distance Scale, a positive relationship was found between the degree of social distance and the likelihood of becoming a citizen. Social distance also serves as an important indicator of severity of initiation; the findings suggest that severity of initiation had a positive influence on reported satisfaction with life in America for those who became U. S. citizens. For those who did not become citizens, however, social distance had an inverse affect on satisfaction.

Introduction

Immigrants are carriers of what Goffman (1963) has called “tribal stigma.” Their values, attitudes, mannerisms, accents, as well as any number of markers, set them apart from the members of the dominant tribe among whom they reside. Edwin Sagarin (1975, p. 55) points out that while the term “marginality” has been preferred to “deviant” to describe the immigrant status in the U. S . , this “ignores the general low esteem in which those coming from alien shores are often held.”

Of course, not all immigrant groups are viewed as being equally deviant. The degree of deviance ascribed to immigrants, and hence to their acceptance by host nationals, is inversely related to the degree of perceived differences between elements of the immigrant and host cultures. Vander Zanden (1983, p. 362) noted that “AS the position of the racial or ethnic minority declines in relation to the [Bogardus] social distance scale of the larger community, the possibility of successful passing becomes more difficult.” Hill (1973, p. 43) made a similar statement with regard to similarities in physical appearance, religion, language, and cultural traditions being decisive in determining who would and who would not be accepted by host nationals as Americans.

Social distance has been defined as, “feelings of unwillingness among members of a group to accept or approve a given degree of intimacy in inter- action with a member of an outgroup” (Williams 1964, p. 29). Warner and Strole (1945) assumed that the greater the cultural difference between the host

Socrological Inqurry, Vol. 60, No. 2, May 1990 O1990 by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713

178 ANTHONY WALSH

and the immigrant cultures the longer the period necessary for assimilation. Each individual needs to evaluate his opinions, attitudes, emotions, and behavior for validity. This attempt at validation occurs when comparisons are made by what has been called the social-comparison process (Wheeler 1970). In making these comparisons, the tendency is to borrow from indi- viduals and groups with whom we share certain characteristics and who are accepting of us. The less similar and the less accepting individuals are, the less likely they will be valued, and the less likely they are to be potential sources of social comparison (Wheeler 1970, p. 54).

A reasonable conclusion is immigrants who are members of groups which are less acceptable to Americans will be less likely to find America and Americans acceptable, and thus they will not seek formal acceptance into American culture through citizenship. People seek to avoid contact with individuals and groups perceived as being negative toward them (Griffitt and Veitch 1974). However, Lipset (1964, p. 319) has pointed out that individuals from disvalued groups often tend to make vigorous efforts to be accepted by those who disvalue them by conscious imitation and sometimes even by displays of prejudicial attitudes about their native land andor people. Similarly, Van den Berghe (1981, p. 215) indicates that “It often pays to learn the ways of the rich, the powerful and the numerous; in the process one becomes more like them and, by that token, often becomes more accept- able to them.’’

Some support is found for Van den Berghe’s thesis in a study conducted by Moe, Nacoste, and Insko (1981). These researchers found that black youths, despite being aware that they were not accepted by white age peers, were “quite willing to reach out for acceptance by their white peers” (1981, p. 1049). Moreover, Marin and Salazar (1985) found that individuals from less acceptable ethnic groups tend to perceive the dominant group more positively than they do their own group. Marin and Salazar (1985, p. 420) suggest that minority group members receive some reinforcement from members of the dominant group for exhibiting attitudes and behavior which imitates that of the dominant group. Evidence reported by dissonance theorists indicates that group initiates, who suffered more in order to gain access to the group, tend to have more positive opinions of the group (e.g., Aronson and Mills 1959; Gerhard and Mathewson 1966).

Such findings do not suggest that immigrants view the United States as being superior to their native land. However, given the pressure to do so and the reinforcement received if one does, it is likely that most immigrants will eventually seek membership in the valued group. Thus, two possibilities exist. The first is that social distance retards assimilation; whereas the second is that social distance will move immigrants from disvalued groups to try

BECOMING AN AMERICAN AND LIKING IT 179

to become acceptable to their hosts by becoming “like them” through seeking citizenship.

Emory Bogardus’ social distance study (1968) demonstrated that a cross section of Americans accept or reject other ethnic groups in direct proportion to perceived cultural differences. This later report cites few differences from the original 1926 study in which Bogardus found the English were the most accepted while Indian immigrants were the least accepted.

