Equity theory captures, for example, the essence of societally based meritocracy. It is deemed fair that medical doctors obtain higher outcomes (pay, status) than unskilled labourers, because the inputs of medical doctors (education, responsibility) are proportionally higher. An important point to underscore is that the value associated with inputs and outcomes is socially defined. That is, it is social consensus that determines the importance of such inputs as education, seniority, and responsibility. Indeed, the values are subject to change as societal values change. At different points in history a person's religion, family name, warrior status or athletic prowess were inputs that carried more value than they do today.

When applying Equity theory to discrimination directed at newcomers, the question of the societal value of inputs is pivotal. Inputs such as a group's size, power, race and language are clearly important group-based inputs that determine a group's outcomes--discrimination would clearly be a negative outcome that would be legitimized by members of outgroups agreeing that the group's inputs are not valued.

Time is an important societally defined input that has special significance for the newcomer. At one level mainstream society defines length of time in Canada as a positively valued input. Thus, Canadians of Anglo-celtic or French heritage are granted the highest status because their "time" input is the longest. Any Canadian who is "visibly" different will be presumed to have arrived later and will be accorded less status. Finally, newcomers, as recent arrivals will be accorded the lowest status. Moreover, even when the newcomer has been in Canada for a long time, their visible differences may lead Euro-Canadians to judge that they are recent arrivals and thus they will be down-graded on the basis of the "time" input.

What gives "time" special status as a societal input is the confusion surrounding its application. The confusion arises in the context of Aboriginal peoples who, in terms of the input of "time" should be accorded the highest status. But clearly the status of Aboriginal people in Canadian society is not consistent with what the "time" input would dictate. However, there is evidence that mainstream Canadians struggle psychologically with their own lack of consistency in applying the "time" input. Berry, Kalin and Taylor (1977) found that mainstream Canadians, in judging the characteristics of different ethnic groups, were ambivalent in their reactions to Aboriginal peoples. On the one hand, their judgements were extremely negative with respect to a variety of characteristics, on the other hand, they judged Aboriginal people as the most "Canadian" and as deserving of special status.

What this ambivalence underscores is that the "time" input, like any other, is socially defined, and that it can be applied differently to different categories of people. Immigrants and refugees suffer discrimination more than other Canadians when the "time" input is applied. Policy makers may well need to make a concerted effort to shape Canadian attitudes about the input of "time." This could be done by establishing a specific time beyond which a newcomer is to be judged as equal to all Canadians on the "time" dimension. Currently the attainment of citizenship serves this function but the time-frame for attaining citizenship is too variable and the change in status that should accompany citizenship is not sufficiently reinforced. Finally, as we have seen, such measures need not work to the detriment of Aboriginal peoples since a different socially defined definition of "time" can be applied to their case.

In summary, objective levels of discrimination are difficult to assess leaving such a socially destructive process open to all forms of self-serving interpretation. Controlled research is desperately needed in order to arrive at some clearly agreed upon definition of discrimination. Nevertheless, it is clear that newcomers, especially "visible" newcomers, do perceive themselves to be a target. They perceive that the roots of their targeting are traditional factors such as race and culture, and indeed perceptions of discrimination are higher for those who have been in Canada longer. Beyond these traditional bases for discrimination, recency of arrival seems to be a basis that is unique to immigrants and refugees. "Time," however, is a socially defined problem, and thus is open to socially defined solutions.

Beginning in the 1970's, political policy and ethnic nationalism converged to encourage newcomers to believe that they could retain their heritage culture while participating fully in Canadian society. Not surprisingly, research confirmed that, for the most part, ethnic groups in Canada are motivated to retain their heritage cultures (O'Bryan, Reitz, & Kuplowska, 1976; Lambert, Mermigis, & Taylor, 1986; Moghaddam, 1992; Moghaddam, Taylor, & Lalonde, 1987; 1989;).

