Content uploaded by Paolo Riva
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paolo Riva on Apr 04, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
The dual path of the rejection (dis)identification model:
A study on adolescents with a migrant background
Abstract
Ethnic-based rejection, especially when prolonged over time, can result in withdrawal (e.g.,
resignation) and antisocial (e.g., delinquent) behaviors. Rejection (dis)identification literature
suggests that identification with the minority (ethnic) group and disidentification with the majority
(national) group mediate the relationship between rejection and different dimensions of well-being.
Through secondary analyses of survey data from an international sample of adolescents with a
migrant background (N = 1163) we tested the predictions that, following chronic experiences of
rejection, disidentification from the national (rejecting) group will increase withdrawal and feelings
of resignation whereas identification with the ethic (rejected) group will have a protective role
toward delinquent behaviors. Results of the path analysis were consistent with these hypotheses
without significant differences between immigrant generations. The study sheds light on the
multifaceted nature of identification processes following social rejection and contributes to the
integration of the rejection-identification model with classical theorizations of social exclusion.
Key-words:
Rejection; migrants; identification; well-being; resignation; delinquent behavior; adolescents.
The dual path of the rejection (dis)identification model:
A study on adolescents with a migrant background
Adolescence represents a key stage in the human life course, especially considering the
relevance of forming, monitoring, maintaining and repairing healthy social connections with peers
(Brown, 2004). Crucially, having a migrant background can be one of the many reasons for
experiencing social rejection in adolescence (Lynn Mulvey, Boswell, & Zheng, 2017). Past research
focused on the possible pathways and the specific outcomes involved in reacting to instances of
rejection and ostracism (e.g., Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Williams, 2009). However, much
remains to be understood in terms of paths linking experiences of rejection to one of its possible
outcomes (e.g., resignation and antisocial behaviors) based on a specific mechanism, especially
considering identification processes and different immigrant generations.
The present contribution is embedded in this line of research. We start reviewing some of the
consequences known to be associated with the experiences of social rejection. Then, we turn our
attention to the mediating role played by identification (and disidentification) processes, with the
idea that such processes could mediate the relationship between rejection and its different outcomes.
Applying a revised version of the rejection (dis)-identification model (Branscombe, Schmitt, &
Harvey, 1999; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, & Solheim, 2009), we focus our analyses on data from an
international sample of adolescents with a migrant background.
The adverse consequences of social rejection
Rejection is often described as a form of social exclusion, primarily characterized by direct
negative attention, suggesting one is not wanted (and this is different from ostracism, primarily
characterized by the experience of being ignored; Riva & Eck, 2016). Minority groups often
experience social rejection via discrimination and stigmatization (Branscombe et al., 1999; Smart
Richman & Leary, 2009; Smart Richman, Martin, & Guadagno, 2016) and when rejection persists
over time, its effects can be detrimental for individuals’ health and well-being (Bernstein, 2016).
The adverse effects of chronic rejection (for reviews see Bernstein, 2016; Jin & Josephs, 2016)
and ethnic-based discrimination have been largely documented in the literature (for metanalyses
see: Smith, & Silva, 2011; Lee & Ahn, 2011; Lee & Ahn, 2012; Lee & Ahn, 2013; Schmitt,
Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014; Benner, Wang, Shen, Boyle, Polk, & Cheng, 2018). In this
regard, some years ago, the review by Williams, Neighbors, and Jackson (2003) showed that ethnic-
based discrimination, which is experienced by minority groups, is associated with multiple
indicators of adverse mental and physical health for the targets of the behaviors. The same authors
suggested that a significant challenge was to think more carefully about the models by which these
kinds of negative experiences might adversely affect health status, including the plausible pathways
and the specific outcomes.
Accordingly, subsequent theorizations have proposed that two possible outcomes of social
rejection can be withdrawal (e.g., resignation, self-isolation) and antisocial (e.g., delinquency,
aggression) responses. These outcomes have been described by Williams (2009) and Smart
Richman and Leary (2009), and also resonate with the sociometric distinction between the
submissive rejected and the aggressive rejected adolescents, by Inderbitzen, Walters, and Bukowski
(1997).
Concerning withdrawal responses to social exclusion, Williams (2009) theorized that prolonged
experiences of ostracism would cause individuals to enter a resignation stage characterized by the
inability to recover threatened psychological needs and feelings of alienation, unworthiness,
helplessness, and depression. Consistent with this, experiencing prolonged social rejection may
increase self-isolation (Cuadrado, Tabernero, & Steinel, 2015) and depression rates, even resulting
in suicidal ideation (Van Orden & Joiner, 2013). Recently, some evidence provided by Riva and
colleagues (Riva, Montali, Wirth, Curioni, & Williams, 2017) supported the notion that chronic
experiences of social exclusion are associated with higher levels of the resignation stage outcomes.
Similar results have also been found in adolescent students, where social rejection is associated with
social anxiety, isolation, and withdrawal (Inderbitzen et al., 1997).
However, the impact of rejection goes beyond withdrawal responses. Experiences of rejection
can also result in antisocial behaviors and higher rates of substance abuse (e.g., drugs; Gibbons,
Gerrard, Cleveland, Wills, & Brody, 2004; smoking; Harris et al., 2006; Landrine & Klonoff,
1996). Social rejection represents a threat to the individuals’ ability to control their behavior, resist
temptations, stifle socially undesirable impulses, follow the rules and make positive contributions to
society. In keeping with these outcomes, some researchers provided empirical evidence that being
excluded or rejected causes decrements in self-regulation (Baumeister, De Wall, Ciarocco, &
Twenge, 2005; Stenseng, Belsky, Skalicka, & Wichstrøm, 2015) and that rejection often results in
aggressive, retaliatory behaviors aimed to reestablish control (e.g., Warburton, Williams, & Cairns,
2006). Also, in the school setting, students rejected by their peers show increased conduct problems,
aggression, substance use, and delinquent crimes over time (Ollendick, Weist, Borden, & Greene,
1992).
The rejection (dis)identification model
Identification and disidentification represent two main psychological responses to rejection.
