How Do Immigrants Manage Their Devalued Social Identity

8/3/2019 How Do Immigrants Manage Their Devalued Social Identity

1/47

How do immigrants manage their

devalued social identity?

Total-sample and multi-sampleconfirmatory factor analysis of

Coping with Immigrants

Stigma Scale (CISS)

Magdalena Bobowik, Nekane Basabe & Daro Pez

University of the Basque Country


2/47

Objectives of the study

Introduction: devalued social identity & social stigmaparadigms in conjunction

Method: samples, procedure, & measures

Results:

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusions

Outline


3/47

Study 1(a) to develop items reflecting how immigrants cope with

stigmatization

(b) to examine the initial factor structure of the scale

Study 2

(a) to replicate the factor structure

(b) to demonstrate the reliability of the measurement model

(c) to demonstrate the scales concurrent validity

Study 3

(a) to analyze the structural and measurement invariance of the

scale across five cultural groups of immigrants

Objectives of the Studies


4/47

Introduction


5/47

research on coping with stigma:still limited (Miller & Kaiser, 2001)

stigma and prejudice paradigmshave received little research

attention in conjunction, examinedas independent socialconstructions (special issue by Stuber, Meyer,& Link, 2008)

Why coping with stigma?

stigmaoriented contributions: identity-threat models (Crocker, Major,& Steele, 1998; Major & O'Brien, 2005)

prejudicerelated models: social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

the two frameworks refer to a single construct, with small

distinctions (Phelan et al. 2008)


6/47

social identity theory andthe social stigma modelin conjunction:a good explanation for the

mechanisms of facing athreat to ones groupidentity.

there has been scarce

research focusing on theway immigrants cope withstigma,

nor have specific scales beendeveloped



7/47

we go beyond previous research oncoping of minorities to focus onforeignborn immigrants (e.g. Wei,Alvarez, Ku, Russell, & Bonett, 2010)

only a few studies attempted tomeasure stressspecific collectivecoping,(e.g., Blanz, Mummendey, Mielke, &Klink, 1998; Crocker et al., 1998; Outten,Schmitt, Garcia, & Branscombe, 2009)

especially in the context ofpervasively devalued identities


extend the range of coping responses from individual responsesto collective ones


8/47

Social stigma is a function of having anattribute that conveys a devalued socialidentity of certain social groups inparticular context

(Crocker, Major & Steele, 1998; Major & OBrien, 2005)

Immigrants Stigma

PerceivedDiscrimination:awareness of

stigma

The targets perspective


9/47


stigma

ThreatenedIdentity

AdaptationOutcomes

Consequences of Stigma


10/47


stigma

Mental and

physical health

(Williams, Neighbors,

& Jackson, 2003)

(Branscombe, Schmitt &Harvey, 1999; Mesch,

Turjeman &Fishman, 2008)

Depressivesymptoms

Satisfactionwith Life

Collective Self-esteem

(Finch, Kolody, & Vega, 2000;

Noh & Kaspar, 2003)

(Basabe, Pez, Aierdi, &Jimnez-Aristizabal, 2009)

Consequences of Stigma


11/47

Stigmatized

individuals donot have to bepassivevictims ofprejudice and

discrimination

Coping with Stigma They may act to

deal with thenegative identity orrebuild a positivesocial identity - topreserve their well-

being and selfesteem


12/47

Devalued SocialIdentity

Social Creativity

(Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Ellemers, 1993)

SocialCompetition

Social Identity Theory

IndividualMobility

3.Impermeability

(Un)stabilityIllegitimacy

1.Permeability

2.Impermeability

StabilityLegitimacy

Positive SocialIdentity


13/47


stigma

SocialComparisons

PsychologicalDisengagement

Self-Esteem

Social Stigma & Self-Esteem

Attributions toPrejudice

(Crocker & Major, 1989; Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998)


14/47

IndividualMobility

AvoidingPrejudice

Disengagement/ Distancing

EmotionalControl

SubordinateRecategorization

Super-ordinateRecategorization

Intragroup andTemporal

Comparisons

Individualization

SocialCompetition

Socio-centricRelative

Deprivation

RealisticCompetition

MakingAttributions to

Prejudice

NewComparison

Group

SubordinateRecategorization /

Expulsion

NewComparisonDimension

Re-evaluation ofComparisonDimension


15/47

Method


16/47

Participants

Stratified by age and sex

sample (n= 1250) of immigrantpersons proceeding from:

Procedure The questionnaires: individually administered by trained interviewers

(in collaboration with the Basque Observatory of Immigration)

Administered in Spanish; however, the interviewers were backed-up

with English and French translation of the questionnaire

Method: Participants &Procedure

Bolivia (250)

Marocco (250)

Romania (250)

Sub-SaharanAfrica (250)

Colombia(250)


17/47

Individual Coping Strategies

Category 1: Individual Mobility & Self-Regulation

Individual Mobility Avoiding Prejudice Emotional Control Distraction

Category 2: Personal Recategorizations & Comparisons

Individualization

Individual Subordinate Recategorization (Me-us Differentiation) Superordinate Recategorization Intragroup and Temporal Comparison

Scale: 1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree

Items are presented in the results section


18/47

Collective Coping Strategies

Category 3: Social cognitive creativity

New Comparison Group Re-evaluation of Comparison Dimension New Comparison Dimension Expulsion: Intragroup Subordinate Recategorization

Category 4: Attributions to prejudice, and collective action

Attribution to Prejudice

Social and Realistic Competition Socio-centric Relative Deprivation Realistic Competition


Items are presented in the results section


19/47

Adaptation Variables: Personal Adaptation (110)

Satisfaction with Life (SWL) 6 items

an item taken from the World Value Survey (Inglehart et al., 2004)

All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole

these days? Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale (Diener & BisbasDiener, 2008)

family, money and income, friends, work, and oneself as a person

2 first-order factors and 1 higher-order factor:

Socioeconomic SWL ( = 0.78) Personal SWL ( = 0.73)

((7, N= 1250) =35.095, p< .001; CFI = 0.988; SRMR = 0.028)

Scale: 1 = dissatisfied and 10 = satisfied


20/47

Adaptation Variables: Collective Adaptation

Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSE) 5 items

2 first-order factors and 1 higher-order factor

Private Collective Self-Esteem ( = 0.78)

I feel good about the national group I belong to Importance to Identity ( = 0.80)

My nationality is important to me

(4, N= 1250) = 100.956, p< .001; CFI = 0.961; SRMR = 0.040



21/47

Individual Mobility & SelfRegulation (1 factor) 45.1%

Personal Recategorizations & Comparisons (3 factors)

Temporal & Intragroup Comparisons 31.4%Meus Differentiation 21.5%Individualization 14.3%

Attributions to Prejudice & Social Competition (2 factors)

Attributions to Prejudice and Discrimination 30.2%

Social Competition 22.8%

Cognitive Creativity (3 factors)New Group of Comparison 24.8 %Subordinate Differentiation or Expulsion 18.5 %

Restructuration of Comparison Dimension 29.1 %


22/47

Results: Study 2


23/47


ATTRIBUTIONSTO PREJUDICE

SOCIALCOMPETITION

CREATIVITY:NEW GROUP

15 1816 17 20 242319 21

.86.73 .73 .89 .88.89 .67 .71

.68 .73 .48.32 .74 .70.73.63

CREATIVITY:NEW

DIMENSIONS

22

.46 -.42

.78 .68

CREATIVITY:EXPULSION

2625

.63 .79

.77 .61.45

.59

.18

.26.50 .30

.36

.76

.18

.26

.41

.25-

Model fit:

S-B(42, N= 642) = 88.95, p< .001; CFI = 0.952; NFI = 0.915;RMSEA = 0.042 (90% CI [.030,.054]).


