شناسایی قومی، عزت نفس و سلامت روانی مهاجران

This study focused on the psychological consequences of immigration. It was designed to assess the relative significance of a range of variables in predicting the ethnic identification, personal and ethnic self-esteem, and psychological health of members of a variety of immigrant groups to Australia. Of particular interest was the possible impact of the degree of cultural distance between the immigrant groups and the host country. The study included 510 adult participants from Hong Kong, Vietnam, Bosnia, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. The results indicated that the main predictors of ethnic identification (i.e., immigrants’ identification with their culture of origin) were cultural distance, extent of friendship with Australians, the degree to which the immigrants were involved with their ethnic communities, and their ability to speak English. The immigrants’ level of ethnic identification was found to be the primary determinant of ethnic self-esteem whereas the main predictors of personal self-esteem were individual achievements and accomplishments. Finally, immigrant psychological health was mainly dependent upon personal self-esteem rather than ethnic self-esteem and/or ethnic identification. The findings are discussed in relation to theories and research on ethnic adaptation, in addition to social identity theory.

The nature of the acculturation process and the identification of factors predictive of successful migrant cultural adaptation have been of considerable interest to researchers (e.g., Berry, 1984; Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987; Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; Grossman, Wirt, & Davids, 1985; Koh & Bell, 1987; Liebkind (1993) and Liebkind (1996); Nesdale, Rooney, & Smith, 1997; Nicassio, Solomon, Guest, & McCullough, 1986; Sam & Berry, 1993; Sands & Berry, 1993; Shisana & Celentano, 1985). In contrast, researchers have shown comparatively little interest in issues relating to immigrants’ ethnic identification (i.e., their identification with their culture of origin), beyond the development and maintenance of ethnic identity in immigrant adolescents, and the relationship between their ethnic identity and self-esteem, (e.g., Hurtado, Gurin, & Peng, 1994; Laperriere, Compere, Dkhissy, Dolce, & Fleurent, 1994; Liebkind, 1993; Phinney, 1989; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990; Phinney & Chavira, 1992; Phinney, Chavira, & Tate, 1992; Phinney, Chavira, & Williamson, 1992; Phinney, DuPont, Espinosa, Revill, & Sanders, 1994; Rumbaut, 1994; Saenz, Hwang, Aguirre, & Anderson, 1995; Spencer, Swanson, & Cunningham, 1992) and their acculturation strategies (e.g., Berry et al., 1989; Liebkind, 1996; Nesdale & Mak, 2000; van Oudenhoven & Eisses, 1998. This is somewhat surprising in view of the current influence of social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and its more recent elaboration, self-categorisation theory (SCT, Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) on research in social psychology. These theories, and the vast amount of research arising from them, have emphasised the importance to individuals of their identification with particular social groups, the effect it has on their levels of self-esteem, as well as the impact it has on their inter- and intragroup cognitions, attitudes, and behaviour (e.g., Hogg, Turner, Nascimento-Schulze, & Spriggs, 1986; Hurtado et al., 1994; Lemyre & Smith, 1985; Oakes & Turner, 1980). Despite this emphasis, however, social identity theorists have typically tended not to focus on the case of immigrants, apparently choosing to ignore the literature on ethnicity and acculturation. In turn, acculturation researchers appear to have paid comparatively little attention to the accumulating literature emphasising the significance of social identity processes to individuals and groups. In view of these considerations, the aim of the present study was to identify the main predictors of immigrants’ identification with their culture of origin (i.e., their ethnic identification) and to examine the extent to which their ethnic identification impacts upon their self-esteem and psychological health. Of particular interest was the extent to which these processes were influenced by the degree of cultural distance between the immigrant groups and the host country. A considerable amount of research has addressed the impact of cultural distance on a range of responses of both transient (e.g., students, expatriate workers) and permanent migrants, as well as refugee groups. Currently, the impact of cultural distance on immigrants remains to be clarified. For example, research has revealed that cultural distance is inversely related to intercultural competence (e.g., Redmond, 2000; Triandis, 2000), sensitivity to life events (e.g., Tafarodi & Smith, 2001), intelligence test performance (e.g., Grubb & Ollendick, 1986), group performance (e.g., Thomas, 1999), socio-cultural adaptation (e.g., Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward & Kennedy, 1992 (1992), Ward & Kennedy, 1992 (1993a) and Ward & Kennedy, 1993a (1993b)), and adjustment problems (e.g., Phalet & Hagendoorn, 1996. In contrast, research did not reveal a significant linkage between cultural distance and examination performance (e.g., Babiker, Cox, & Miller, 1980), identity conflict (e.g., Leong & Ward, 2000), intercultural interaction (e.g., Janssens, 1995), and psychological well-being (e.g., de Verthelyi, 1995; Ward & Kennedy, 1992 (1992), Ward & Kennedy, 1992 (1993a) and Ward & Kennedy, 1993a (1993b)). Given this divergence in the findings, another aim of the present was to provide a further assessment of the impact of cultural distance on immigrants psychological health, as well as their ethnic identification processes. 