A major assumption underlying questions about heritage culture maintenance is that newcomers have a choice about the extent to which they maintain the heritage culture, and equally, the extent to which they adopt Canadian culture. Unappreciated is the role that discrimination may play. Discrimination may force newcomers to maintain the heritage culture if they are not permitted the opportunity to participate fully in Canadian culture. Alternatively, discrimination may motivate newcomers to divest themselves of any traces of the heritage culture in order to escape becoming a constant target for discrimination. A review of social psychological research to date leads to diametrically opposed conclusions about the role discrimination plays in the integration process.

The social-psychological consequences of being a victim of discrimination have been explored most systematically by Dion and his colleagues (e.g., Dion, Dion, & Pak, 1992; Pak, Dion, & Dion, 1991). He applies a stress model, arguing that discrimination is a psychological stressor in that it elicits cognitive appraisals of threat that are exacerbated by the fact that discrimination is arbitrary and often unpredictable.

Dion argues that one important response to the stress associated with discrimination is the strengthening of ingroup identification. For newcomers this would take the form of heightened identification with the heritage culture.

Dion has conducted both laboratory and field research to support the link between discrimination and ingroup cohesion. For example, Dion and Earn (1975), in a laboratory setting, showed that an important consequence of confronting discrimination was heightened ingroup identification. Using a correlational design Pak, Dion and Dion (1991) explored the effects of discrimination on a sample of Chinese students at the University of Toronto. Students who reported having encountered discrimination expressed higher ingroup cohesion than those who reported no discrimination. Finally, Kim (1988) has replicated this finding with Korean immigrants living in Toronto.

Dion's explanation for the discrimination-ingroup cohesion relationship centres on stress. One's own group can provide the social support needed to cope with the rejection associated with discrimination. The same argument can be applied to the extent to which newcomers assimilate to majority Canadian culture or retain the heritage culture. One motivation for retaining the heritage culture, including living in close proximity to members of one's own group, could be a form of social support in response to the stress created by the rejection associated with discrimination.

Moreover, indirect evidence for the role of discrimination in heritage culture maintenance arose among the samples of South Asian and Haitian women described earlier (Moghaddam & Taylor, 1987). They reported experiencing discrimination and were among the few groups who, while endorsing heritage culture maintenance, were nevertheless somewhat ambivalent. Perhaps their ambivalence was associated with the discrimination that potentially accompanies maintaining a distinctive culture.

While this evidence is circumstantial, more direct evidence arose in a study of South Asian and Haitian women conducted by Moghaddam, Taylor and Lalonde (1989). Both groups of women rejected the idea that ethnic minority groups should live in their own neighbourhoods, preferring that ethnic minorities should mix and spread out in the city. Moreover, perceptions of discrimination were associated with living in ethnically segregated communities. The implication is that ethnic segregation may be more one of a mechanism for coping with discrimination than a conscious choice to maintain the heritage culture.

There is, then, considerable empirical support for Dion's stress model of discrimination. Newcomers may not be choosing to maintain the heritage culture, but rather, in part, forced to maintain the heritage culture as a mechanism for coping with discrimination.

Complicating the psychological implications of discrimination for heritage culture maintenance is evidence that contradicts the stress model. The contradictory argument is that instead of promoting heritage culture maintenance, discrimination discourages heritage culture maintenance. That is, discrimination motivates newcomers to hide, or minimize, their heritage culture, and to adopt mainstream culture, in order to escape the stress associated with discrimination. Indeed, there are countless examples of groups who have attempted to "pass" by changing their name, attempting to lose any trace of accented speech, or altering their physical features and dress, in order to disguise their cultural heritage.

Ruggiero, Taylor and Lambert (1996) set out to directly examine whether the stress of discrimination is associated with increased or decreased identity with the heritage culture. The participants were Afro-American and Hispanic women from a cross-section of social classes living in Miami, Florida. Structural equation modelling was used to test the competing hypotheses and the results clearly supported the notion that discrimination discourages the maintenance of heritage cultures. Direct measures of perceived discrimination were substantially and negatively correlated with a desire to retain the heritage culture.

