How do immigrants manage their devalued social identity?

Total-sample and multi-sample confirmatory factor analysis of Coping with Immigrants Stigma Scale (CISS)

Magdalena Bobowik, Nekane Basabe & Daro Pez University of the Basque Country

Outline

Objectives of the study Introduction: devalued social identity & social stigma paradigms in conjunction

Method: samples, procedure, & measures

Results:

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

Conclusions

Objectives of the Studies

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

Introduction

Why coping with stigma?

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

stigma and prejudice paradigms have received little research attention in conjunction, examined as independent social constructions (special issue by Stuber, Meyer,
& Link, 2008)

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)

Why coping with stigma?

social identity theory and the social stigma model in conjunction: a good explanation for the mechanisms of facing a threat to ones group identity.
there has been scarce research focusing on the way immigrants cope with stigma, nor have specific scales been developed

Why coping with stigma?

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

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

especially in the context of pervasively devalued identities

extend the range of coping responses from individual responses to collective ones

Immigrants Stigma
The targets perspective
Perceived Discrimination: awareness of stigma

Social stigma is a function of having an attribute that conveys a devalued social identity of certain social groups in particular context
(Crocker, Major & Steele, 1998; Major & OBrien, 2005)

Consequences of Stigma

Perceived Discrimination: awareness of stigma

Threatened Identity

Adaptation Outcomes

Consequences of Stigma
Depressive symptoms (Finch, Kolody, & Vega, 2000; Noh & Kaspar, 2003)

Perceived Discrimination: awareness of stigma

Mental and physical health

(Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2003)

Satisfaction with Life

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

Collective Selfesteem

(Branscombe, Schmitt & Harvey, 1999; Mesch, Turjeman &Fishman, 2008)

Coping with Stigma

Stigmatized individuals do not have to be passive victims of prejudice and discrimination

They may act to deal with the negative identity or rebuild a positive social identity - to preserve their wellbeing and self esteem

Social Identity Theory

1. Permeability Individual Mobility

Devalued Social Identity

2. Impermeability Stability Legitimacy 3. Impermeability (Un)stability Illegitimacy

Social Creativity

Positive Social Identity

Social Competition

(Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Ellemers, 1993)

Social Stigma & Self-Esteem

Attributions to Prejudice Social Comparisons

Perceived Discrimination: awareness of stigma

Self-Esteem

Psychological Disengagement

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

Re-evaluation of Comparison Dimension

New Comparison Group

Making Attributions to Prejudice

Social Competition

Subordinate Recategorization / Expulsion

New Comparison Dimension

Socio-centric Relative Deprivation

Realistic Competition

Subordinate Recategorization

Super-ordinate Recategorization

Individual Mobility

Avoiding Prejudice

Intragroup and Temporal Comparisons

Individualization

Disengagement / Distancing

Emotional Control

Method

Method: Participants & Procedure

Participants

Bolivia (250) Colombia (250) Romania (250) Marocco (250)

Stratified by age and sex sample (n= 1250) of immigrant persons proceeding from:

Sub-Saharan Africa (250)

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

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

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

Scale: 1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree Items are presented in the results section

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

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

Scale: 1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree

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 %

Results: Study 2

Collective Coping Strategies

.73
.73 .89

.86

.89

.88

.78

.68

.67

.71

.63

.79

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

.68

.73

.46 -.42

.25-

.32

.45

.48

.63

.73

.74

.70

.77

.61

ATTRIBUTIONS TO PREJUDICE

SOCIAL COMPETITION

CREATIVITY: NEW DIMENSIONS

CREATIVITY: NEW GROUP

CREATIVITY: EXPULSION

.50
.59 .18

.30
.36

.26 .18 .76 .41

.26

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

Collective Coping Strategies

.73
.73 .89

.86

4. We don't take jobs away from the local people: we do the jobs they don't want to do 11. The bad situation of immigrants from my country is caused by a lack of support from the Basques and the Spaniards 13. Immigrants earn less money and have fewer opportunities to better themselves than they deserve 14. The poor view that some Basques hold of immigrants is because these people have a lot of prejudices

15

16

17

18

.68

.73

.46 -.42

.25-

ATTRIBUTIONS TO PREJUDICE

Maximal reliability: 0.59

Collective Coping Strategies

.73

.86

.89

.88

16

18

19

20

We immigrants ought to have the same services and rights as people from here

-.42

.32

.45

.48

SOCIAL COMPETITION

We immigrants from my country can band together to fight for our rights and be like people from here
I have faith that in time, justice will be done and prejudice towards us will become a thing of the past

Maximal reliability: 0.50

Collective Coping Strategies

.78 .68

Maximal reliability: 0.66

21 22

.63

.73

CREATIVITY: NEW DIMENSIONS

8. Despite what people say, we immigrants are much more hard-working than the Basques
15. We people from my country are better in many ways than people from here

Collective Coping Strategies

.67 .71
23 24

1. There are other groups that are seen in a worse light here than people from my country

.74

.70

3. The Basques and the Spaniards treat people from my country more kindly than they treat other immigrants

CREATIVITY: NEW GROUP

Maximal reliability: 0.69

Collective Coping Strategies

.63 .79

Maximal reliability: 0.70

25
26

.77

.61

CREATIVITY: EXPULSION

5. The bad things that people say about us are caused by the behaviour of a small minority; most of us aren't like that
10. At times the unacceptable behaviour of some immigrants makes the Basques think badly of us

Individual Coping Strategies

.89 .82 .86 4
3

.78

.86

.76

.74

.51

.65

.62

.76

.18

.91

10

11

12

13

.45 .58

.51

.62

.51

.30

.55 .67

.86

.76

.78

.65

.98

.41

INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY

INTRAGROUP & TEMPORAL COMPARISONS

ME-US DIFFERENTIATION

INDIVIDUALIZATIO N

.11 .41

.13

.27

.23 .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]).