1.1. Ethnic identification The first issue addressed in the present research concerned the delineation of the main factors which predict whether or not members of different ethnic groups seek to maintain their identification with their culture of origin or reject it in favour of assimilating with the host culture. There are several possible approaches to this issue. For example, one approach is to assume that for many new immigrants, the confrontation with the complexity and diversity of a new culture reinforces their natural tendency to adhere to what is known and familiar. According to this approach, immigrants’ tendencies towards identifying with their own ethnic group will naturally be enhanced by the immigration process, and that this tendency should increase to the extent to which there is a difference between their original culture and that of the host culture. That is, as cultural distance increases, it is plausible that immigrants would find it easier, less stressful, and/or more comforting to stay with their traditional attitudes, approaches and ways of doing things, rather than confronting and adapting to an alien environment. Alternatively, a second approach assumes that as cultural distance increases, it impacts upon immigrants’ relationships with members of the dominant cultural group as well as their own ethnic group, with the result that it influences their ethnic identification. Consistent with the first part of this proposition is research indicating that cultural distance is related to the level of acceptance or prejudice experienced by immigrants from members of the cultural majority—the greater the distance, the less the acceptance (e.g., Dijker, 1987; Ho, Niles, Penny, & Thomas, 1994; van Oudenhoven & Eisses, 1998). Not surprisingly, there is also evidence that physical dissimilarity militates against acceptance. Lalonde and Cameron (1993), for example, reported that more stigmatised groups such as Caribbean blacks and Chinese versus less stigmatised groups such as Greeks and Italians perceived themselves to be at a social disadvantage in the Canadian context. The implication of these findings is that, as cultural difference hence rejection by the dominant cultural group increases, immigrants might turn increasingly towards their ethnic group and their identification with it might increase. To assess the preceding possibilities, the present study assessed the extent to which immigrants’ ethnic identification was predicted by cultural distance, the level of involvement of the immigrants with their ethnic groups, and the level of acceptance of the immigrants by members of the dominant cultural group in the host country. The research was carried out in Australia and included immigrants from cultural backgrounds which show considerable variation in terms of their distance from the dominant Anglo-Australian culture. Thus, the study included members of immigrant groups from Vietnam, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Bosnia and New Zealand—at face value, immigrants from countries which range from the most culturally distant to the most culturally similar to Australia. Whereas New Zealand and Australia are remarkably similar in terms of language, institutions, government, industries, arts, sport and recreation, reflecting their shared British heritage, countries such as Vietnam and PRC differ from Australia on most of the preceding characteristics. Interestingly, while countries such as Sri Lanka and Hong Kong have notable differences to Australia (e.g., language, food, industries, arts), they also share some similarities as a result of their prior British colonisation (e.g., government, judiciary, sports, language). In addition, however, it is important to note that these groups also encompass a considerable range in terms of their physical similarity to Anglo-Australians, including people with Asian (i.e., Hong Kong, PRC, Taiwan), Indian (Sri Lanka) and Caucasian (New Zealand) physical characteristics. 1.2. Self-esteem The second issue addressed in the present study concerned the identification of predictors of immigrant group members’ self-esteem, including the extent to which immigrants derive self-esteem from their identification with their original cultural group. While self-esteem (i.e., the sense of personal self-worth) is widely recognised as a central aspect of psychological functioning and is strongly related to many other variables, including general life satisfaction and psychological health (Crocker & Major, 1989; Diener, 1984; Nesdale et al., 1997; Taylor & Brown, 1988), little is known about the factors which contribute to the level of self-esteem of members of immigrant groups and how self-esteem impacts upon other psychological constructs, such as immigrant psychological health. In one of the few studies to address these issues, Nesdale et al. (1997) measured the ethnic identification, self-esteem and psychological health of a sample of Vietnamese immigrants to Australia and found evidence consistent with the predicted causal sequence. However, ethnic identification only