Interpersonal attraction theory (Griffitt and Veitch 1974) suggests that a positive relationship exists between the degree of native acceptance and the taking of U. S. citizenship. However, groups most acceptable to Americans, such as the English and Canadians, have been the most resis- tant to becoming United States citizens (Higham 1975). This observation is supportive of Lipset’s (1964) assertion that the less accepted groups experience a need for the very acceptance denied to them. The English and Canadians, being more accepted by host nationals (presumably because of cultural similarities), evidently feel little need for acceptance beyond that which they get. Becoming a United States citizen is symbolic of legal, if not social, acceptance. Taking citizenship may be more a reflection of the desire for native acceptance than a reflection of cultural assimilation. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the effects of social distance involved in the process of acquiring United States citizenship and cultural assimilation.

This study is guided by two general hypotheses: (1) social distance will significantly affect the decision to take U. S. citizenship independent of other factors, with immigrants highest on the social distance scale more likely to take U. S . citizenship; (2) high social distance immigrants who take U. S. citizenship will report greater satisfaction with life in America than low social distance immigrants who have taken citizenship. Conversely, high social distance immigrants who have not taken citizenship will report less satisfaction with life in America than low social distance immigrants who have not taken citizenship.

Method

The Sample

The sample consisting of 137 immigrants residing in the Toledo, Ohio area, was obtained through a non-probability snowball sampling technique. Each respondent was interviewed in his or her home, and each was assigned a social distance score determined by the score for their nationality using the Bogardus (1968) study. Subjects with insufficient numbers were grouped together by geographical regions such as “other European,” “Arab,” ‘‘South American,” and “Asian. ” These subjects were then assigned Bogardus

180 ANTHONY WALSH

social distance means for their geographical region. Asians, for example, were assigned the mean score of the Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Indian scores. Social distance ratings gathered over the years have maintained a remarkable consistency (Marger 1985, p. 51). This consistency is demon- strated by a strong Spearman’s rank order correlation of .951 between Bogar- dus’ 1926 and 1968 data (both rankings reproduced in Marger 1985, p. 52).

Immigrants’ social distance/assimilation was measured using a twelve item Likert scale designed to assess attitudinal distance/similarity from/to America and Americans (see Appendix). Referred to hereafter as an assimila- tion scale, the scale revealed a moderately strong theta coefficient of reliability of .828. Theta, a maximized alpha coefficient which takes into account any heterogeneity among the composite items in relation to one another, was derived from factor analysis. Theta is derived from:

N

N - 1

where N = number of items in the scale

XI = the largest (i.e., the first) eigenvalue produced in the factor analysis

e = - (I-;)

Satisfaction with life in the United States was measured by asking sub- jects to indicate on a scale of one through six their level of satisfaction. Other variables previously found to be associated with taking U. S. citizenship, such as social class (Portes 1984) and number of years of residence (Dressler and Bernal 1982), are included as control variables. Having an American spouse (coded 1 if “yes” and 0 if “no”) may also be presumed to influence the de- cision to become a citizen. Social class is a composite variable composed of education, income, and occupation status coded in accordance with the Social Science Research Council’s suggestions (Van Dussen and Zill 1975).

Because taking U. S. citizenship is a dichotomous binary variable, logit regression is used to assess the effects of the predictor variables. When atti- tudinal assimilation is the dependent variable, ordinary least squares is used.

Results

In Table 1 the assigned social distance scores for each national group (ordered from most to least accepted) and the proportion who became United States citizens are shown. The Polish were the most likely to take citizenship and the Arabs the least likely. The eta measure of association (.515) indicates that 26.5 percent of the variance in taking citizenship is accounted for by social distance. The linear variance is weak (r = .253), but significant (p < .Ol).

An initial logit regression model failed to converge, suggesting that the maximum likelihood estimates were biased. The failure of a model to converge

BECOMING AN AMERICAN AND LIKING IT 18 1

Table 1 National Origins, Social Distance Scores, and Proportions of U. S. Citizens

in Sample

Country Bogardus Social Proportion of Origin Distance Scorea U. S. Citizens N

England

Other European Germany Spain Poland Hungary South America Arab Asian

Italy 114b 151 153 154 193 198 199 212 230 240

.18

.50

.57

.20

.47

.90

.71

.50 100 .67

17 14

7 15 19 21 14 12 6

12

Total proportion U. S. citizens = .50 r = .253, eta = .515, F = 5.1, p < .0001

137

a Adapted from Bogardus (1968, p. 152) The higher the number the greater the social distance

is partially a function of a limited number of cases per parameter being esti- mated (Aldrich and Nelson 1984, p. 81). Given this situation, it was decided to eliminate social class, as this is the only independent variable which did not attain statistical significance from the model. It was also decided to dichoto- mize social distance scores at the approximate median to arrive at low social distance (n = 72) and high social distance (n = 65) categories. This strategy allowed for an evaluation of the effects of these categories of social distance within variable profiles.