When people are rejected because of a group they belong to, identifying with the minority group is
one option. This phenomenon is at the base of the “rejection-identification model” (Branscombe et
al., 1999). According to this model, the minority group can serve as a coping resource since it
provides psychological shelter from the hostile treatment (i.e., discrimination, prejudice) carried out
by the majority group (see also Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). In other words, the sense of being
supported and valued by the small community can help in coping with the negative consequences of
being a member of a devalued social group. Moreover, the rejected individuals can perceive
similarities with others who share a similar pain (e.g., Bastian, Jetten, & Ferris, 2014). These
processes, which lay the foundation for “rejection-identification” (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987), can have a protective role for the individuals’ well-being (Branscombe et al.,
1999).
However, rejection also increases the perceived differences from the perpetrator group: to cope
with rejection, members of an ethnic minority group may want to distance themselves from the
majority group. This phenomenon has been labeled “rejection-disidentification” (Jasinskaja-Lahti et
al., 2009) and appears complementary to rejection-identification. Indeed, similar to Thibault and
Kelley’s (1959) conceptualization of comparison-level-for-alternatives, if people expect that they
may receive more rewards (greater satisfaction of acceptance needs) in an alternative relationship
(e.g., in their minority group), they may reduce their commitment in the relationship with the
national group, opting for withdrawal or avoidant responses (see also Smart Richman & Leary,
2009). However, while the identification process usually shows a protective role in individuals’
well-being, the disidentification following rejection causes adverse emotional and attitudinal
reactions towards the perpetrator group (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2009; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Celikkol,
Renvik, Eskelinen, Vetik, & Sam, 2018).
Evidence supporting and not supporting the rejection (dis)identification model
In the literature, support for the two complementary processes, that we will name together
“rejection-(dis)identification,” has been observed among women (Schmitt, Branscombe,
Kobrynowicz, & Owen, 2002), people with body piercings (Jetten, Branscombe, Schmitt, & Spears,
2001) and people diagnosed with mental illness (Crabtree, Haslam, Postmes, & Haslam, 2010).
Moreover, the results of some longitudinal studies with international students supported the
predictions of the rejection-identification model and indicated that perceived discrimination causes
minority group identification and not the reverse (Ramos et al., 2012; Schmitt, Spears, &
Branscombe, 2003).
However, the rejection-(dis)identification model did not always receive empirical support (e.g.,
Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2009; Bobowik, Martinovic, Basabe, Barsties, & Wachter, 2017). For
example, inconsistencies in this literature were found regarding the effects of identification on well-
being in the context of especially stigmatized groups (e.g., those suffering depression; Cruwys &
Gunaseelan, 2016; and ex-prisoners, Kyprianides, Easterbrook, & Cruwys, 2019). Moreover, in the
contexts of ethnic-based rejection, the rejection-(dis)identification model has received only partial
support, with some results that did not confirm the theory predictions (Wiley, Lawrence, Figueroa,
& Percontino, 2013; Bobowik et al., 2017).
The rejection-(dis)identification model following ethnic-based rejection
In the classical study with African Americans, Branscombe et al. (1999) found that the
identification with the minority group reduced the negative consequences of rejection. Wong,
Eccles, and Sameroff (2003) found longitudinal evidence that ethnic identification buffered the
relationship between perceived discrimination and the development over time of antisocial
behaviors. Similarly, Caldwell et al. (2004), in a sample of young adults, found a significant effect
of racial discrimination on violent behaviors (for example, carrying a knife, carrying a weapon,
being in a fight, etc.) that was buffered by ethnic identification.
However, in other studies that tested both paths, the results were less consistent. For example,
in a study with first-generation Latino immigrants, Wiley and colleagues (2013) found that
individuals who perceived ethnic-based rejection were less likely to identify with Americans (i.e.,
lower national identification), but the rejection-identification path was not confirmed (see Wiley,
2013). Furthermore, in a study by Bobowik et al. (2017), perceived discrimination was associated
with host national disidentification among refugees in the Netherlands and voluntary immigrants in
Spain, but the rejection-identification link was less consistent. Finally, in a sample of Christian
Arab Americans, the support discrimination predicted an indirect negative effect on well-being
through decreased American identification, but the indirect effect through ethnic identification was
not significant (Hakim, Molina, & Branscombe, 2018).
These inconsistencies can be explained by the different conditions in which each study was
carried out and by the different outcomes under study. As theorized by Phinney and colleagues, the
relationship between identification processes and adaptation can be influenced by factors related to
the specific settings and intergroup relations (Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001).
Moreover, the results could be partly due to the great variety of considered outcomes that
characterize this literature. To mention some of them, in the study by Branscombe and colleagues
(1999) the authors focused on individual (self-esteem, low levels of negative emotions) and
collective well-being (membership and private self-esteem1); Cronin and colleagues (Cronin, Levin,
Branscombe, van Laar, & Tropp, 2012) considered self-esteem; Giamo, Schmitt, and Outten (2012)
considered life satisfaction, while the two studies by Bobowik et al. (2017) focused on happiness
and eudaimonic well-being (psychological and social).
However, despite the number of studies that were carried out on the rejection-(dis)identification
model, most of them focused only on well-being outcomes. In this paper, considering that the
rejection-(dis)identification model could predict both withdrawal and antisocial responses, we
aimed at extending the current knowledge on how identification processes can lead to different
responses. More specifically, we argue that resignation and delinquent behavior could represent the
result of rejection experiences through multiple identification paths.
Moreover, the few works that applied the rejection-identification model in adolescence
(Romero & Roberts, 2003; Armenta & Hunt, 2009; Tabbah, Chung, & Miranda, 2016) did not
consider the differences between generations of immigrants. This is unfortunate because the
rejection-(dis)identification model in the contexts of ethnic-based rejection could work differently
with different generations of immigrants, for at least three reasons.
Firstly, even if the findings are not always consistent, the levels of well-being and behavioral
problems can differ not only between first-generation immagrants and natives (Harker, 2011), but
also across immigrant generations. In the study by Driscoll, Russell, and Crockett (2008), the levels
of self-esteem, as well as the rate of adolescents with behavioral problems, increased with
generations; similarly, Hamilton, Noh, and Adlaf (2009) found that symptoms of psychological
distress were higher in the first-generation, compared to adolescents of different immigrant
generations, but delinquency was less frequent in the first-generation compared to the other
immigrant generations. Secondly, the second and third generations could have a varying degree of
identification with the national and ethnic groups. For example, in the study by Giuliani, Tagliabue,
and Regalia (2018), second-generation immigrants (compared to first-generation) showed lower
levels of identification with the ethnic group and higher levels of identification with the national
group. Finally, and most importantly, the second and third generations could perceive more
permeable group borders. As a result, in front of ethnic-based rejection, they also have the option to
leave the rejected and devaluated group and to identify with the valuated group (the national one).
