Theme 7
Ethnic Identity, migration and mental health
Learning goals:
Vignette 1
▪ How does ethnic identification relate to self-esteem?
▪ What do the four terms in the vignette mean, and what leads to them?
Vignette 2
▪ How does ethnic identity develop?
▪ What are the challenges in ethnic identity development?
Vignette 3
▪ How do the four terms in the vignette relate to psychological and sociological adaptation?
Phinney et al. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional
perspective.
The authors propose that ethnic identities (EI) and national identities (NI) and their role in
adaptation can best be understood in terms of an interaction between the attitudes and
characteristics of immigrants and the responses of the receiving society, moderated by the particular
circumstances of the immigrant group within the new society. Immigrants arrive in a new country
with differing attitudes about retaining their culture of origin and becoming part of the new society.
These attitudes interact with the actual and perceived levels of acceptance of immigrants and with
official policies toward immigration.
EI is likely to be strong when immigrants have a strong desire to retain their identities and when
pluralism is encouraged or accepted. When there is pressure toward assimilation and groups feel
accepted, the NI is likely to be strong. In the face of real or perceived hostility toward immigrants or
towards particular groups, some immigrants may downplay or reject their own EI; other may assert
their pride in their cultural group and emphasize solidarity as a way of dealing with negative
attitudes.
The relationship of these identities to adaptation will be influenced by the interaction of
characteristics of specific immigrant groups with those of particular settings. When there is pressure
to assimilate and immigrants are willing to adapt to the new culture, NI should be predictive of
positive outcomes. When there is a strong supportive ethnic community, EI should predict positive
outcomes. Outcomes will also be influenced by the ways in which particular groups and individuals
perceive and interpret their circumstances.
Ethnic Identity and Acculturation
The distinction between EI and acculturation is unclear. Acculturation is broader, encompassing a
wide range of behaviours, attitudes, and values that change with contact between cultures. EI is an
aspect of acculturation that focuses on the subjective sense of belonging to a group or culture.
Acculturation can be understood as a two-dimensional process: perseveration of one’s heritage
culture and adaptation to the host society. Berry suggests the following two questions to identify
immigrant strategies in dealing with acculturation, which lead to four acculturation strategies:
- Is it considered to be of value to maintain one’s cultural heritage?
- Is it considered to be of value to develop relationships with the larger society?
1
,1. Integration: positive answers to both questions. An individual with an integrated or bicultural
identity retains a strong EI while also identifying with the new society.
2. Assimilation: negative response to the first and positive to the second. An individual with an
assimilated identity gives up an EI and identifies only with the new culture.
3. Separation: positive response to the first and negative to the second. An individual with a
separated identity has an strong EI but does not identify with the new culture.
4. Marginalization: negative answers to both questions. An individual with a marginalized
identity identified with neither EI or NI.
The model highlights the facts that acculturation proceeds in diverse ways and that it is not
necessary for immigrants to give up their culture of origin in order to adapt to the new society. The
model allows for multiculturalism; different cultures may co-exist in a society. EI and NI (as a
member of one’s new society) can be thought of as two dimensions of group identity that vary
independently; each identity can be either secure and strong or undeveloped and weak.
Ethnic and National Identities and Their Interrelationship
Ethnic identity refers to an individual’s sense of self in terms of membership in a particular ethnic
group. It is seen as embracing various aspects, including self-identification, feelings of belongingness
and commitment to a group, a sense of shared values, and attitudes toward one’s own ethnic group.
Ethnicity refers to sub-groups within a larger context (e.g., nation), that claim a common ancestry
and share one or more of the following: culture, religion, language, kinship and place of origin.
EI is a dynamic construct that evolves and changes in response to developmental and contextual
factors, and is a critical developmental task of adolescents, particularly in complex modern societies.
The process of EI formation is in terms of progression, with an individual moving from the
unexamined attitudes of childhood, through a moratorium or period of exploration, to a secure
achieved EI at the end of adolescence. The stages are not inevitable, but depend on socialization
experiences in the family, ethnic community, and the larger setting, and not all individuals reach the
stage of EI achievement.