Individual Coping Strategies

.89 .82 .86 4
3

.78

.86

.76

I make an effort to overcome the difficulties I face as an immigrant I throw myself in and concentrate on my studies or work so as not to have to think about my situation, and I act as if everything were O.K. I try to stay clear of people who think badly of immigrants I try not to let it get to me on an emotional level when immigrants are badly treated I make an effort to demonstrate that I'm better than people from here in my working life (or whatever else it is that you do)

.45 .58

.51

.62

.51

.30

INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY

Maximal reliability: 0.64

Individual Coping Strategies

.76 .74 .51 .65
6 7 8 9

.55 .67

.86

.76

8. My own personal situation is fairly better than the situation of most immigrants from my country
INTRAGROUP & TEMPORAL COMPARISONS

9. Now I'm enjoying the experiences of daily life more than before and I'm trying to make the most of them 10. When I think of what my plans and prospects used to be, my situation is better than I expected then

Maximal reliability: 0.85

12. Compared with the past, my situation is better than before

Individual Coping Strategies

.62 .76
10 11

.78

.65

4. I feel very different from most of the people from my country

ME-US DIFFERENTIATION

5. We immigrants from my country are very different amongst ourselves

Maximal reliability: 0.70

Individual Coping Strategies

.18 .91
12 13

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

.98

.41

18. I don't identify with any group (either the Basques or the people from my country)

INDIVIDUALIZATIO N

Maximal reliability: 0.69

Concurrent Validity
25% of variance
-.44*
SOCIAL COMPETITION ATTRIBUTIONS TO PREJUDICE

23% of variance
-.02

.15

.61*
CREATIVITY: NEW DIMENSIONS

Satisfaction with Life

.16 .34* .13

.01

Collective Self-esteem

.19*
CREATIVITY: NEW GROUP

-.37+
(df) P CFI NFI RMSEA 90% CI RMSEA 233.83 (101) < .001 0.941 0.902 0.045 (.038,.053)

(df) P CFI NFI RMSEA 90% CI RMSEA

293.23 (116) < .001 0.919 0.875 0.049 (.042,.056)

CREATIVITY: EXPULSION

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

Concurrent Validity
72% of variance
.09
INTRAGROUP & TEMPORAL COMPARISONS INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY

13% of variance
.30*

.81*

.20*

Satisfaction with Life

.10 -.25*
ME-US DIFFERENTIATION

Collective Self-esteem

-.02
(df) P CFI NFI RMSEA 90% CI RMSEA 353.01 (140) < .001 0.915 0.868 0.049 (.042,.055)
INDIVIDUALIZATION

-.01
(df) P CFI NFI RMSEA 90% CI RMSEA 281.29 (124) < .001 0.932 0.885 0.044 (.038,.051)

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

Results: Study 3

Multi-sample: Collective Coping -structural invariance

15 16 17
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ATTRIBUTIONS TO PREJUDICE

SOCIAL COMPETITION

CREATIVITY: NEW DIMENSIONS

CREATIVITY: NEW GROUP

CREATIVITY: EXPULSION

Model fit:

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

Multi-sample: Individual Coping structural invariance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY

INTRAGROUP & TEMPORAL COMPARISONS

ME-US DIFFERENTIATION

INDIVIDUALIZATIO N

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

Multi-sample: Collective Coping - measurement invariance

15 16 17
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ATTRIBUTIONS TO PREJUDICE

SOCIAL COMPETITION

CREATIVITY: NEW DIMENSIONS

CREATIVITY: NEW GROUP

CREATIVITY: EXPULSION

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

Sub-Saharan Africans

Multi-sample: Individual Coping measurement invariance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY

INTRAGROUP & TEMPORAL COMPARISONS

ME-US DIFFERENTIATION

INDIVIDUALIZATIO N

Model fit:

Sub-Saharan Africans

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

Conclusions

General Conclusions
Study 1 EFA provided evidence for a four-factor structure of both the individual and the collective coping with negative social identity Study 2 CFA replicated these results in Study 2, indicating that both models, after minor respecifications, provided a good fit to the data. Study 3 CISS also exhibited structural invariance, although there were cross-sample differences as far as measurement invariance is concerned

General Conclusions

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

Individual and collective strategies have an impact on personal (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%) both individual (72%) and collective (25%) coping helps people to reconstruct a positive identity in terms of personal rather than collective wellbeing (13% and 23%). curiously, collective coping explains a similar amount of variance in both personal (25%) and collective (23%) wellbeing

However:

General Conclusions

individual mobility & positive social comparison: the strongest predictor of SWL, but also a positive association with CSE social competition: the best predictor of CSE, but also associated with SWL.

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

individual distancing from the ingroup, but also collective differentiation of negative ingroup members, were related to SWL but negatively to CSE.

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

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

General Conclusions

It also demonstrated a structural invariance across five different groups of immigrant persons in Spain: Colombians, Bolivians, Romanias, Marrocans, and Sub-Saharan Africans However, as far as measurement invariance is concerned, SubSaharan Africans differed from the rest of the group constantly across 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 better understanding of the migratory and stigmatization processes

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

Thank you!
magdalena.bobowik@ehu.es