This “rejection-mobility” could serve as a status-enhancement strategy (also called as the “passing”
or individual mobility strategy; Ellemers et al., 1990; Ellemers et al., 1993). Based on these
reflections, the present work contributes to deepening our knowledge of how the rejection-
identification affect migrants, considering different immigrant generations.
The present study
In the present study, we argue that there is a need for a further test of the rejection-
(dis)identification predictions, for three main reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above, past research has
almost exclusively focused on wellbeing outcomes. In this work, we linked the rejection-
(dis)identification literature to the research on the behavioral consequences of ethnic rejection,
including withdrawal and antisocial outcomes. Secondly, previous studies rarely considered the
identification and the disidentification paths together, an issue also suggested by previous authors
(Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2009; Bobowik et al. 2017; Hakim et al., 2018). In this work, we tested our
hypotheses through a multiple mediation model which allowed us to simultaneously evaluate the
identification and the disidentification paths. Finally, few studies applied the rejection-identification
model on adolescents’ samples, and they did not consider the differences between generations of
immigrants, despite the relevance of this dimension. In our paper, we tested these differences
through multigroup models, in a sample of European adolescents with different migration
backgrounds.
In the light of the above considerations about the negative impact of rejection on individuals,
we hypothesized that people reporting more chronic rejection experiences would also indicate
higher levels of resignation (H1a) and higher rates of delinquent behaviors (H1b). Second, we
hypothesized the existence of two critical paths consistent with the rejection-disidentification and
the rejection-identification hypotheses.
In the first path, which culminates in resignation, we expected a negative indirect effect of
rejection through disidentification with the national group (H2): rejection would reduce the
identification with the national group (H2a) and lower identification with the national group would
increase resignation (H2b). In this sense, disidentification from the national group would be part of
the same withdrawal psychological process that leads to resignation. This idea is consistent with
studies showing that rejection-disidentification increases disengagement (Wiley et al., 2013) and
negative emotions (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2009).
In the second path, which culminates in delinquent behaviors, we expected a negative indirect
effect of chronic experiences of rejection through identification with the ethnic group (H3). More
specifically, rejection would increase identification with the ethnic group that, in turn, would reduce
delinquent behaviors. In this sense, being embedded and perceiving to belong to an alternative
group (other than the excluding one) may represent a protective factor that mitigates the effect of
rejection on self-regulation and problematic behaviors (see also McMahon & Watts, 2002). This
idea is consistent with the above-mentioned buffering effect of minority identification towards
antisocial and violent behaviors (Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003; Caldwell et al., 2004). All these
hypothesizes are graphically summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1
To further test the reliability of the hypothesized model, two other explorative analyses were
performed. The first consisted of preliminarily testing a complete model, in which four indirect
effects were estimated through each of the two identification variables on each of the two outcomes.
This model was consistent with previous research inspired by the rejection-(dis)identification
model, which indiscriminately focused on different well-being outcomes.
The second explorative analysis tested the validity of the final model in different immigrant
generations. Some second or third-generation immigrants (who perceive more permeable group
borders) may opt for leaving their rejected and devalued group to identify with a more valuated one.
This rejection-mobility strategy would result in opposite effects compared to those hypothesized
(i.e., higher identification with the national excluding group and lower identification with the ethnic
group).
Method
The present contribution is based on a secondary analysis of data from Wave 3 of the CILS4EU
project (Kalter et al., 2016). CILS4EU is an international project aimed to provide comparative data
on the development of immigrants’ intergenerational integration in Europe. Data were collected in
four European countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) according
to the national ethics guidelines2. For this study, we focused on participants with a migrant
background who took part in Wave 3, which (differently from the first two waves) included items
about ethnic-based rejection (see below). The final sample consisted of students who provided
answers at the rejection variable and the considered outcome variables (resignation and delinquent
behaviors).
The final sample consisted of 1163 adolescents. The mean age was 17.18 years old (SD = 0.34,
min-max: 15-20) and males were 48.6% of the sample. First-generation immigrants were 25.0%,
second-generation 40.0%, interethnic second generation and third generation 35.0%. Participants
were: 25,0 % not religious, 34.0 % Christian, 26,7 % Muslim, and 13.8 % other religion.
Measures
Chronic rejection experiences were measured through four items assessing the frequency of
perceived ethnic-based discrimination in the last 12 months in four different situations (in school, in
pubic transports, in shops, or by the police). An example of an item in the present study was
“During the last 12 months, how often have you felt discriminated against or treated unfairly
because of your skin color, race, ethnic background or religion in school?”. This operationalization
of rejection in terms of perceived ethnic-based discrimination is consistent with an extensive
literature in the field (e.g., “I experience discrimination because of my ethnicity”, Armenta & Hunt,
2009; e.g., “I feel that I am personally a target of discrimination by others because of my multiracial
ethnicity,” Giamo et al., 2112; see also Schmitt et al., 2003; Cronin et al., 2012; Tabbah, Chung, &
Miranda, 2016). Answers ranged from 1 (always) to 4 (never). All the values were reverse coded so
that higher values corresponded to higher levels of rejection. A mean index was used for the
analyses (α = .77; M = 1.19; SD = 0.38)4.
Identification with the national (survey country) group. The identification with the survey
country was assessed through a single item (How strongly do you feel [nationality of the survey
country]?) Answers ranged from 1 (strongly) to 4 (not at all). Answers were recoded to have higher
values for higher identification (M = 3.17; SD = 0.71).
Identification with the ethnic (country of origin) group. Participants were required to specify
the name of the ethnic group, selecting from a list of alternative groups (different from the survey
country). The identification with the ethnic group was measured through a single item (How
strongly do you feel that you belong to this group? 3). As above, answers ranged from 1 (strongly)
to 4 (not at all). Answers were recoded to have higher values for higher identification (M = 2.22;
SD = 1.22).