EI can be distinguished from one’s ascribed ethnicity (by others). EI changes in response to social
psychological and contextual factors, these responses vary over time, and there can be considerable
variation in the images that individuals construct of the behaviours, beliefs, values, and norms that
characterize their group(s), together with their understandings of how these features are reflected in
themselves.
There has been less attention to conceptualizing and studying immigrants’ identification with the
new society. In the US, immigrant groups typically change over time from using a country-of-origin
label to a compound label (e.g., Chinese American), and sometimes to the national label. However, NI
is more complex; it involves feelings of belonging to, and attitudes toward, the larger society.
According to the two-dimensional model, EI and NI among immigrants are assumed to be
independent; they could both be either high or low, and individuals could belong to any one of the
four possible identity categories. According to the linear/unidimensional model, the two identities
are negatively correlated; when one is strong the other is weak. This would mean that immigrant
identities are limited to either assimilation or separation. Research generally support the first model.
An article based on the International Comparative Study of Ethnocultural Youth examined the
strength and interrelationships of the two identities in four immigrant receiving countries: US, Israel,
Finland and the Netherlands. In all countries the scores for EI were higher than the scores for NI. EI
scores were significantly higher in the US and the Netherlands than in Israel and Finland and
significantly lower in Finland than in other countries. NI scores were highest in the US, Israel and
Finland. Immigrants in the Netherlands showed the lowest levels of NI.
2
, The relationship between the identity scores varied among countries and among ethnic groups
within countries. These differences can be understood in terms of the situations of particular groups
and settings e.g., correlations were positive for Mexicans in the US, but low for other groups.
Examination of the responses of immigrant within each country further highlights the importance of
context e.g., Antilleans feel unfairly treated in the Netherlands.
Immigrant Policies and Identity
The extent to which a country supports the process of integration by respecting cultural diversity
may interact with identity choices. The four countries in the study before differ in their policies
toward immigrants. Also the percentages of immigrants differ between those countries; first US and
Israel, than the Netherlands and at last Finland. In the Netherlands immigrants have been
encouraged to maintain their own traditional culture rather than become Dutch.
In summary, evidence for links between policies and EI is weak. Some studies show that the decisive
factors for identity formation and psychological adaptation are not national policies, but more local
circumstances, personal relationships, and activity settings such as school and neighbourhood. The
local situations may be independent of the official national immigrant policies.
Ethnic Identity and Psychological Well-Being Among Immigrant Adolescents
Successful acculturation has been defined in terms of mental and physical health, psychological
satisfaction, high self-esteem, competent work performance, and good grades in school. Berry
proposed that the acculturation strategies are central factors moderating the adaptational outcomes
of acculturation. Numerous other factors, however, are assumed to influence adaptational outcomes,
including moderating factors prior to migration (e.g., age, gender, personality), and so on.
Social identity theory suggests strong links between group identification and self-concept. People
strive to achieve and maintain a positive social identity, thus boosting their self-esteem. This
positive identity derives largely from favourable comparisons that can be made between ingroup and
relevant outgroups. In the event of an unsatisfactory identity, people may seek to leave their group or
find ways of achieving more distinctiveness.
Developmental models suggest that devaluation of one’s group need not results in self-derogation.
Children who are exposed to negative stereotypes about their own group may hold conflicting or
negative feelings about their ethnicity. Children are also influenced by messages received from the
family and community. An ethnic community provides a context in which children can form a
positive sense of their group. Furthermore, an achieved EI, involving a secure sense of one’s ethnicity
and resolution of conflicts about one’s group, is assumed to include positive feelings about one’s
group and to be a source of personal strength and positive self-evaluation.
Positive psychological outcomes for immigrants are expected to be related to a strong identification
with both their ethnic group and the larger society A bicultural identity is most adaptive, although
the meaning of being bicultural is interpreted differently across studies. The study of the authors
revealed that immigrant youngsters with integrated identities scores significantly higher than all
other groups on measures of psychological adjustment, where those with marginalized identities
exhibited the lowest levels.
The interactional model suggest that these relationships will vary in relation to ethnic group and
contextual factors. The relationship between identity categories and behavioural problems differed
across countries. For example, in Israel, separation was related to proportionally more behavioural
problems than in the other countries, whereas generally a marginalized identity was associated with
proportionally more behavioural problems.