How are these contradictory findings to be reconciled, especially given their policy implications? An examination of the specifics of the competing studies will not suffice. The samples, indeed the nations, were different on several dimensions including length of residence in the host country, ethnic and linguistic heritage, gender, age, and social class. Moreover, the methodologies varied widely as were the specific measures of heritage culture maintenance and discrimination. Finally, the studies varied in terms of the statistical models used to test their hypotheses.

The resolution, then, requires a concentrated research effort. The implications in terms of how to facilitate harmonious integration take on totally different perspectives depending upon whether discrimination encourages newcomers to, or discourages them from, maintaining heritage cultures.

Dion's stress model of discrimination proposes that stress related mental and physical health symptoms are one important consequence of being subjected to discrimination. To test his hypothesis Dion, Dion and Pak (1992) explored the experiences of the Chinese community in Toronto. They found that reported experiences with discrimination correlated with a composite psychological symptoms score comprised of such factors as nervousness, sleep problems, headaches, mood and degree of worry.

The major theme to emerge from much of the early research on responses to discrimination was that members of discriminated-against groups suffer from low self esteem. This conclusion was based on a variety of theoretical perspectives, ranging from "symbolic interaction" theorists (e.g., Cooley, 1956) to proponents of the self-fulfilling prophecy (e.g., Merton, 1948) to those interested in self-efficacy (e.g., Gecas & Schwalbe, 1983). The conclusion that members of discriminated-against groups will suffer from low self-esteem seems intuitively obvious. Moreover, there is some evidence to support the notion of pervasive low self-esteem among discriminated-against groups. Indeed, so strong was the claim for low self-esteem that as early as the 1950's, the label "self-hate" was invoked to capture its destructive nature (Allport, 1954).

In 1989 Crocker and Major published an important theoretical article that challenged the traditional wisdom that linked low self-esteem with membership in a discriminated-against group. They reviewed the literature in detail only to discover that there was no evidence of pervasive low self-esteem. This prompted Crocker and Major (1989) to conclude that "this research, conducted over a time span of more than 20 years, leads to the surprising conclusion that prejudice against members of stigmatized or oppressed groups generally does not result in lowered self-esteem for members of those groups" (p. 611).

In order to explain their unexpected conclusion, Crocker and Major (1989) theorized that members of stigmatized groups constantly face attributional ambiguity. Every time a stigmatized group member receives negative feedback from an advantaged group member, there is the usual array of attributional judgements to make along with one important addition: the possibility that the feedback was due to discrimination.

While this ambiguity is itself disquieting for disadvantaged group members, claiming discrimination does have one psychological benefit. It allows the person to protect their self-esteem in the face of negative feedback since instead of attributing any negative experience to personal inadequacy, responsibility can be attributed to an external force such as discrimination from powerful others.

Evidence for this link between attribution to discrimination and maintaining self-esteem was first obtained by Dion (1975) and Dion and Earn (1975). These experiments involved women and Jewish participants, and explored their reactions to experimentally induced discrimination. In both cases the results showed that self-esteem was maintained when group members interpreted negative feedback to discrimination. More recently, Pak, Dion and Dion (1991) found only modest support in a correlational study involving Chinese students at the University of Toronto. Chinese men exhibited the expected link between self-esteem and discrimination, but for Chinese women discrimination had the effect of lowering self-esteem.

Further experimental evidence in support of the notion that members of disadvantaged groups can maintain their self esteem by attributing negative feedback to discrimination has come from laboratory experiments conducted in the United States involving African-American students and women (e.g., Crocker, Voelkl,, Testa, & Major, 1991).

The social implications of this novel link between discrimination and self-esteem are far reaching. Although neither Dion or Crocker and Major have speculated about, or extrapolated to, possible societal implications, it suggests that members of stigmatized groups may well be vigilant in their perceptions of discrimination. Does this imply that newcomers, for example, are prone to exaggerate the discrimination that may confront them?