24/47



15 1816 17

.86.73 .73 .89

.68 .73 .46 -.42 .25-

4. We don't take jobs away fromthe local people: we do the jobsthey don't want to do

11. The bad situation of immigrantsfrom my country is caused by alack of support from the Basquesand the Spaniards

13. Immigrants earn less moneyand have fewer opportunities tobetter themselves than theydeserve

14. The poor view that someBasques hold of immigrants isbecause these people have a lot ofprejudices

Maximal reliability: 0.59


25/47


SOCIALCOMPETITION

1816 2019

.86.73 .88.89

.48.32-.42 .45

We immigrants ought tohave the same services andrights as people from here

We immigrants from mycountry can band together tofight for our rights and be likepeople from here

I have faith that in time,justice will be done andprejudice towards us willbecome a thing of the past



26/47


21

.73.63

CREATIVITY:NEW

DIMENSIONS

22

.78 .68

8. Despite what people say, we immigrants are muchmore hard-working than the Basques

15. We people from my country are better in many waysthan people from here



27/47



2423

.67 .71

.74 .70

1. There are other groups thatare seen in a worse light herethan people from my country

3. The Basques and theSpaniards treat people frommy country more kindly thanthey treat other immigrants



28/47



2625

.63 .79

.77 .61

5. The bad things that people say about us are caused bythe behaviour of a small minority; most of us aren't like that

10. At times the unacceptable behaviour of someimmigrants makes the Basques think badly of us



29/47


INTRAGROUP &TEMPORAL

COMPARISONS

ME-USDIFFERENTIATION

9875 6 1110 12

.74 .51 .65.86 .76 .62 .76

.67 .86 .76 .78 .65 .41.98

INDIVIDUALIZATION

13

.55

.18 .91

INDIVIDUALMOBILITY

1

.89

2 3 4

.82 .864

.78

.58 .51 .62.45 .51 .30

.41

.27

.23

.11.13

.13

Model fit:

S-B (59, N=642) = 142.62, p< .001; CFI = 0.939; NFI = 0.901; RMSEA =0.047 (90% CI [.037,.057]).


30/47


5 6

.86 .76

INDIVIDUALMOBILITY

1

.89

2 3 4

.82 .864

.78

.58 .51 .62.45 .51 .30

I make an effort to overcome thedifficulties I face as an immigrant

I throw myself in and concentrate onmy studies or work so as not to haveto think about my situation, and I actas if everything were O.K.

I try to stay clear of people who thinkbadly of immigrants

I try not to let it get to me on anemotional level when immigrants are

badly treated

I make an effort to demonstrate thatI'm better than people from here inmy working life (or whatever

else it is that you do)



31/47



COMPARISONS

9876

.74 .51 .65.76

.67 .86 .76.55

8. My own personal situation is

fairly better than the situation ofmost immigrants from my country

9. Now I'm enjoying theexperiences of daily life morethan before and I'm trying tomake the most of them

10. When I think of what my plansand prospects used to be, mysituation is better than I expectedthen

12. Compared with the past, mysituation is better than before



32/47



1110

.62 .76

.78 .65

4. I feel very different from most of the people from mycountry

5. We immigrants from my country are very differentamongst ourselves



33/47


12

.41.98

INDIVIDUALIZATION

13

.18 .91


17. I feel more like a citizen of the planetthan a member of a national group

18. I don't identify with any group (eitherthe Basques or the people from mycountry)

C t V lidit


34/47

Concurrent Validity

ATTRIBUTIONS

TO PREJUDICE

SOCIALCOMPETITION

CREATIVITY:

NEW GROUP

CREATIVITY:NEW

DIMENSIONS


CollectiveSelf-esteem


-.02

.61*

.01

.19*

-.37+

-.44*

.15

.16

.34*

.13

(df) 293.23 (116)

P < .001

CFI 0.919

NFI 0.875

RMSEA 0.049

90% CI RMSEA (.042,.056)

(df) 233.83 (101)

P < .001

CFI 0.941

NFI 0.902

RMSEA 0.045

90% CI RMSEA (.038,.053)

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

25% of variance 23% of variance

C t V lidit


35/47


COMPARISONS


INDIVIDUALIZATION

INDIVIDUAL

MOBILITY

Concurrent Validity


CollectiveSelf-esteem

.09

.81*

.10

-.02

.30*

.20*

-.25*

-.01

(df) 353.01 (140)

P < .001

CFI 0.915

NFI 0.868

RMSEA 0.049

90% CI RMSEA (.042,.055)

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

72% of variance 13% of variance

(df) 281.29 (124)

P < .001

CFI 0.932

NFI 0.885

RMSEA 0.044

90% CI RMSEA (.038,.051)


36/47

Results: Study 3

Multi sample: Collective


37/47

Multi-sample: CollectiveCoping -structural invariance


SOCIALCOMPETITION


15 1816 17 20 242319 21

CREATIVITY:NEW

DIMENSIONS

22


2625

Model fit:

S-B(210, N= 1250) = 375.39, p< .001; CFI = 0.916.