3
Ethnic Identity, migration and mental health
Learning goals:
Vignette 1
▪ How does ethnic identification relate to self-esteem?
▪ What do the four terms in the vignette mean, and what leads to them?
Vignette 2
▪ How does ethnic identity develop?
▪ What are the challenges in ethnic identity development?
Vignette 3
▪ How do the four terms in the vignette relate to psychological and sociological adaptation?
Phinney et al. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional
perspective.
The authors propose that ethnic identities (EI) and national identities (NI) and their role in
adaptation can best be understood in terms of an interaction between the attitudes and
characteristics of immigrants and the responses of the receiving society, moderated by the particular
circumstances of the immigrant group within the new society. Immigrants arrive in a new country
with differing attitudes about retaining their culture of origin and becoming part of the new society.
These attitudes interact with the actual and perceived levels of acceptance of immigrants and with
official policies toward immigration.
EI is likely to be strong when immigrants have a strong desire to retain their identities and when
pluralism is encouraged or accepted. When there is pressure toward assimilation and groups feel
accepted, the NI is likely to be strong. In the face of real or perceived hostility toward immigrants or
towards particular groups, some immigrants may downplay or reject their own EI; other may assert
their pride in their cultural group and emphasize solidarity as a way of dealing with negative
attitudes.
The relationship of these identities to adaptation will be influenced by the interaction of
characteristics of specific immigrant groups with those of particular settings. When there is pressure
to assimilate and immigrants are willing to adapt to the new culture, NI should be predictive of
positive outcomes. When there is a strong supportive ethnic community, EI should predict positive
outcomes. Outcomes will also be influenced by the ways in which particular groups and individuals
perceive and interpret their circumstances.
Ethnic Identity and Acculturation
The distinction between EI and acculturation is unclear. Acculturation is broader, encompassing a
wide range of behaviours, attitudes, and values that change with contact between cultures. EI is an
aspect of acculturation that focuses on the subjective sense of belonging to a group or culture.
Acculturation can be understood as a two-dimensional process: perseveration of one’s heritage
culture and adaptation to the host society. Berry suggests the following two questions to identify
immigrant strategies in dealing with acculturation, which lead to four acculturation strategies:
- Is it considered to be of value to maintain one’s cultural heritage?
- Is it considered to be of value to develop relationships with the larger society?
1
,1. Integration: positive answers to both questions. An individual with an integrated or bicultural
identity retains a strong EI while also identifying with the new society.
2. Assimilation: negative response to the first and positive to the second. An individual with an
assimilated identity gives up an EI and identifies only with the new culture.
3. Separation: positive response to the first and negative to the second. An individual with a
separated identity has an strong EI but does not identify with the new culture.
4. Marginalization: negative answers to both questions. An individual with a marginalized
identity identified with neither EI or NI.
The model highlights the facts that acculturation proceeds in diverse ways and that it is not
necessary for immigrants to give up their culture of origin in order to adapt to the new society. The
model allows for multiculturalism; different cultures may co-exist in a society. EI and NI (as a
member of one’s new society) can be thought of as two dimensions of group identity that vary
independently; each identity can be either secure and strong or undeveloped and weak.
Ethnic and National Identities and Their Interrelationship
Ethnic identity refers to an individual’s sense of self in terms of membership in a particular ethnic
group. It is seen as embracing various aspects, including self-identification, feelings of belongingness
and commitment to a group, a sense of shared values, and attitudes toward one’s own ethnic group.
Ethnicity refers to sub-groups within a larger context (e.g., nation), that claim a common ancestry
and share one or more of the following: culture, religion, language, kinship and place of origin.
EI is a dynamic construct that evolves and changes in response to developmental and contextual
factors, and is a critical developmental task of adolescents, particularly in complex modern societies.
The process of EI formation is in terms of progression, with an individual moving from the
unexamined attitudes of childhood, through a moratorium or period of exploration, to a secure
achieved EI at the end of adolescence. The stages are not inevitable, but depend on socialization
experiences in the family, ethnic community, and the larger setting, and not all individuals reach the
stage of EI achievement.