The following two outcome variables were considered.
Feelings of resignation were measured as the mean of two items (“How often are each of these
statements true about you? I feel depressed” / “I feel worthless”) representing two of the resignation
dimensions proposed by Williams (2009). Possible answers ranged from 1 (often true) to 4 (never
true). Answers were recoded to have higher values for higher resignation. A mean index was used
for the analyses (r = .66, p <.001; M = 1.95; SD = 0.85).
Delinquent behaviors were assessed through four “yes-no” items, which were included in the
CILS-4EU questionnaire with the exact purpose of assessing delinquent behaviors (“Have you done
the following things in the past 3 months? Deliberately damaged things that were not yours / Stolen
something from a shop or from someone else / Carried a knife or weapon / been very drunk).
Scoring was computed by summing the number of delinquent behaviors, ranging from 0 (none of
these behaviors) to 4 (all these behaviors). (M = 0.31; SD = 0.59).
Analytical plan
Path analysis is a specific application of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with observed
variables that considers a confirmatory approach to the interdependency of variables. This approach
has the advantage (among others) to test the hypothesized model by considering the two outcome
variables at the same time. To test the adequacy of the models, the chi-square test, the Comparative
Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) were taken into account. A non-significant probability associated with the chi-square
statistic, CFI, and TLI higher than .95 and RMSEA lower than .05 indicate an excellent fit of the
model (Brown, 2015; Kline, 2015).
In our model, chronic rejection was inserted as the predictor (exogenous) variable, whereas
feelings of resignation and delinquent behaviors were outcome variables. Identification with the
national group and identification with the ethnic group were inserted as mediators of the
relationships between rejection and the two outcome variables. Finally, correlations between
resignation and delinquent behaviors and between the two measures of identification were
estimated.
In the first model (M1), the indirect effects of both the identification variables on the two
outcome variables were specified, estimating four indirect effects. This model was consistent with
the previous research about the rejection-(dis)identification model, which did not distinguish
between different well-being outcomes.
In the second model (M2), consistent with our hypotheses 2 and 3, we tested the indirect effect
of rejection on resignation only through identification with the national group and the indirect effect
of rejection on delinquent behaviors only through identification with the ethnic group. In both
models, age and gender were included as control variables, estimating their effects on resignation
and delinquent behaviors4.
Preliminary re-coding and descriptive statistics were performed using the software SPSS,
version 21 (IBM Corp, 2012). The two path analysis models (M1 and M2) were tested using the
software M-PLUS, version 7 (Muthen & Muthen, 2015), using maximum likelihood estimation,
bootstrap procedure with 10,000 casual samples and 95% Confidence Interval (CI).
Finally, the final best-fitting model was tested across immigrant generations through a
multigroup path analysis. This kind of analysis was made possible thanks to the large number of
cases, that allowed us to split the sample into three groups: first-generation immigrants (N = 291),
second-generation (N = 465), interethnic second and third-generation5 (N = 407).
Results
Table 1 presents the correlations between the key-variables.
Table 1
M1 showed an excellent fit (CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA < .001) and chi-square was non-
significant (χ2 =2.96; df = 4; p = .56). In this model, the indirect effect of rejection on resignation
through identification with the national group was significant (b = 0.03; 95% CI: .01, .06). The
indirect effect of rejection on resignation through identification with the ethnic group was not
significant (b = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.03, .01). The indirect effect on delinquent behaviors through
identification with the national group was not significant (b = 0.004; 95% CI: -.01, .02). The
indirect effect on delinquent behaviors through identification with the ethnic group was significant
(b = -0.03; 95% CI: -.05, -.01). Moreover, rejection maintained a significant negative direct effect
on resignation, but not on delinquent behaviors. Identification with the national group showed no
significant effects on delinquent behaviors (b = -0.02; 95% CI: -.07, .03), as did identification with
the ethnic group on resignation (b = -0.02; 95% CI: -.06, .02).
We then tested model M2 without the two non-significant (and not hypothesized) paths: from
identification with the national group to delinquent behaviors and from identification with the
ethnic group to resignation. Figure 2 presents this more parsimonious model. All the hypothesized
paths were confirmed. The model fit was still very good (CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA <.001)
and chi-square was non-significant (χ2 =4.27; df = 6; p = .64). The chi-square difference between
this model and the previous one was 1.31 (p = .52), showing that the fit of the two models was not
statistically different. Thus, M2 was retained as the optimal model to explain the data.
Figure 2
The effects of rejection on the mediators (left part of the model) were higher than the effects
from the mediators to resignation and delinquent behaviors (right part of the model). In this model,
the indirect effect of rejection on resignation through identification with the national group was
significant (b = .02; 95% CI: .01, .05). Similarly, the indirect effect on delinquent behaviors through
identification with the ethnic group was significant (b = -.02; 95% CI: -.05, -.01). Resignation was
also regressed on age (β = 0.08; CI: -0.06, 0.23) and gender (β = -0.33; CI: -0.04, -0.23). Delinquent
behaviors were also regressed on age (β = -0.04; CI: -0.14, 0.06) and gender (β = 0.10; CI: 0.03,
0.17).
Comparison between immigrant generations
Finally, we explored the possibility that the effect of rejection on identification variables would
differ across the immigrant generations (the first, the second, and other generations) through a
multigroup approach, following different steps. In the first step, we performed a model freely
estimating all of the regression parameters, correlations, intercepts, and disturbance terms in the
three samples as described in M2 (see row “Model 2a” in Table 2).
In the subsequent tests, a series of nested models were tested. In each of the models, additional
parameters were constrained to be equal across the populations, according to the a priori Wald test.
Each restricted model was compared to the previous one and this procedure was repeated several
times as long as the Wald test indicated a non-significant χ2 increment and the resulting more
restricted model did not fit significantly worse than the larger model.
In Model 2b, we constrained all the regression and correlation paths to be equal, except the
ones from rejection to identification variables. This step did not produce a significant chi-square
difference.