accounted for a small proportion of the variance of self-esteem, although self-esteem accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance of immigrant psychological health. The low level of association between ethnic identity and self-esteem reported in that study was surprising, particularly in view of research with immigrant adolescents which has generally revealed positive associations between ethnic identity and self-esteem (e.g., Chavira & Phinney, 1991; Phinney & Chavira, 1992). Several factors might have contributed to the finding reported by Nesdale et al. (1997). One possibility is that ethnic identity and self-esteem are simply more strongly related in immigrant adolescents compared with adults, as part of the former's pre-occupation with identity issues. Alternatively, it is possible that the ethnic identity—self-esteem relationship is low in a group such as the Vietnamese because, as Asian immigrants to Australia, they may have not been welcomed by all segments of the dominant Anglo-Australian group. A third possibility relates to the concept and measurement of self-esteem. Several writers (e.g., Crocker & Major, 1989; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Turner et al., 1987) have argued for the partitioning of self-esteem into social, or group-based self-esteem (i.e., the sense of self-worth derived from membership of a group, such as one's cultural group), compared with the more commonly construed and measured personal self-esteem (i.e., the sense of self-worth derived from personal attributes and achievements). The particular relevance of this distinction is that the low ethnic identity—self-esteem relationship reported by Nesdale et al. (1997) might reflect the fact that those researchers used a measure of personal self-esteem ( Rosenberg, 1965), rather than a measure of social or ethnic self-esteem (e.g., Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). Accordingly, a second aim of the present paper was to tease apart the relationship between ethnic identification and self-esteem by measuring both the personal and ethnic self-esteem of the immigrants from diverse cultural backgrounds. 1.3. Psychological health The third issue addressed in the present study concerned the significance of personal and ethnic self-esteem, and other variables, in predicting the psychological health of immigrants. Based on earlier work (e.g., Crocker & Major, 1989; Diener, 1984; Nesdale et al., 1997; Taylor & Brown, 1988), it would be expected that personal self-esteem would be revealed to be a significant predictor of immigrant psychological health. In addition, if immigrants do derive self-esteem from their identification with their ethnic group, it would also be expected that ethnic self-esteem would be a significant predictor of immigrant psychological health. That is, consistent with SCT ( Turner et al., 1987), since both personal and social self-esteem comprise two aspects of an individual's total self-esteem, both might be revealed to be important sources of psychological health. Finally, it was simply unclear whether any of the other variables such as the immigrants’ relationship with members of the dominant versus their own cultural group would contribute to psychological health, beyond what they contributed to personal and/or social self-esteem. In sum, the aim of the proposed research was to assess the relative significance of a range of variables in predicting the levels of ethnic identification, personal and ethnic self-esteem, and the psychological health of members of a variety of immigrant groups to Australia. Importantly, the potential predictor variables included the distance between the cultural backgrounds of the immigrant groups and the dominant Anglo-Australian culture, the immigrants’ relationships with their ethnic communities and with the dominant cultural group, and the immigrants’ achievements in the host country.

The present research provides further important insights into the psychological impact on members of different ethnic groups of their immigration to a new country. Of particular significance is the extent to which the immigrants’ cultural background differs from the culture of the host country and the effect this has upon them. Contrary to what might be expected, cultural distance does not appear to exert its influence via lack of acceptance by members of the dominant cultural group. Instead, the findings suggest that cultural distance prompts immigrants to live more within, and according to the traditional ways of, their ethnic communities (e.g., Phalet & Hagendoorn, 1996). In addition, the findings also revealed major differences, as well as some overlap, in the predictors of ethnic and personal self-esteem. Whereas personal self-esteem was primarily determined by the immigrants’ accomplishments and achievements (e.g., speaking English, self-efficacy), the major determinant of their ethnic self-esteem was their identification with their ethnic group, although their personal achievements (i.e., speaking English, self-efficacy), were also significant predictors. Finally, the findings indicated that personal, but not ethnic self-esteem, was the single major predictor of immigrant psychological health. Together, the findings confirm that ethnic and personal self-esteem are both psychologically important to immigrants but that they apparently serve different functions. Additional research is needed to continue the task of teasing these apart.