Multi sample: Individual Coping


38/47

Multi-sample: Individual Copingstructural invariance


COMPARISONS


9875 6 1110 12

INDIVIDUALIZATION

13

INDIVIDUALMOBILITY

1 2 3 4

Model fit:S-B (295, N=1250) = 555.26 , p< .001; CFI = 0.897.

Multi sample: Collective Coping


39/47

Multi-sample: Collective Coping- measurement invariance

Model fit:

S-B (266, N=1250) = 509.72 , p< .001; CFI = 0.876.; RMSEA = .027 (90% CI[.024,.031]).


SOCIALCOMPETITION


15 1816 17 20 242319 21

CREATIVITY:NEW

DIMENSIONS

22


2625

Sub-SaharanAfricans

Multi-sample: Individual Coping


40/47

Multi-sample: Individual Copingmeasurement invariance

Model fit:

S-B(343, N= 1250) = 675.04, p< .001; CFI = 0.869; RMSEA = .028 (90% CI[.025,.031]).


COMPARISONS


9875 6 1110 12

INDIVIDUALIZATION

13

INDIVIDUALMOBILITY

1 2 3 4

Sub-Saharan Africans


41/47

Conclusions


42/47

Study 1

EFA provided evidence for a four-factor structure of boththe individual and the collective coping with negativesocial identity

Study 2

CFA replicated these results in Study 2, indicating that bothmodels, after minor respecifications, provided a good fit tothe data.

Study 3

CISS also exhibited structural invariance, althoughthere were cross-sample differences as far asmeasurement invariance is concerned

General Conclusions


43/47

Individual strategies: Intragroup and Temporal Comparison Individual Mobility

Individualization & Superordinate Categorization Me-Us Differentiation or Subordinate Categorization

Collective strategies : Attributions to Prejudice and Discrimination Social Creativity: New Comparison Group Social Creativity: New Comparison Dimension Differentiation and Competition

General Conclusions


44/47

Individual and collective strategies have an impact onpersonal (SWL) and collective (CSE) well-being

As expected: individual strategies explained 72%, whereas collective strategies

explained just 25% of variance in immigrants SWL collective coping accounted for more variance in CSE (23%) than

individual coping (13%)

However: both individual (72%) and collective (25%) coping helps people to

reconstruct a positive identity in terms of personal rather thancollective wellbeing (13% and 23%).

curiously, collective coping explains a similar amount of variance inboth personal (25%) and collective (23%) wellbeing

General Conclusions


45/47

individual mobility & positive social comparison: the strongest predictorof SWL, but also a positive association with CSE

social competition: the best predictor of CSE, but also associated withSWL.

some strategies are adaptive for both personal and collective well-being, showing strong associations with wellbeing indicators

individual distancing from the ingroup, but also collectivedifferentiation of negative ingroup members, were related to SWL butnegatively to CSE.

functional opposition: what is good for the individual level is negativefor the collective level

attribution of discrimination to prejudice was a nonadaptiveresponse: negatively related to SWL and unrelated to CSE

General Conclusions


46/47

It also demonstrated a structural invariance across five differentgroups of immigrant persons in Spain: Colombians, Bolivians,Romanias, Marrocans, and Sub-Saharan Africans

However, as far as measurement invariance is concerned, Sub-

Saharan Africans differed from the rest of the group constantlyacross aprox. half of the items in each of the models

TO RECAP:

CISS has acceptable psychometric properties, and the

development of this scale is a substantial step towards a betterunderstanding of the migratory and stigmatization processes

BUT: still there is a need for a more thorough examination ofCISS functioning across different minority samples

General Conclusions


47/47

Thank you!

[email protected]

How Do Immigrants Manage Their Devalued Social Identity

Documents

Transcript of How Do Immigrants Manage Their Devalued Social Identity