Elaborating on the social implications would be premature in light of a second avenue of theory and research which challenges the view that newcomers may be vigilant in their perception of discrimination. Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam and Lalonde (1990) have discovered a robust phenomenon that they have labelled personal/group discrimination discrepancy. The phenomena involves members of disadvantaged groups judging discrimination directed at their group to be substantially higher than discrimination directed at themselves personally as a member of that group.

The personal/group discrimination discrepancy is robust since it has arisen with a wide cross-section of groups including visible newcomers to Canada, Native peoples and visible minority groups in Canada. Figure 1 presents a graphic illustration of the discrepancy for six different disadvantaged groups.

To date no clear explanation for the discrepancy has been established. However, by far the most compelling is that members of disadvantaged groups tend to minimize the discrimination that is directed at them personally. T he minimization explanation is contrary to Crocker and Major's (1989) theory of attributional ambiguity which argues that members of disadvantaged groups are vigilant in their perception of discrimination as a mechanism for protecting self-esteem. Clearly, the challenge is to reconcile the apparently opposing theories arising from "attributional ambiguity" and the personal/group discrimination discrepancy.

Recently, Ruggiero and Taylor (1995b) have conducted a series of laboratory experiments with female, Asian and Black students which were designed to understand how disadvantaged group members cope with discrimination. The results point to "self-esteem" and "control" as pivotal psychological processes. Specifically, in an achievement context where discrimination may operate, four separate elements involving self-esteem and control are activated. 1) performance self-esteem -- as Crocker and Major (1989) suggest, by perceiving discrimination the disadvantaged group member protects self-esteem in the performance domain. 2) social self-esteem -- by perceiving discrimination the disadvantaged group member's social self-esteem is threatened since it acknowledges social rejection. 3) performance control -- by perceiving discrimination the disadvantaged group member loses a sense of control over their own performance. 4) social control -- by perceiving discrimination the disadvantaged group member does not feel in control of how others respond to them.

The result of such an analysis makes it clear that when a disadvantaged group member acknowledges discrimination, there are psychological costs on three out of the four factors involving self-esteem and control. Clearly there are more benefits to the individual when they avoid perceiving discrimination whenever possible.

This is precisely how participants in the Ruggiero and Taylor (1995a; 1995b) experiments reacted. Unless discrimination was completely transparent, the participants minimized any role that discrimination might have played in their performance outcomes. The finding that disadvantaged group members are inclined to minimize personal discrimination has disturbing societal implications. If, for example, newcomers do not perceive themselves to be discriminated against, and instead blame themselves for negative outcomes, they may not be oriented toward aggressively and collectively removing discriminatory barriers to their own personal advancement (see Lalonde, Majumder, & Parris, in press). Equally disturbing are the implications for the prejudicial beliefs and discriminatory practices of advantaged group members. The tendency of newcomers to attribute negative outcomes to themselves may provide mainstream Canadians with a justification for the on-going victimization of disadvantaged group members.

Newcomers to Canada believe that they are coming to a country where social mobility is possible. That is, at the root of Canadian values is the meritocratic ideal where upward mobility is based entirely on individual performance. Pure discrimination represents the complete opposite since a person's status is based only on their group membership. Thus, access to any advantaged position is completely closed to all members of the disadvantaged group.

In contemporary Canadian society, "true meritocracy" and "pure discrimination" are perhaps best viewed as simplified ideals. In reality, social mobility by disadvantaged group members is possible, but may be restricted. When social mobility is very restrictive, to the point that the percentage of capable disadvantaged group members who are permitted access to advantaged positions is very small, the restriction represents a specific form of intergroup discrimination referred to as "tokenism" (Laws, 1975; Moreland, 1965).