EI can be distinguished from one’s ascribed ethnicity (by others). EI changes in response to social
psychological and contextual factors, these responses vary over time, and there can be considerable
variation in the images that individuals construct of the behaviours, beliefs, values, and norms that
characterize their group(s), together with their understandings of how these features are reflected in
themselves.
There has been less attention to conceptualizing and studying immigrants’ identification with the
new society. In the US, immigrant groups typically change over time from using a country-of-origin
label to a compound label (e.g., Chinese American), and sometimes to the national label. However, NI
is more complex; it involves feelings of belonging to, and attitudes toward, the larger society.
According to the two-dimensional model, EI and NI among immigrants are assumed to be
independent; they could both be either high or low, and individuals could belong to any one of the
four possible identity categories. According to the linear/unidimensional model, the two identities
are negatively correlated; when one is strong the other is weak. This would mean that immigrant
identities are limited to either assimilation or separation. Research generally support the first model.
An article based on the International Comparative Study of Ethnocultural Youth examined the
strength and interrelationships of the two identities in four immigrant receiving countries: US, Israel,
Finland and the Netherlands. In all countries the scores for EI were higher than the scores for NI. EI
scores were significantly higher in the US and the Netherlands than in Israel and Finland and
significantly lower in Finland than in other countries. NI scores were highest in the US, Israel and
Finland. Immigrants in the Netherlands showed the lowest levels of NI.
2
, The relationship between the identity scores varied among countries and among ethnic groups
within countries. These differences can be understood in terms of the situations of particular groups
and settings e.g., correlations were positive for Mexicans in the US, but low for other groups.
Examination of the responses of immigrant within each country further highlights the importance of
context e.g., Antilleans feel unfairly treated in the Netherlands.
Immigrant Policies and Identity
The extent to which a country supports the process of integration by respecting cultural diversity
may interact with identity choices. The four countries in the study before differ in their policies
toward immigrants. Also the percentages of immigrants differ between those countries; first US and
Israel, than the Netherlands and at last Finland. In the Netherlands immigrants have been
encouraged to maintain their own traditional culture rather than become Dutch.
In summary, evidence for links between policies and EI is weak. Some studies show that the decisive
factors for identity formation and psychological adaptation are not national policies, but more local
circumstances, personal relationships, and activity settings such as school and neighbourhood. The
local situations may be independent of the official national immigrant policies.
Ethnic Identity and Psychological Well-Being Among Immigrant Adolescents
Successful acculturation has been defined in terms of mental and physical health, psychological
satisfaction, high self-esteem, competent work performance, and good grades in school. Berry
proposed that the acculturation strategies are central factors moderating the adaptational outcomes
of acculturation. Numerous other factors, however, are assumed to influence adaptational outcomes,
including moderating factors prior to migration (e.g., age, gender, personality), and so on.
Social identity theory suggests strong links between group identification and self-concept. People
strive to achieve and maintain a positive social identity, thus boosting their self-esteem. This
positive identity derives largely from favourable comparisons that can be made between ingroup and
relevant outgroups. In the event of an unsatisfactory identity, people may seek to leave their group or
find ways of achieving more distinctiveness.
Developmental models suggest that devaluation of one’s group need not results in self-derogation.
Children who are exposed to negative stereotypes about their own group may hold conflicting or
negative feelings about their ethnicity. Children are also influenced by messages received from the
family and community. An ethnic community provides a context in which children can form a
positive sense of their group. Furthermore, an achieved EI, involving a secure sense of one’s ethnicity
and resolution of conflicts about one’s group, is assumed to include positive feelings about one’s
group and to be a source of personal strength and positive self-evaluation.
Positive psychological outcomes for immigrants are expected to be related to a strong identification
with both their ethnic group and the larger society A bicultural identity is most adaptive, although
the meaning of being bicultural is interpreted differently across studies. The study of the authors
revealed that immigrant youngsters with integrated identities scores significantly higher than all
other groups on measures of psychological adjustment, where those with marginalized identities
exhibited the lowest levels.
The interactional model suggest that these relationships will vary in relation to ethnic group and
contextual factors. The relationship between identity categories and behavioural problems differed
across countries. For example, in Israel, separation was related to proportionally more behavioural
problems than in the other countries, whereas generally a marginalized identity was associated with
proportionally more behavioural problems.
3