The reduced model did converge, and the results are presented in Table 2. The number of years of residence in the U. S. appears to be the best pre- dictor of taking citizenship ( b = .102). Social distance is the next best pre- dictor ( b = 1.0 18), followed by assimilation ( b = .028), and having an Ameri- can spouse ( b = .638).

182 ANTHONY WALSH

Table 2 Logit Model for Taking U. S. Citizenship

Variables Logit s.e. 1ogitls.e.

Years Residing in U. S. . lo2 .023 4.43** Social Distance 1.018 .287 3.54** American Spouse .638 .276 2.41* Assimilation .028 .011 2.45*

Intercept 1.805 .597 3.02*

Goodness of fit X2 = 112.24, df = 132, p = .893. * p < .05 * * p < .01

From the logit regression estimates reported in Table 2 it is possible to assess the probabilities for taking citizenship for variable profiles. The proba- bility of taking U. S. citizenship is calculated as:

. . . . . ea + blx l + b2x2. bkxk P(Y = 1) =

. . . . . 1 + ea + blxl + b2x2. bkXk

The odds for or against a given outcome are determined by plq, where q is 1 -p .

Table 3 presents probabilities of taking U. S. citizenship and their associated odds for selected variable profiles within categories of social dis- tance for immigrants without an American spouse (n = 58). Such indi- viduals who score ten on the assimilation scale and who have been in the United States for six years have either a one percent or seven percent proba- bility of becoming a citizen, depending on whether he or she is low or high on social distance.

Table 4 presents the same probabilities and odds for immigrants with an American spouse (n = 79). It is apparent that having an American spouse increases the probability of taking citizenship. An immigrant with the identical variable profile given above has a 3.4 percent or 21.5 percent probability, depending on social distance category.

Social distance is found to have little effect on the probability of taking

Table 3 Probabilities and Odds for Taking U. S. Citizenship by Social Distance

for Immigrants Without an American Spouse

Social Distance Low High

Assimi- Years of lation Residence Proba- Proba- Score in U. S. bility Odds bility Odds

10 6 .001 100: 1 against .071 13: 1 against 20 12 .056 17:l against .313 2: 1 against 25 15 .127 7:l against .526 1: 1 even

2:l for 35 16 .238 3: 1 against .704 40 24 .678 2:l for .942 16:l for

Table 4 Probabilities and Odds for Taking U. S. Citizenship by Social Distance

for Immigrants With an American Spouse

Social Distance Low High

Assimi- Years of lation Residence Proba- Proba- Score in U. S. bility Odds bility Odds

10 6 .034 28:l against .215 4:l against 20 12 .176 5:l against .620 2:l for 25 15 .342 2:l against .779 4:l for 35 16 .526 1:l even .886 8:l for 40 24 383 7:1 for .983 58:l for

184 ANTHONY WALSH

citizenship at the high extreme profiles, but it does appear to have a powerful effect for the middle profiles (i.e., where assimilation and length of residence in the U. S. are set at, or close to, their respective mean values). That is, among low social distance immigrants, who are without an American spouse, whose assimilation score is thirty-five, and who have been in the U. S. for sixteen years, the odds are three to one against their becoming a citizen. Corresponding odds for similarly situated high social distance immigrants are two to one in favor of becoming a citizen.

Table 5 OLS Regression Model for Determinants of Immigrant Assimilation

Variable b s.e. P t

Years of Residence in U. S. .419 .111 .358 3.76** Social Class .376 .156 .233 2.41; American Spouse - 5.159 1.891 - .228 - .273* Social Distance - .051 .025 - .168 -2.03;

Constant 28.011 8.213 3.41;

Adj. R2 = .163, F = 6.42, p < .0001

* p < .05 * * p < .01

Social Distance and Assimilation

To assess the effects of social distance on assimilation, social distance in its original undichotomized form was entered into the regression equation. Because assimilation is a continuous variable, ordinary least squares regression was chosen to analyze the relationship. The OLS regression model shown in Table 5 indicates that social distance independently influences the immi- grants’ feelings of distance from both America and Americans. As rejection increases, and with the influence of other independent variables in the model held constant, the feelings of affinity with America and Americans among immigrants decreases (0 = - .168, p < .05). Since the assimilation scale measures subjects’ relative degree of affinity with America and Americans and relative distance from their native cultures, this finding does not support

BECOMING AN AMERICAN AND LIKING IT 185

the contention that immigrants become citizens because they view the domi- nant group more positively than their own group, as suggested by Marin and Salazar (1985). However, the findings are consistent with those of Griffitt and Veitch (1974) who reported that we like those who like us, and that we share little sense of community with those who reluctantly admit US to it. Thus, acquiring citizenship appears to be not so much a function of atti- tudinal assimilation as it is one of an apparent desire to obtain legal acceptance into the host nation.