In a recent series of experiments, Wright, Taylor and Moghaddam (1990) explored how disadvantaged group members respond to tokenism. Three conditions were contrasted. The first was a genuine meritocracy where the participant in the experiment was denied upward mobility because their performance on a test was substandard. The second condition simulated pure discrimination such that, despite successful test performance, the candidate and all other members of the group were denied upward mobility because of their group membership. Thus, promotion was denied to all members of the disadvantaged group. The third condition represented tokenism. Again, the candidate performed well on the test but was denied promotion because a 2% quota for disadvantaged group members had been arbitrarily imposed. Thus, 98% of disadvantaged group members who were successful on the test were, nevertheless, denied the promotion.

Participants in the genuine meritocracy who were denied promotion because of poor performance, responded as expected. They either accepted their fate or planned to try again. Likewise, those confronted with pure discrimination responded predictably. They were extremely angry and planned to take collective action against those who discriminated against them. It was anticipated that those in the "tokenism" condition, where promotion was denied for 98% of disadvantaged group members who had met all performance criteria, would respond very much like those in the pure discrimination condition. Such was not the case, however. Surprisingly, those subjected to "tokenism" responded more like those in the genuine meritocracy condition. They were not motivated to take collective action, preferring instead to respond individually. The unexpected nature of this response to tokenism has resulted in two separate replications (Lalonde & Silverman, 1994; Wright, 1995). Clearly, tokenism is a form of discrimination that does not provoke the type of socially disruptive collective action that might threaten advantaged groups in society.

In addition to replicating this unexpected response to tokenism, Wright and Taylor (1995) explored how a successful "token" responds once they have been accepted by members of the advantaged group. The question was, from their new position of power, would they champion the rights of their previous disadvantaged group. The results of the experiment indicated that successful tokens quickly identify with their new advantaged group and are less than tolerant of any collective action on the part of disadvantaged group members.

The effects of tokenism are disquieting. On the one hand, those who suffer its discriminatory outcomes are not motivated to engage in the type of collective actions that might successfully combat the discrimination. On the other hand, those who do succeed despite the restrictiveness of tokenism appear to turn their back on members of their former group. Thus, from the advantaged group's perspective, tokenism is a mechanism for effectively discriminating against disadvantaged group members without having to face socially disruptive confrontations.

Social psychology as a discipline has only recently turned its attention to victims of discrimination generally, and the experience of newcomers in particular. The recency of this upsurge in interest means that there are few well-grounded descriptions and insights into the processes associated with discrimination. However, the field has advanced to the point that some clear questions have emerged which have important policy implications.

First, establishing levels of discrimination with any objectivity remains a major challenge but its very ambiguity serves to underscore that the "experience" of discrimination is a subjective one that must be defined psychologically.

Second, central to immigration policy is a vision of multiculturalism which requires the role of heritage cultures and languages. Our social psychological analysis reveals that discrimination may be central to the process. What needs to be established empirically is the extent to which discrimination serves to encourage, or discourage, heritage culture maintenance.

Thirdly, three important psychological processes related to discrimination have emerged recently that have important policy implications. The theory of attributional ambiguity suggests that newcomers may be vigilant in their perception of discrimination. Conversely, the personal/group discrimination discrepancy implies that newcomers may be prone to minimize their personal experiences with discrimination. Finally, tokenism would seem to be an effective, disguised form of discrimination that may well serve to limit the opportunities of newcomers to Canada.

Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Berry, J.W. (1984). Multiculturalism policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 16, 353-370.

Berry, J.W. (1987). Finding identity: Separation, integration, assimilation, or marginality? In L. Driedger (Ed.), Ethnic Canada (pp. 223-239). Toronto: Copp, Clark & Pittman.

Berry, J.W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D.M. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Printing and Pub. Supply and Services Canada.

Cooley, C.H., (1956). Human nature and the social order. New York: Free Press.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social Stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218-228.

Dion, K.L. (1975). Women's reactions to discrimination from members of the same or opposite sex. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 294-306.