In models 2c-2f, we constrained one parameter at a time (from rejection to identification
variables) to be equal across groups of migrant generations. For all these regression parameters, the
comparison between the groups through the Wald test showed no significant differences (p >.05),
indicating Model 2f as the optimal one. These results demonstrated that the effects of rejection on
identification variables were not dissimilar between different migrant generations. More
specifically, in Model 2f the effect of rejection on identification with the national group was
negative (β= -0.23; 95% CI: -0.35, -0.12) while the effect of rejection on identification with the
ethnic group was positive (β= 0.22; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.42)
The absence of significant differences between the groups (in the effects of rejection on
identification variables) was even more interesting if we consider the results of Models 2g, 2h, and
2j, in which we focused on differences in the intercepts.
In Model 2g, we constrained the intercepts of our outcome variables (resignation and
delinquent behaviors) to be equal across the three groups, which yielded a non-significant χ2
increment, suggesting that the values of these variables did not differ between the three groups.
Based on the Wald test, in Model 2h, we constrained the identification with the national group to be
equal in the second-generation immigrants and the interethnic/third-generation group, whereas in
Model 2i, we constrained the identification with the ethnic group to be equal in the first-generation
immigrants and the second-generation immigrants. No further equality constraints were suggested
by the Wald test. Consistently, model 2j and 2k, in which the intercepts of national and ethnic
identification were constrained to be equal across the three groups, yelded a significant χ2
increment.
Both these models yielded non-significant χ2 increment, suggesting that identification with the
national group was lower in the first compared to the other generations, while identification with the
ethnic group was higher in the first- and second-generation groups compared to the
interethnic/third-generation group.
The results of Model 2i was also consistent with a preliminary comparison of the groups in
terms of identification with the ethnic and national groups. The three immigrant generations
differed in the degree of identification with the national group, F(2,1158) = 55.63, p < .001, and
with the ethnic group, F(2,1148) = 92.03, p < .001. As regards identification with the national
group, the post-hoc Bonferroni’s test showed a significant difference between first (M = 2.81; SD =
0.78) and the other generations (second generation M = 3.27, SD = 0.64; interethnic and third: M =
3.32; SD = 0.66). As regards identification with the ethnic group, the post-hoc Bonferroni’s test
showed a significant difference between the interethnic/third (M = .92, SD = 1.43) and the other
generations (first: M = 2.05, SD = 1.71; second: M = 2.32, SD = 1.60).
General discussion
The present study aimed to address some of the inconsistencies that have been found in the
rejection-(dis)identification literature, by applying a revised version of the rejection (dis)-
identification model in a sample of European adolescents with a migrant background. In general,
the results were supportive of both the rejection-identification and of the rejection-disidentification
models. Moreover, the results were supportive of our specific hypotheses, suggesting the presence
of two psychological paths linked with two different outcomes.
According to the first path, being rejected by a majority group (national) makes it more likely
that the excluded people will disidentify from that group. In this sense, through this
disidentification, rejection also has an indirect effect on the negative emotions which characterize
feelings of resignation. According to the second path, being rejected from a national group is
associated with identification with an alternative (ethnic) group, and such identification has a
protective role in antisocial behaviors. To further sustain the dual paths model, our findings also
showed that the effect of identification in the national group on delinquent behaviors and the effect
of identification with the ethnic group on resignation were not significant.
Moreover, as shown by the multigroup analysis, the significant paths from rejection to
identification variables were similar across generations of immigrants. This result appears
particularly interesting if we consider that, at least in theory, it would be reasonable to believe that
some adolescents who perceive permeable borders (like second and third generations), could
alternatively opt for leaving their ethnic (and devaluated) group and move to a more valuated one.
This status-enhancement strategy consists in leaving the low-status group to gain admission to a
group with higher status (Ellemers et al., 1990; Ellemers et al., 1993). However, although the three
groups differed for the degree of identification with the national and the ethnic groups, the present
study found no evidence for this alternative process (i.e., mobility strategy).
Some limitations of the present study must be recognized. A first limitation has to do with the
cross-sectional nature of the data. Due to the cross-sectional design, it is not possible to draw
decisive conclusions in terms of causality. Some longitudinal evidence already exists about the
rejection-(dis)identification model (e.g., Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe, 2003; Ramos et al., 2012),
but future studies should consider different well-being outcomes that could derive from different
psychological processes.
Second, in the present study, the measurement of some variables was based on a low number of
items. Identification was assessed through single items. However, adolescents’ identity undergoes
crucial changes, and future research in this direction could, therefore, benefit from
multidimensional instruments that assess identification and identity development (e.g., Crocetti,
Rubini, & Meeus, 2008). Moreover, the available data allowed us only to evaluate two (depression
and unworthiness) of the four outcomes associated with the resignation stage, not considering
alienation and helplessness (Williams, 2009). However, a similar procedure was adopted by
Marinucci and Riva (2020), and past research showed that responses to the four outcomes are
typically highly related (Riva et al., 2016).
Third, despite the large international sample that was used in the present analysis, some cautions
should be adopted in the generalization of our findings to other immigrant populations, especially
for two of the hypothesized paths. In this regard, using data from a large-scale epidemiological
study of Filipino Americans, Mossakowski (2003) found a protective role of ethnic identification on
depressive symptoms. For this reason, we cannot exclude that ethnic identification could also play,
under certain circumstances, a protective role towards emotional outcomes. Moreover, some authors
(e.g., Betts & Hinsz, 2013) theorized that in some cases, the identification with the marginalized
ingroup could lead socially excluded individuals to develop aggressive attitudes and hostile
behaviors towards the source of marginalization (i.e., the opposite of our hypothesized negative
path from ethnic identification to delinquent behaviors). However, some recent findings seem more
consistent with our results, suggesting that the loss of significance (i.e., the lack of identification
with both the heritage culture and the culture they are living in) is the more critical risk factor for
radicalization, rather than ethnic identification (Lyons-Padilla et al., 2016).
Despite these limitations, there are some theoretical and practical implications of the present
study. At the conceptual level, it integrates the line of research about the rejection-(dis)
identification model with theorizations on the consequences of prolonged experiences of social
exclusion (e.g., Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Williams, 2009). The interpretation of the rejection
(dis)identification model from this perspective is that rejection can undermine one of the core
human needs, which is the need to belong (Hirsch & Clark, 2019). In the specific case of
adolescents with a migrant background, being a victim of ethic-based rejection may lead individuals
to withdraw from the rejecting group and to look for “alternative relationships” (see Smart Richman
& Leary, 2009, p.370).