While having an American spouse is positively related to becoming a citizen, this variable is negatively related to assimilation ( p = - .228, p < .05). Social class is positively related to assimilation ( p = .233, p < .05), and years of residence in the U. S. , as was the case with becoming a citizen, is the strongest predictor of assimilation ( p = .358, p < .Ol).

The Severity of Initiation Hypothesis

To test the severity of initiation hypothesis, a median slit on social distance scores was employed to determine low and high social distance categories as previously described. Table 6 presents the means, standard deviations, and Tukey HSD test for high social distance/non-citizen, low social distancdcitizen, low social distancdnon-citizen, high social distancdciti- Zen sub-categories. Consistent with the severity of initiation hypothesis, high social distance subjects who became U. S. citizens recorded the highest mean level of satisfaction. High social distance subjects who were not citizens recorded the lowest satisfaction mean.

An ANOVA revealed a significant F ratio (8.898, p < .OOOl). The Tukey HSD test reveals that group one (high social distancelnon-citizens) had significantly lower mean satisfaction levels than the three other groups (p < .05). Consistent with the Gerhard and Mathewson (1966) experiment, the level of satisfaction appears to depend on whether or not one becomes formally admitted to the group. However, this finding only holds among those individuals who experienced a difficult initiation.

It is noteworthy that citizenship status per se had no significant affect on levels of satisfaction for the low social distance immigrants. The mean satisfaction scores reported in Table 6 for low social distance immigrants who became citizens (4.23) and those who did not (4.28) are similar. However, citizenship status appears to be related to satisfaction levels for the less accepted immigrants. High social distance subjects show both the highest and lowest levels of satisfaction with America according to whether or not they became citizens (means values equal to 4.72 and 3.09, respectively). An examination of means comparing satisfaction levels between high and low social distance immigrants without regard for whether or not they were citizens (means

186 ANTHONY WALSH

Table 6 Sub-category Means for Level of Satisfaction with Life in the United States

Group x s.d N

High social distancelnon-citizen (a.) 3.091 1.659 22 bcd Low social distance/citizen (b.) 4.231 1.275 26 Low social distancelnon-citizen (c.) 4.283 1.294 43 High social distance/citizen (d.) 4.721 0.701 46

Totals 4.219 1.209 137

ANOVA F(3,133) = 8.898, p < .0001 bcd = group means that differ at < .05 (Tukey HSD test)

of 4.26 and 4.17, respectively) produced no significant difference. This finding supports the dissonance hypothesis.

Discussion

The results suggest that the probability of becoming an American citizen is positively related to the degree of non-acceptance of one’s native group by Americans. That is, immigrants who belong to ethnic groups less accepted by Americans were most likely to become American citizens. With years of residence in the United States and assimilation score set at their respective means, the odds of becoming an American citizen for the most accepted (low social distance) immigrants without an American spouse are 3: 1 against. For high social distance immigrants with otherwise identical profiles, the odds were 2:l in favor. Thus, high social distance immigrants are approximately five times more likely to become American citizens than low social distance immigrants who are otherwise similarly situated. With an American spouse, the odds of becoming an American citizen were even for low social distance immigrants, but 8:l in favor for high social distance immigrants.

Despite these rather large differences between social distance categories in the probability of taking American citizenship, the OLS regression results suggest that high social distance is negatively related to assimilation. Thus, high social distance draws the immigrant toward formal or legal affinity

BECOMING AN AMERICAN AND LIKING IT 187

with the U. S., while pushing him or her away from emotional and atti- tudinal affinity.

Dissonance theory is partially supported by the finding that members of national groups considered more socially distant by Americans and who become U. S. citizens rate their satisfaction with life in America more positively than do members of national groups considered less socially distant who also became citizens. However, members of the more socially distant national groups who did not take citizenship rate their satisfaction with life in America less positively than do members of more socially acceptable groups who also did not take citizenship. Initiation severity has a positive influence on reported liking for the group if one does indeed become a member of the group. Experiencing severity, on the other hand, has the opposite effect on reported liking for the group if one does not enter into legal membership.

Generalizations from this study are limited by the non-probability nature of the sample, as well as by its relatively small size. The use of a single indicator of satisfaction with life in the United States also weakens the research design. However, it has been demonstrated that theories primarily formulated and tested through laboratory experiments (e.g., dissonance theory and severity of initiation theory) using student volunteers have applicability to real world problems and processes.

