6. Social Psychology

a. State of Knowledge.

Immigration has been understudied by the field of social psychology. Also, there has been a greater research effort directed in studying bigots and racists, than in studying the victims of bigotry,including non-white immigrants. This reflects the tradition of Gordon Allport's The Nature of Prejudice or Adorno et al's The Authoritarian Personality and other works which were theories about bigotry, not about impacts on victims. This review (actually four reviews in one, and much larger than the other reviews) tries to rectify the imbalance by focusing both on the social-psychological nature of immigrant integration, and responses of minorities to prejudice.

Three social psychological perspectives are posited as central for the understanding of immigrant acculturation: models of acculturation; the intergroup relations approach; the social psychology of language. The three literatures remain distinct and unsynthesized within social psychology in Canada.

Milton Gordon developed a multidimensional albeit linear conception of assimilation. Berry's cross-cultural approach has led to a fourfold model of acculturation: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. (The first two would be most likely to apply to immigrant groups in Canada.) Measures of acculturation and acculturative stress have been developed. Factors which could moderate acculturative stress include the mode of acculturation (see above), the phase of acculturation, the nature of the larger society, sociodemographic characteristics of the acculturating group and individual. Women also report higher levels of acculturative stress. However, there is a declared need to tailor the acculturation measures to the specific features of individual groups.

The intergroup relations approach has emerged which emphasizes the dualist and mutually exclusive options of an individualistic strategy of integration (like assimilation) and a collectivistic strategy (like heritage culture maintenance, similar to Berry's notion of integration).

The social psychology of language approach builds on the research tradition on bilingualism in Canada. It investigates the links between heritage language retention and second language acquisition, and measures of social integration and acculturation. Initial findings suggest that acquiring or having proficiency in a second language can enhance an immigrant's adaptation.

Some evidence suggests that support for cultural maintenance by immigrants or minorities may not always indicate a positive choice; it could come from negative experiences, like social isolation. A dominant question remains: can immigrants effectively integrate without losing their language and identity?

We find generally positive attitudes in the Canadian public to multiculturalism and diversity, as measured in surveys. There is a consistent pattern of difference, with francophone Canadians less favourable than anglophones. Canada is a comparatively open country to immigrants, and also citizenship is more accessible. But overall-- and despite some recent increases in opposition to higher immigration levels -- Canadians tend to be positive to immigration. (Given that 16 % of Canadians are immigrants, and many more are children of immigrants, or married to immigrants or to children of immigrants, a strong base of support is not surprising!)

Canadians perceive a hierarchy of immigrant groups, vis a vis the native born. European immigrant groups are ranked higher than those of non-European origin. But the level of overt racism regarding immigration is much less than say in France (which can also be seen in the stark contrast between Le Pen's rhetoric and policies and that of the Reform party).

Younger, more educated, and urban Canadians are more favourable to immigration. There is some support for the "contact" hypothesis, such that there is a correlation between positive attitudes to a group and the presence of the group in an area. Of course, the actual outcomes in specific cases may well depend on the nature of the contact, particularly if the contact occurs between groups which are of unequal social status. Other research suggests opposition to certain immigrant groups is associated in some studies with right wing authoritarianism.

There is support for both the "ethnocentric" hypothesis and the "multicultural" hypothesis. In other words, a strong in- group evaluation may be associated with positive or negative evaluations of outgroups. The key may be cultural security -- those who are secure about their ingroup, may evaluate others more positively. But as already noted, people may be opposed to immigration for reasons other than prejudice.

According to one formulation, equity can be said to exist when the ratio of inputs to outputs is the same for all groups. (But this means absolute levels of outputs may be unequal.) The passage of time can be seen as a variable associated with prejudice; groups can expect less prejudice and inequality the longer they are in Canada. But this may not hold with more recent racial minorities compared to European immigrant minorities. Indeed, one study of South Asian women found that those who were in Canada longer reported having experienced more discrimination. This issue requires further clarification.

What is the impact of discrimination on minority groups? One model posits that discrimination may lead to ingroup solidarity -- based on laboratory work and a survey study. As suggested, immigrants may maintain an ethnic heritage not out of free choice, but as a mechanism to cope with discrimination. But there is also American evidence that perceived discrimination was associated with assimilation, not with ethno-cultural retention. So this also requires clarification.

Discrimination against immigrants may not necessarily lead to negative self esteem, as newcomers need not blame themselves for failures. Other studies show that targets of discrimination may suffer from stress-related symptoms, as well as lower self-esteem. But there is also a possibility seen from laboratory studies that newcomers may judge discrimination against their group to be higher than that directed at them personally. Why would they minimize discrimination directed at them personally? Because there may be psychological benefits.

