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

Abstract

Rejection‐identification and rejection‐disidentification models propose that low‐status groups identify with their in‐group and disidentify with a high‐status out‐group in response to rejection by the latter. Our research tests these two models simultaneously among multiple groups of foreign‐born people living in two cultural contexts. We examined these effects on representative samples of 2446 refugees in the Netherlands (Study 1) and 1234 voluntary immigrants in Spain (Study 2). We found that both ethnic and host national identification are ‘healthy’ and thus predominantly conducive to greater hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being. Further, perceived discrimination was associated with host national disidentification among refugees in the Netherlands and voluntary immigrants in Spain. However, our findings regarding the rejection‐identification link were less consistent. We discuss the importance of ethnic and host national identification for the well‐being of immigrants.

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

“…Badea et al (2011) found evidence for negative associations between PMB's negative contact experiences with the majority group and identification with the majority group as well as between negative contact experiences with the minority group and identification with the minority group. 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). Also, Wiley (2013) found support for this mechanism regarding negative contact experiences (i.e., rejection) with the minority group and minority group identification.…”

“…Accordingly, our results would imply a stronger focus on effects of specific aspects of positive contact on majority group identification and cultural adoption as few existing studies already do, for example perceived acceptance of PMB by the majority society (Te Lindert et al, 2008) or intergroup friendships (de Vroome et al, 2011;Sabatier, 2008). Previous acculturation research focused mostly on the negative effects of negative majority group contact on identification with the majority group and acculturation (e.g., Badea et al, 2011;Berry & Hou, 2017;Bobowik et al, 2017;Hakim et al, 2018;Jasinskaja-Lahti et al, 2009;Ramos, Cassidy, Reicher, & Haslam, 2016;Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007).…”

“…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).…”

When groups do not cure: Group esteem moderates the social cure effect

“…This relationship between group membership and well‐being is dynamic and robust, replicating in diverse groups, contexts, and for a range of well‐being outcomes. For instance, the social cure effect has been observed in a variety of special populations, such that social identification is associated with reduced risk of premature death among retired adults (Steffens, Cruwys, Haslam, Jetten, & Haslam, ), lower depressive symptoms among older adults (Ysseldyk, Haslam, & Haslam, ), increased cognitive functioning among aging adults (Haslam, Cruwys, & Haslam, ), increased self‐esteem among people with autism (Cooper, Smith, & Russell, ), greater life satisfaction among people who are homeless (Walter, Jetten, Dingle, Parsell, & Johnstone, ), and more hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being among refugees and voluntary immigrants (Bobowik, Martinovic, Basabe, Barsties, & Wachter, ). The social cure effect has also been examined in multiple distinct contexts.…”

“…greater life satisfaction among people who are homeless (Walter, Jetten, Dingle, Parsell, & Johnstone, 2016), and more hedonic and eudaimonic well-being among refugees and voluntary immigrants (Bobowik, Martinovic, Basabe, Barsties, & Wachter, 2017). The social cure effect has also been examined in multiple distinct contexts.…”