Dion, K.L. (1986). Responses to perceived discrimination and relative deprivation. In J.M. Olson, C.P. Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario Symposium (pp. 159-179, Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dion, K.L. (1989). Ethnicity and perceived discrimination: A comparative survey six ethnic groups in Toronto. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Conference of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association, Calgary, Alberta.

Dion, K.L., Dion, K.K., & Pak, A.W.-P. (1992). Personality-based hardiness as a buffer for discrimination-related stress in members of Toronto's Chinese community. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 517-536.

Dion, K.L. & Earn, B. M. (1975). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 944-950.

Dion, K.L. & Kawakami, K.L. (In press). Ethnicity and perceived discrimination in Toronto: Another perspective on the personal /group discrimination discrepancy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science

Gecas, V. & Schwalbe, M.L. (1983). Beyond the looking-glass self: Social structure and efficacy-based self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 77-88.

Henry, F. & Ginzberg, E. (1985). Who gets the work? A test of racial discrimination. Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations & Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto.

Hilton, A., Potvin, L., & Sachdev, I. (1989). Ethnic relations in rental housing: A social psychological approach. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21, 121-131.

Kim, U. (1988). Acculturation of Korean immigrants to Canada: Psychological, demographic and behavioural profiles of emigrating Koreans, non-emigrating Koreans and Korean Canadians. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Psychology Dept., Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.

Lalonde, RN, Taylor, D.M. & Moghaddam, F.M. (1992). The process of social identification for visible immigrant women in a multicultural context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 25-39.

Lalonde, RN, & Cameron, J.E. (1994). Behavioral responses to discrimination: A focus on action. In M.P. Zanna & J.M. Olson (Eds.), The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium, Volume 7 (pp. 257-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lalonde, RN, Majumder, S., & Parris, R.D. (1995). Preferred responses to situations of housing and employment discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1105-1119.

Lalonde, RN, & Silverman, R. (1994). Behavioral preferences in response to social injustice: The effects of group permeability and social identity salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 78-85.

Lambert, W.E., Mermigis, L., & Taylor, D.M. (1986). Greek Canadians' attitudes towards own group and other Canadian ethnic groups. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 18, 35-51.

Laws, J.L.(1975). The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Sex Roles, 1, 51-67.

Merton, R.K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.

Moghaddam, F.M. (1992). Assimilation et multiculturalisme: Le cas des minorites au Québec. Revue Québecoise de psychologie, 13, 140-157.

Moghaddam, F.M. & Taylor, D.M. (1987). The meaning of multiculturalism for visible minority immigrant women. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19, 121-136

Moghaddam, F.M., Taylor, D.M., & Lalonde, RN (1989). Integration strategies and attitudes toward the built environment: A study of Haitian and Indian immigrant women in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21, 160-173.

Moreland, J.K. (1965). Token desegragation and beyond. In A.M. Rose & C.B. Rose (Eds.), Minority Problems (pp. 229-238). New York: Harper & Row.

O'Bryan, K.D., Reitz, J.G., & Kuplowska, O.M. (1976). Non-official languages: A study in Canadian multiculturalism. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.

Pak, A. W.-P., Dion, K.L., & Dion, K.K. (1991). Social-psychological correlates of experienced discrimination: Test of the double jeopardy hypothesis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 243-254.

Ruggiero, K.M., Taylor, D.M., & Lambert, W.E. (1996). A model of heritage culture maintenance: The role of discrimination. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 47-67.

Taylor, D.M., & Moghaddam, F.M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations: International social psychological perspectives, 2nd ed. Westport: Praeger.

Taylor, D.M., Wright, S.C., Moghaddam, F.M., & Lalonde, RN (1990). The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 254-262.

Walster, E., Walster, G.W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wright, S.C. (1995) Responding to restructured group boundary permeability: An analysis of tokenism. Fifth Conference on Social Justice Research, Reno, Nevada.

Wright, S. C., & Taylor, D.M. (1993). Success under tokenism: Tokens as barriers to, or agents of, social change. Annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, San Diego, California