Rejection-(dis)identification and ethnic political engagement among first-generation Latino immigrants to the United States.

Abstract

Immigrants to the United States face rejection from other Americans on the basis of their ethnic group membership. Among members of ethnic minority groups who were born in the United States, rejection is tied to higher ethnic identification and less positive attitudes toward the national majority. Relatively little research has examined this relationship among first-generation immigrants (i.e., people who were born in another country but who migrated to the United States) or has considered political engagement on behalf of one's ethnic group as an outcome. In this study we examined the relationship among ethnic-based rejection, ethnic and national identification, and ethnic political engagement among first-generation Latino immigrants in the northeastern United States. We found that first-generation Latino immigrants who perceived ethnic-based rejection were less likely to identify with Americans and less likely to report willingness to engage politically on behalf of their ethnic group in the United States. Perceived rejection was not significantly associated with ethnic identification, which was not related to ethnic political engagement. The study demonstrates that ethnic-based rejection has unique implications for identification and ethnic political engagement among first-generation Latino immigrants.

‘Healthy’ identities? Revisiting rejection‐identification and rejection‐disidentification models among voluntary and forced immigrants

“…Further, previous literature suggests that ethnic identities may act as social cures (e.g., Berry et al, ; Haslam et al, ; Phinney et al, ), by protecting low‐status groups from deleterious consequences of rejection by an out‐group (Bourguignon et al, ; Branscombe et al, ; Garstka et al, ; Jetten et al, ; Ramos et al, ; Schmitt et al, ). However, not all empirical evidence supports the RIM (Armenta & Hunt, ; Eccleston & Major, ; Kunst et al, ; Major et al, ; McCoy & Major, ; Wiley et al, ), reflecting the complexity of identity processes among minority groups. Our investigation sheds additional light on the complexity of the relationship between social rejection and ethnic identification.…”

“…The contribution of the present research is threefold. First, the two models have mostly been tested separately, and only a small number of studies analysed them together (Jasinskaja‐Lahti et al, , ; Kunst et al, ; Verkuyten & Yildiz, ; Wiley et al, ). We therefore tested RIM and RDIM simultaneously.…”

“…Some researchers did not find evidence for RIM across diverse groups (e.g., Eccleston & Major, ; Major, Quinton, & Schmader, ; McCoy & Major, ). Also, even though several studies confirmed that rejection‐disidentification is linked to out‐group attitudes and ethnic political engagement (e.g., Jasinskaja‐Lahti et al, ; Wiley, Lawrence, Figueroa, & Percontino, ), its consequences for well‐being remain unclear. In the light of these mixed findings, the present work investigates the role of ethnic and national identification in the relationship between perceived ethnic discrimination and well‐being among understudied populations such as voluntary immigrants (i.e., economic or family migrants from poor countries) and forced immigrants (i.e., refugees).…”

How positive and negative contact experiences relate to identification and acculturation of persons with a migration background: Differentiating between majority, minority, and religious group identity

“…Jasinskaja-Lahti et al (2009) outlined this mechanism in their rejection-disidentification model. There is further empirical support for this mechanism in the immigration context regarding the negative association between negative majority group contact (i.e., rejection or discrimination) and identification with the majority group (e.g., Bobowik, Martinovic, Basabe, Barsties, & Wachter, 2017;Hakim, Molina, & Branscombe, 2018;Jasinskaja-Lahti et al, 2009;Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007;Wiley, Lawrence, Figueroa, & Percontino, 2013). There is further empirical support for this mechanism in the immigration context regarding the negative association between negative majority group contact (i.e., rejection or discrimination) and identification with the majority group (e.g., Bobowik, Martinovic, Basabe, Barsties, & Wachter, 2017;Hakim, Molina, & Branscombe, 2018;Jasinskaja-Lahti et al, 2009;Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007;Wiley, Lawrence, Figueroa, & Percontino, 2013).…”

“…Firstly, our findings support extending the original model by Badea et al (2011), not only to assess interaction experiences of the specific negative form of perceived rejection, but to ask for positive and negative contact experiences in general. Regarding negative contact, it allows considering research on perceived rejection (Badea et al, 2011;Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007;Wiley, 2013;Wiley et al, 2013), discrimination (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al, 2009;Neto, 2002), and other forms of negatively perceived interactions. Regarding positive contact, it allows considering research regarding the roles of friendships (de Vroome et al, 2011;Sabatier, 2008), of perceived acceptance (Te Lindert et al, 2008), and of other forms of positively perceived interactions.…”