It would prove useful if future research could identify the precise mecha- nisms by which immigrants who are least acceptable to the native culture come to feel the desire to become legally a part of it by formally renouncing their tribal stigma. For instance, the reasons low social distance immigrants come to the United States may differ radically from the reasons high social distance immigrants come here. Few immigrants from highly industrialized democracies come to escape economic or politically unpleasant situations in their homelands. Because of this, they may feel prouder of their heritage than do immigrants who came to escape unattractive situations in their homelands. A combination of pride in heritage and social acceptance may make low social distance immigrants feel less impelled to seek citizenship. Future research in this area should take this possibility into account.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John, and Forrest Nelson. 1984. Linear Probabilip, Logit, and Probit Models. Beverly

Aronson, Elliot, and Judson Mills. 1959. “The Effects of Severity of Initiation on Liking for

Bogardus, Emory. 1968. “Comparing Racial Distance in Ethiopia, South Africa and the United

Hills, CA: Sage.

a Group.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59:177-181.

States.” Sociology and Social Research 52: 149-156.

188 ANTHONY WALSH

Dressler, William, and Henrietta Bernal. 1982. “Acculturation and Stress in a Low Income

Gerhard, Harold, and Peter Mathewson. 1966. “The Effects of Severity of Initiation on Liking

Goffman, Ervin. 1963. S t i , . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Grifitt, W., and Russell Veitch. 1974. “Preacquaintance Attitude Similarity and Attraction

Higham, Jack. 1975. Send These to Me: Jews and Ofher Immigrants in America. New York: Atheneum. Hill, Herbert. 1973. “Anti-Oriental Agitation and the Rise of Working Class Racism.”

Sociep 10:43-54. Lipset, S . Martin. 1964. “The Sources of the Radical Right.” Pp. 259-312 in The Radical

Righf, edited by Daniel Bell. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Marger, Martin. 1985. Race and Ethnic Relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Marin, Gerardo, and Jose M. Salazar. 1985. “Determinants of Hetero- and Auto-stereotypes:

Distance, Level of Contact, and Socioeconomic Development in Seven Nations. ” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychologv 16:403-422.

Moe, Jeffrey, Rupert Nacoste, and Chester Insoko. 1981. “Belief Versus Race as Determinants of Discrimination: A Study of Southern Adolescents in 1966 and 1979.”Journal ofPersonalip

Portes, Alejandro. 1984. “The Rise of Ethnicity: Determinants of Ethnic Perceptions among Cuban Exiles in Miami.” American Sociological Review 49:383-397.

Sagarin, Edwin. 1975. Deviants and Deviance. New York: Praeger. Van den Berghe, Pierre. 1981. Thc Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier. Vander Zanden, James. 1983. American Minorip Relafions. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Van Dussen, Roxann, and Nicholas Zill. 1975. Baric Background I tms for U. S. Household Survqs.

Warner, Lloyd, and Leon Strole. 1945. The Social Sysfem ofAmerican Ethnic Groups. New Haven:

Wheeler, Ladd. 1970. Inferpersonal I n t m c e . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Williams, Robin. 1964. Sfrangers Next Door: Ethnic Relations in American Cornrnuntties. Englewood

Puerto Rican Community.” Journal of Human Stress 8:32-38.

for a Group: A Replication.” Journal ofExperimenta1 and Social PsycholoQ 2:278-287.

Revisited: Ten Days in a Fallout Shelter.” Sociometry 37:163-173.

Social Psychologv 41:1031-1050.

Washington, D.C. : Social Science Research Council.

Yale University Press.

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Appendix

The Likert-Type Assimilation Scale

1. I prefer the company of native Americans to that of my native countrymen. 2. Children in my native country get a better moral upbringing than do children in the U. S. 3. I am often made to feel conscious of my non-American background. 4. I feel completely at home in America. 5. Some American customs still seem quite ridiculous to me. 6. I like to stay in contact with my native country by reading its magazines and newspapers

7. I find it harder to act naturally (be my usual self) with a new group of Americans than I do

8. I have no strong feelings of attachment to my native country anymore.

when I get the opportunity.

with a new group of my fellow countrymen.

BECOMING AN AMERICAN AND LIKING IT 189

9. I never feel conscious of my foreign background anymore. 10. The best thing for the foreign-born in the U. S. to do is to mix more with Americans and

11. I hope to return permanently to my native country one day. 12. I would return permanently to my native country if I could obtain the same standard of

adopt their ways.

living I have here.