But note that from one policy perspective it is not clear how important are these questions about the consequences of discrimination. Discrimination (in the public domain) remains illegal, regardless of the extent of the psychological toll, or whether coping strategies may kick in to minimize the damage. For example, laboratory experiments also suggest that "tokenism" may serve to diffuse the anger of victims of racial discrimination. While this may be helpful to those victims, it does not follow that token reform, as opposed to basic change to fight discrimination, is desirable.

Aspects of cultural integration often take place in a family context. Immigrant families, and immigrant women, may endorse traditional values. This holds even if women work for pay, as these cultures seek to try to avoid open familial conflict. But tensions between traditional values and the pressures of women's employment can be linked to spousal abuse in some cases.

Surprisingly, studies reveal that immigrant parents and children are no more divided than are mainstream Canadian parents and children. In any event, it is likely that tensions within immigrant families have been a constant feature of the immigrant experience, likely no more severe now than for earlier immigrants. Sometimes immigrant families may retain traditional beliefs even when engaging in non-traditional behaviour or work. Even where immigrant women work, this does not seem to challenge traditional sex roles.

There may be differences in family values between immigrants and native born depending on their specific immigrant category: independent (and business), family , or refugee. The unverified assumption might be that such tensions would be less for more educated, independent, immigrants. In addition, it may be that full convergence to Canadian western family norms may take several generations. While this process unfolds, there are systemic differences therefore between individualist cultures, such as prevail in Canada, and collectivist cultures, which may disapprove of the "excessive" freedom found in Canada.

Again, what if anything is the policy relevance of these family related findings? Both policies of encouraging assimilation or strong multiculturalism have the potential, it is argued, of either facilitating smooth integration or leading to conflict and intolerance. The research has no clear solution to this dilemma.

b. research agenda

The reviewer calls upon social psychologists to focus on the "values mismatch" between individualistic values basic to Canada and collectivistic values prevalent among traditional immigrant groups. In this social psychology is asked to join with political philosophy in a daunting research objective. (This not as far-fetched as it may seem. Historically, dating back to the 17th century work of John Locke, philosophy and psychology were far closer than they are at present.)

The reviewer summarizes the field by saying that the inevitable dilemma whereby immigrants are "required" to assimilate to Canadian culture, or to retain their heritage culture, is a dilemma with "potentially catastrophic societal implications." In fact immigrants to Canada, and their children, are "required" to do neither. There is a remarkable degree of freedom in individuals' private domain. Moreover, the historical record suggests this particular dilemma has been a recurring one impacting all previous immigrant waves, and they have muddled through...But certainly these poles do exist as guideposts for policy-makers and citizens alike.

The reviewer claims that social psychology has no definitive answers to this fundamental dilemma, in part because social psychologists have only recently begun to address these issues. (It should be stressed that NO discipline has a clear or simple solution.) Canadian social psychologists have been making major contributions in describing and explaining the patterns of inter-group (and discriminatory) attitudes which Canadians may hold.

The dominant research question must remain: why do Canadians hold these particular sets of attitudes?

There is seen to be a need for an in depth measure of attitudes and their underlying causes, likely a multidimensional one. This could be a standard research instrument -- survey with standard questions-- and instituted every two years in national sample surveys.

It is argued there is a need to increase the study of subtle discrimination. Indeed, the link between discrimination and impact on victims is not clear at all. ( As indicated, many victims can overcome discrimination. Others have lower self-esteem and report stress-related symptoms. And others may minimize its experience.) The link between discrimination and self esteem is also not clear. Since some victims may practice denial regarding discrimination, we must be careful in researching and estimating its prevalence.

c. methodological dilemmas

The bulk of the research in social psychology as reported here relies on either large scale, single shot attitude surveys, or laboratory experiments. There is little by way of naturalistic studies of racism in action, as in the work of Stanley Barrett which explores the thought of racist ideologues, or small town rural racism, through anthropological research. Social psychologists generally do not engage in field research on acts of discrimination, but these would be a key complement to the dominant methods used. Indeed, a methodological challenge might be to try and synthesize the different methods to yield comparable and potentially cumulative results.

The strength of social psychology is not the study of systemic discrimination (which arises from social structural forces and not due to directly or indirectly racist motivation) or forces of prejudice which exist in the culture. The former may refer to regulations and procedures, the latter to the domain of cultural studies. The strength is rather the study of stereotypes and prejudice held by the population, through surveys or experiments. An effort might be undertaken to link the social psychological strengths to the sociological and cultural studies disciplines.

The review of the literature does not resolve the persisting dilemma of the link between attitudes and behaviours. How strong is the correlation between the two? And do hostile attitudes to outgroups lead to or flow from acts of discrimination?

The review calls for more sophisticated laboratory studies to try to differentiate attitudes of tolerance and intolerance from attitudes on immigration specifically. This can be addressed directly, in survey instruments which measure both individual attitudes and behaviour patterns. It can also be inferred through linking trends in national or public attitudes to trends in reported acts of discrimination, or to income inequalities faced by minorities.