At the same time, our study suggests a possible extension of the theorizations of social exclusion
(Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Williams, 2009). Indeed, according to such models, chronic
exposure to social exclusion primarily leads to feelings of resignation and depression (Williams
2009) or withdrawal and avoidance (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Our position is that antisocial
and delinquent behaviors can also represent one of the possible outcomes of chronic rejection. This
idea is also consistent with recent developments in the study of physiological processes, which
suggest that chronic and cumulative experiences of discrimination “get under the skin” and activate
the chronic fight-or-flight responses that contribute to dysregulation (e.g., Hope, Hoggart, &
Thomas, 2015).
Our model also supports a dual path of identification with a national and ethnic group among
adolescents with a migrant background, and this is consistent with most research literature which
showed that linear measures of the two types of group identity are distinct dimensions (for a review,
see Phinney et al., 2001). Our study adds to this literature, suggesting that each of the two
identifications holds a significant association with specific outcomes (i.e., reducing negative
emotions and delinquent behaviors).
The implications of our results for the interventions are twofold. First, our study provides further
evidence that the adverse outcomes accompany experiences of ethnic-based rejection, both in terms
of withdrawal and antisocial behaviors. For this reason, the most obvious priority for interventions
should be to reduce the number of rejection episodes, possibly also working with the source of
exclusion. Second, this study emphasizes that attention should be given to the identification
processes that follow social rejection. During adolescence, identity formation is not linear, and the
process of exploring and committing to potential identity alternatives becomes more salient than
during childhood (for reviews see: Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Schwartz, 2001). According to this, it
would be even more important to recognize the functional role that having a supportive community
could have for the psychological well-being of adolescents with a migrant background.
References
Armenta, B. E., & Hunt, J. S. (2009). Responding to societal devaluation: Effects of perceived
personal and group discrimination on the ethnic group identification and personal self-esteem of
Latino/Latina adolescents. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 23-39. doi:
10.1177/1368430208098775
Bastian, B., Jetten, J., & Ferris, L. J. (2014). Pain as social glue: Shared pain increases cooperation.
Psychological Science, 25(11), 2079–2085. 10.1177/0956797614545886
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion
impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589-604. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589
Benner, A. D., Wang, Y., Shen, Y., Boyle, A. E., Polk, R., & Cheng, Y. P. (2018). Racial/ethnic
discrimination and well-being during adolescence: A meta-analytic review. American Psychologist,
73(7), 855-883. doi: 10.1037/amp0000204
Bernstein, M. (2016). Research in Social Psychology: Consequences of short- and long-term social
exclusion. In: P. Riva, & J. Eck (Eds.), Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to
understanding and reducing its impact (pp. 51-72). New York, NY : Springer.
Betts, K. R., & Hinsz, V. B. (2013). Group marginalization: Extending research on interpersonal
rejection to small groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(4), 355-370. doi:
10.1177/1088868313497999
Bobowik, M., Martinovic, B., Basabe, N., Barsties, L.S., & Wachter, G. (2017). ‘Healthy’
identities? Revisiting rejection‐identification and rejection‐disidentification models among
voluntary and forced immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 818–831. doi:
10.1002/ejsp.2306
Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, S. E. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development:
A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39–66. doi: 10.1006/drev.2000.0514
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination
among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135-149. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135
Brown, B. (2004). Adolescents' relationships with peers. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.),
Handbook of adolescent psychology (p. 363–394). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Caldwell, C.H., Kohn-Wood, L.P., Schmeelk-Cone, K.H., Chavous, T.M., & Zimmerman, M.A.
(2004). Racial discrimination and racial identity as risk or protective factors for violent behaviors in
African American young adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1-2):91-105. doi:
10.1023/B:AJCP.0000014321.02367.dd
CILS4EU (2016a). Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey in Four European Countries.
Technical Report. Wave 3 – 2012/2013, v3.1.0. Mannheim: Mannheim University.
CILS4EU (2016b). Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey in Four European Countries.
Technical Report. Wave 1 – 2010/2011, v1.2.0. Mannheim: Mannheim University.
Crabtree, J. W., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2010). Mental health support groups,
stigma, and self-esteem: Positive and negative implications of group identification. Journal of
Social Issues, 66(3), 553-569. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01662.x
Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. (2008). Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in
various ethnic groups: Development and validation of a three-dimensional model. Journal of
Adolescence, 31, 207–222. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.09.002
Cuadrado, E., Tabernero, C., & Steinel, W. (2015). Motivational determinants of prosocial
behavior: What do included, hopeful excluded, and hopeless excluded individuals need to behave
prosocially? Motivation and Emotion, 39(3), 344-358. doi: 10.1007/s11031-014-9460-z
Cronin, T. J., Levin, S., Branscombe, N. R., van Laar, C., & Tropp, L. R. (2012). Ethnic
identification in response to perceived discrimination protects well-being and promotes activism: A
longitudinal study of Latino college students. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(3), 393-
407. doi: 10.1177/1368430211427171
Cruwys, T., & Gunaseelan, S. (2016). "Depression is who I am": Mental illness identity, stigma and
wellbeing. Journal of Affective Disorders, 189, 36-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.09.012
Driscoll, A. K., Russell, S. T., & Crockett, L. J. (2008). Parenting styles and youth well-being
across immigrant generations. Journal of Family Issues, 29(2), 185–209. doi:
10.1177/0192513X07307843
Ellemers, N., Van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. A. (1990). The influence of permeability of group
boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(3), 233-246. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00902.x
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or
individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64(5), 766-778. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766
Fleischmann, F., Leszczensky, L., & Pink, S (2019). Identity threat and identity multiplicity among
minority youth: Longitudinal relations of perceived discrimination with ethnic, religious, and
national identification in Germany. British Journal of Social Psychology. Advanced online
publication. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12324
Giamo, L. S., Schmitt, M. T., & Outten, H. R. (2012). Perceived discrimination, group
identification, and life satisfaction among multiracial people: A test of the rejection-identification
model. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(4), 319-328. doi: 10.1037/a0029729,
Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Cleveland, M. J., Wills, T. A., & Brody, G. (2004). Perceived
discrimination and substance use in African American parents and their children: A panel study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 517-529. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.517
Giuliani, C., Tagliabue, S., & Regalia, C. (2018). Psychological well-being, multiple identities, and
discrimination among first and second generation immigrant Muslims. Europe's journal of
psychology, 14(1), 66–87. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v14i1.1434
Hakim, N. H., Molina, L. E., & Branscombe, N. R. (2018). How discrimination shapes social
identification processes and well-being among Arab Americans. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 9(3), 328-337. doi: 10.1177/1948550617742192
Hamilton, H.A., Noh, S., & Adlaf, E.M. (2009). Adolescent risk behaviours and psychological
distress across immigrant generations. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 100, 221–225. doi:
10.1007/BF03405545
Harker, K. (2001). Immigrant generation, assimilation and adolescent psychological well-being.
