Summary of PhD Research ENG (1136534), страница 5

Просмтор этого файла доступен только зарегистрированным пользователям. Но у нас супер быстрая регистрация: достаточно только электронной почты!

Текст из файла (страница 5)

In general, the group of immigrants with a stronger orientation toward the hostsociety (assimilation and integration) have a higher level of socioeconomic adaptation thanthe group of immigrants with the orientation toward the ethnic group.2. Better language skills contribute to preferences that are oriented to the hostsociety (integration preference and assimilation preference). The longer immigrants residein the host country, the more they are inclined to focus on integration and less on theirethnic group. Also, immigrants with higher levels of host country language skills and alonger time spent in the host country have higher levels of socioeconomic adaptation.3. The ethnic and religious identification have consequences to acculturationpreference (e.g., for Russian-speaking immigrants in Belgium it may be the source ofmaintenance of heritage culture). Strong ethnic and religious identification can prevent theassimilation of immigrants and promotes the choice of the separation preference.4.

More prejudiced individuals from the host population, who have authoritarianattitudes, reject diversity, perceive the social environment as competitive and threatening tosecurity also have more assimilation-type profiles; furthermore, the profiles themselvesshow domain-specificity, which amounts to a difference in heritage and mainstreamexpectations across life domains (e.g., work, family relations, values, etc.).

Such a state ofaffairs makes difficulties for the socioeconomic adjustment of immigrants in a host country.ConclusionsThe findings of my PhD research allow drawing the following conclusions. Russianspeaking immigrants in Belgium, in contrast to immigrants from other regions, do not havethe penalties associated with having a dark complexion and non-European phenotype(Grigoryev & van de Vijver, 2017). Therefore, in the case of an orientation toward the hostsociety, there is less a risk of discrimination in the labor market. Also, they do not have adeveloped ethnic enclave economy to use a support of cultural ties in case of separationpreference.

Furthermore, most of the studies of acculturation of Russian-speakingimmigrants in EU-countries and USA have shown that the orientations toward the hostsociety (integration and assimilation), better host language proficiency, and longer lengthof stay in the host country are associated with more socio-economic adaptation (see, e.g.,Besevegis & Pavlopoulos, 2008; Drydakis, 2013; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Horenczyk, & Kinunen,2011; Vinokurov, Birman, & Trickett, 2000). This evidence is consistent with theimmigrant assimilation hypothesis, human capital theory (Drydakis 2013; Gorodzeisky &Semyonov, 2011) and the theory of ethnic enclaves (Portes & Bach, 1985).

Also, in anaspect of acculturation, the ethnic and religious identification may have consequences toacculturation preference (Gattino, Miglietta, Rizzo, & Testa, 2016; Samnani, Boekhorst, &Harrison, 2012), for Russian-speaking immigrants in Belgium it may be the source ofmaintenance of heritage culture. The pattern of relationships between demographic andpsychological variables and the socio-economic adaptation of immigrants from Russialiving in Belgium corresponds to much of the research findings from other societies withother immigrant groups (e.g., Berry, 2017 for review). Hence, I may claim some degree ofconvergent validity for my findings.

I may also suggest that similar patterns will be able tofind for other white immigrants in the Western countries and who are not living in theirethnically dense areas or / and without a developed ethnic enclave economy.For Russian majority members, a general psychological mechanism for theendorsement by the host population of discrimination of immigrants in the socioeconomicdomain was showed. In some ways, it is similar to what was established by Westerncolleagues in their countries (e.g., Berry, 2006; Cohrs & Stelzl, 2010; Haugen & Kunst,2017; Kauff et al., 2015; van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998), and in some ways, itreflects the purely Russian-specific phenomenon.

Representations about the social world asa dangerous and competitive place where the way of life of decent people is under constantthreat, and "dog-eat-dog", motivates people to abandon the idea of a multicultural societyand contacts with immigrants, and also to support authoritarian ideological attitudes.Individuals with a conservative orientation tend to regain their sense of security and socialcontrol through negative views on diversity, as well as the establishment of strictboundaries and hierarchies between social groups and the endorsement of discrimination.This is a typical conservative response to social change (see, e.g., Crawford, 2017; Jost,Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Napier, Huang, Vonasch, & Bargh, 2018), which isperceived as a threat to physical, economic, and cultural security.

As the results culturalspecific to Russia, one can note the structure of the relationship between ideologicalattitudes. For instance, the lack of a significant correlation between RWA and SDO issomewhat at odds with the value of about .30, found in a meta-analysis (see Perry, Sibley,& Duckitt, 2013).

In general, the practical conclusions of this part of my PhD researchecho the recommendations for improving intergroup relations by Berry (2016), whichinclude: (1) supporting multiculturalism and integration policies; (2) increasing the level ofcultural, economic, and personal security; and (3) providing opportunities for intergroupcontact. In turn, this will able to reduce discrimination of immigrants in the socioeconomic domains, which can ensure much better socio-economic adaptation fornewcomers in a host country..

Характеристики

Список файлов диссертации