Social Forces, 79(3), 969–1004. doi: 10.1353/sof.2001.0010
Harris, R., Tobias, M., Jeffreys, M., Waldegrave, K., Karlsen, S., & Nazroo, J. (2006). Racism and
health: The relationship between experience of racial discrimination and health in New Zealand.
Social Science & Medicine, 63(6), 1428-1441. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.009
Hirsh, J. L., & Clark, M. S. (2018). Multiple paths to belonging that we should study together.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 238-255. doi: 10.1177/1745691618803629.
IBM Corp. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Inderbitzen, H. M., Walters, K. S., & Bukowski, A. L. (1997). The role of social anxiety in
adolescent peer relations: Differences among sociometric status groups and rejected subgroups.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26(4), 338-348. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2604_2
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To identify or not to identify? National
disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 58, 105–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00384.x
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Celikkol, G., Renvik, T. A., Eskelinen, V., Vetik, R., & Sam, D. L. (2018).
When Psychological Contract Is Violated: Revisiting the Rejection-Disidentification Model of
Immigrant Integration. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 6(2), 484-510.
doi:10.5964/jspp.v6i2.890
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause: Group
identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204–1213. doi:10.1177/0146167201279012
Jin, K.D. & Josephs, S.A. (2016). Acute and chronic physiological consequences of social rejection.
In: Wiliams, Nida (Eds) Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection. Routledge: New York
Kalter, F., Heath, A.F., Hewstone, M., Jonsson, J. O., Kalmijn,M., Kogan, I, & Van Tubergen, F.
(2016). Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey in Four European Countries (CILS4EU) – Full
version. Data file for on‐site use. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, ZA5353 Data file Version 3.1.0,
doi: 10.4232/cils4eu.5353.3.1.0.
Kyprianides, A., Easterbrook, M. J., & Cruwys, T. (2019). “I changed and hid my old ways”: How
social rejection and social identities shape well‐being among ex‐prisoners. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 49 (5), 283-294. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12582
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Landrine H, & Klonoff, E.A. (2000). Racial discrimination and cigarette smoking among blacks:
finding from two studies. Ethnicity & Disease, 10, 195–202.
Lee, D. L., & Ahn, S. (2011). Racial discrimination and Asian mental health: A meta-analysis. The
counseling psychologist, 39(3), 463-489. doi: 10.1177/0011000010381791
Lee, D. L., & Ahn, S. (2012). Discrimination against Latina/os: A meta-analysis of individual-level
resources and outcomes. The Counseling Psychologist, 40(1), 28-65. doi:
10.1177/0011000011403326
Lee, D. L., & Ahn, S. (2013). The relation of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization
to discrimination–distress: A meta-analysis of Black Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
60(1), 1. doi: 10.1037/a0031275
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social
identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302-318. doi:
10.1177/0146167292183006
Lynn Mulvey, K., Boswell, C., & Zheng, J. (2017). Causes and consequences of social exclusion
and peer rejection among children and adolescents. Report on emotional & behavioral disorders in
youth, 17(3), 71–75.
Lyons-Padilla, S., Gelfand, M.J., Mirahmadi H., Farooq, M., van Egmond, M. (2016). Belonging
nowhere: Marginalization & radicalization risk among Muslim immigrants. Behavioral Science &
Policy, 1(2): 1-12. doi: 10.1353/bsp.2015.0019
Marinucci, M., & Riva, P. (2020). How intergroup social connections shape immigrants’ responses
to social exclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advanced on-line publication. doi:
10.1177/1368430219894620
McMahon, S. D., & Watts, R. J. (2002). Ethnic identity in urban African American youth:
Exploring links with self-worth, aggression, and other psychosocial variables. Journal of
Community Psychology, 30(4), 411–432. doi: 10.1002/jcop.10013
Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic identity protect
mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 318-331. doi: 10.2307/1519782
Muthen, M., & Muthen, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen &
Muthen.
Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C., & Greene, R. W. (1992). Sociometric status and
academic, behavioral, and psychological adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(1), 80-87. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.60.1.80
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and
well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 493-510. doi:
10.1111/0022-4537.00225
Ramos, M.R., Cassidy, C. Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the
rejection–identification hypothesis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 642–660. doi:
10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02029.x
Riva, P., & Eck, J. (2016). The many faces of social exclusion. In: P. Riva, & J. Eck (Eds.), Social
exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact (pp. 9-15). New
York, NY: Springer.
Riva, P., Montali, L., Wirth, J.H., Curioni, S. & Williams, K.D. (2017). Chronic social exclusion
and evidence for the resignation stage: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 34(4), 541–564. doi: 10.1177/0265407516644348
Romero, A. J., & Roberts, R. E. (2003). The impact of multiple dimensions of ethnic identity on
discrimination and adolescents' self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(11), 2288–
2305. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01885.x
Schmitt, M. T. & Branscombe, N. R. (2002) The meaning and consequences of perceived
discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. European Review of Social
Psychology, 12(1), 167-199. doi: 10.1080/14792772143000058
Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Kobrynowicz, D., & Owen, S. (2002). Perceiving
discrimination against one's gender group has different implications for well-being in women and
men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 197-210. doi: 10.1177/0146167202282006
Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group identity out
of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of Social Psychology,
33(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.131
Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of
perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
bulletin, 140(4), 921-948. doi: 10.1037/a0035754
Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity theory and
research: A review and integration. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,
1(1), 7-58. doi: 10.1207/S1532706XSCHWARTZ
Smart Richman, L. S., & Leary, M. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism,
and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multi-motive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365–
383. doi: 10.1037/a0015250
Smart Richman, L., Martin, J., & Guadagno, J. (2016). Stigma-based rejection and the detection of
signs of acceptance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 53–60. doi:
10.1177/1948550615598376
Smith, T. B., & Silva, L. (2011). Ethnic identity and personal well-being of people of color: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 42-60. doi: 10.1037/a0021528
Stenseng, F., Belsky, J., Skalicka, V., & Wichstrøm, L. (2015). Social exclusion predicts impaired
self‐regulation: A 2‐year longitudinal panel study including the transition from preschool to school.
Journal of Personality, 83, 212-220. doi:10.1111/jopy.12096
Sue, D. W. (Ed.). (2010). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2007). Racial microaggressions
and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1), 72-
81. doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.13.1.72
Tabbah, R., Chung, J. J., & Miranda, A. H. (2016). Ethnic identity and discrimination: An
exploration of the rejection-identification model in Arab American adolescents. Identity: An
International Journal of Theory and Research, 16(4), 319-334. doi:
10.1080/15283488.2016.1231609
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA, US: Basil Blackwell.
Van Orden, K., & Joiner, T. (2013-02-13). Depression and suicide: Transactional relations with
rejection. In: C.N. De Wall (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Social Exclusion. Oxford University
Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398700.001.0001
Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression:
The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2),
213-220. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.005
Wiley, S. (2013). Rejection-identification among Latino immigrants in the United States.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(3), 375-384. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.08.018
Wiley, S., Lawrence, D., Figueroa, J., & Percontino, R. (2013). Rejection-(dis)identification and
ethnic political engagement among first-generation Latino immigrants to the United States. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(3), 310-319. doi: 10.1037/a0031093
Williams, D. R., Neighbors, H. W., & Jackson, J. S. (2003). Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and
Health: Findings From Community Studies. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 200-208.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.2.200
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In: M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 275-314). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic
Press. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1
Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and
ethnic identification on African American adolescents' school and socioemotional adjustment.
Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1197-1232. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.7106012
Footnotes
1. The authors measured collective well-being using two subscales from Luhtanen and Crocker's
(1992) Collective Self-Esteem (CSE) scale. They included items from the Membership subscale
(e.g., "I am a worthy member of the social groups I belong to") and the Private Esteem subscale
(e.g., "In general I'm glad to be a member of the social groups I belong to").
2. For detailed information about the data collection process and the structure of the Wave 3
dataset, see CILS4EU (2016a). For information about ethical issues, including the collection of
informed consent, see CILS4EU (2016b).
3. In the item about identification with the ethnic group, Value 1 was attributed to 526 participants
with a migrant background who did not select the name of the group in the previous question
(reporting that they did not belong to any alternative national group) as well as to 5 participants
who reported the name of the group but in the item about identification selected the option “not
at all.”
4. Results of the analyses also controlling for religion are available as supplementary materials. In
these results as well, all the paths that were hypothesized by M2 were confirmed.
5. The CILS4EU collected information about the respondent’s as well as his/her parents’ and
grandparents’ country of birth. However, even if it could be possible to consider a more detailed
classification of immigrant generation, we preferred to cluster immigrant generations into three
meaningful and numerically homogeneous categories.
Tables
Table 1. The correlations between the key-variables.
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
1. Rejection
-
2. Identification with
the national group
-.13**
-
3. Identification with
the ethnic group
.12**
-.142**
-
4. Resignation
.12**
-.10*
.01
-
5. Delinquent
behavior
.02
-.00
-.15**
.14**
-
Notes. * p <.01; ** p<.001.
Table 2. The fit indices of the multi-sample path analysis.
Model (constrained path)
χ2
df
RMSEA
CFI
TLI
SRMR
Diff.
test
Model 2a (-)
23.072
18
0.027
0.967
0.902
0.025
-
Model 2b
(Correlation between identification
variables 1=2=3
Correlation between outcome variables1=2=3
Identification with the national group →
Resignation1=2=3
Identification with the ethnic group →
Delinquent behaviors1=2=3
Rejection → Resignation1=2=3
Rejection → Delinquent behaviors1=2=3)
36.656
30
0.024
0.957
0.923
0.031
13.584
Model 2c
(Rejection → Identification with the ethnic
group 1=3)
36.691
31
0.022
0.963
0.936
0.031
0.035
Model 2d
(Rejection → Identification with the national
group 1=2)
36.778
32
0.020
0.969
0.948
0.031
0.087
Model 2e
(Rejection → Identification with the ethnic
group 1=2=3)
37.993
33
0.020
0.968
0.947
0.032
1.215
Model 2f
(Rejection → Identification with the
national group 1=2=3)
40.988
34
0.023
0.955
0.928
0.032
2.995
Model 2g
(Intercept of Resignation 1=2=3)
(Intercept of Delinquent behaviors1=2=3)
41.300
38
0.015
0.979
0.970
0.015
0.312
Model 2h
(Intercept of Identification with the national
group 2=3)
41.428
39
0.013
0.984
0.978
0.032
0.128
Model 2i
(Intercept of Identification with the ethnic
group 1=2)
44.567
40
0.017
0.971
0.960
0.034
3.139
Model 2j
(Intercept of Identification with the national
group 1=2=3)
127.941*
41
0.074
0.439
0.261
0.047
83.373*
Model 2k
(Intercept of Identification with the ethnic
group 1=2=3)
215.179*
41
0.105
0.000
-0.480
0.081
170.612*
Notes. The Chi-Square difference test between couples of subsequent nested models is reported in
the last column. 1 First-generation. 2 Second-generation. 3 Interethnic second and third-generation.
* p < .001.
Figures
Figure 1. The hypothesized model.
Figure 2 – Results of model M2: Standardized regression coefficients (and 95% confidence
intervals) are reported.
Notes. Dotted lines represent non-significant paths (p > .05). Resignation was also regressed on age
(β = 0.08; CI: -0.06, 0.23) and gender (β = 0.-0.33; CI: -0.42, -0.23). Delinquent behaviors were
also regressed on age (β = -0.04; CI: -0.14, 0.06) and gender (β = 0.10; CI: 0.03, 0.17).
