Content uploaded by Lara Hoffmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lara Hoffmann on Feb 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
19
Hoffmann, L., Jónsson, Þ. A., & Meckl, M. (2022). Migration and community in an age of digi-
tal connectivity: A survey of media use and integration amongst migrants in Iceland. Nordicom
Review, 43(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2022-0002
NORDICOM REVIEW
Migration and community
in an age of digital connectivity
A survey of media use and integration
amongst migrants in Iceland
Lara Hoffmann,I Þorlákur Axel Jónsson,II & Markus MecklI
I Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Akureyri, Iceland
II Faculty of Education, University of Akureyri, Iceland
Abstract
Information and communication technologies enable migrants to maintain bonds with mul-
tiple communities. Little is known about the association between migrants’ connections to
their country of origin and different integration practices in online and ofine communities
in the receiving society. We draw on a survey conducted amongst migrants in Iceland (N =
2,139) and conduct three regression analyses to identify determinants of migrants’ use of
media and social media from their country of origin. Contrary to other studies, we do not
nd evidence of reactive transnationalism (i.e., migrants seeking out connections to their
places of origin due to dissatisfaction with life in the receiving society) as a response to
negative attitudes towards the receiving society. We identify distinct patterns of online and
ofine integration: Migrants with frequent contact with their countries of origin are less
integrated locally in terms of ofine activities. However, they are more integrated in digital
communities of the receiving society, and use receiving-country media more frequently,
thus following a strategy of digital biculturalism.
Keywords: migrant media use, digital biculturalism, digital connectivity, online and ofine
migrant integration, survey
Introduction
A rich body of scholarship has highlighted how information and communication tech-
nologies enable migrants to maintain ties with different communities (Diminescu, 2008;
Licoppe, 2004; Smets et al., 2019). In Touch, a 2018 documentary directed by Paweł
Ziemilski, explores virtual connections between Polish migrants in Iceland and their
relatives in Poland. Juxtaposing and layering recordings of virtual conversations and
images lmed in Poland and Iceland, the documentary visualises the subjects’ virtual
co-presence in multiple locations through digital media.
20
Lara Hoffmann, Þorlákur Axel Jónsson, & Markus Meckl
We examine the implications of migrants’ connections to their countries of origin
through social and other media (news and current affairs programmes) for their integra-
tion in receiving communities. We understand integration as the involvement of migrants
in different areas in the receiving society, covering social, economic, and political
indicators of integration, as well as subjective experiences in the receiving society. We
further ask whether migrants’ use of media from their country of origin is associated
with their integration both in ofine and digital communities in the receiving society,
or whether there are discrepancies between the two. Prior studies show that frequent
connections to places of origin through media have a positive effect on migrants’ social
integration in receiving societies (Alencar & Deuze, 2017; Licoppe, 2004). At the same
time, migrants who use media from their countries of origin more often perceive more
discrimination and more negative perspectives about migrants in the receiving society
(Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002). The important role of media in facilitating migrants’ bonds
with different communities calls for a reconceptualisation of integration practices, as
there is little research that scrutinises migrants’ integration practices in both online and
ofine communities (Mittelstädt & Odag, 2015).
We analyse quantitative data derived from a survey conducted amongst migrants in
Iceland in 2018 (N = 2,139). A study on Iceland is well-suited for scrutinising digital
connectivity of migrants, because the country is situated remotely in the North Atlantic
and highly digitalised. Digital connectivity is particularly relevant for people moving to
remote destinations, because they have fewer opportunities to maintain contact in other
ways, such as through return visits (Dziekońska, 2021).
We begin by introducing the theoretical background and discuss prior ndings on
social media and media use amongst migrants. We then contextualise Iceland as our
case study and describe the method and results of the quantitative analysis. Finally, we
discuss the implications of our ndings.
Theoretical background on digital connectivity and integration
Connected migrants
Earlier research on migration and media was mainly focused on the representation of
migrants in the media, but more recently, scholars have investigated the use of media
amongst migrants (Rydin & Sjöberg, 2008). Diminescu’s (2008) concept of connected
migrants describes a new type of migrant who, due to technological advancements,
is able to maintain digital bonds across national borders. Recently, Diminescu (2019:
74) has redened her denition of connected migrant as “a migrant equipped with at
least one digitalised device which enables him/her to instantaneously switch between
several lifestyles”. The concept of connected migrants follows transnational perspec-
tives because it challenges earlier depictions of migrants as uprooted from their places
of origin (Diminescu, 2019; Glick-Schiller et al., 1992). Instead, connected migrants
are characterised by belonging to multiple networks, holding allegiances to several
locations and cultures, and having hypermobility and exibility on the labour market
(Diminescu, 2008). Social media (Hofhuis et al., 2019; Yin, 2013) and news and cur-
rent affairs programmes (Alencar & Deuze, 2017; Vidal, 2018) are often discussed in
the literature in this context of changing migration networks through increased digital
21
Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity
connectivity. Home country media and “ethnic” media that specically targets migrants
and provides them with information and news from their host country can strengthen
migrants’ connections to their place of origin and facilitate the development of new
hybrid migrant identities (Yin, 2013).
This increased digital connectivity has far-reaching implications for migration ex-
periences as it gives “a presence to the ‘absent’” (Kernalegenn & Van Haute, 2020: 3),
for example, in transnational party politics which continue to inuence governance in
migrants’ countries of origin (Kernalegenn & Van Haute, 2020; Østergaard-Nielsen &
Ciornei, 2018) or new forms of transnational parenting and family relations facilitated by
digital media (Madianou & Miller, 2011). These digital communities provide a sense of
belonging through “the sense of shared space, rituals of shared practices, and exchange
of social support” (Baym, 2010: 86). For many migrants, participation in multiple online
and ofine communities is an inherent part of their everyday lived realities. Leurs and
Ponzanesi (2018), drawing on Diminescu’s work, described this as cosmopolitanism.
The concepts of connected and cosmopolitan migrants emphasise the positive aspects
of digital connectivity, representing (new forms of) media as compensation for loss
of communication through migration. However, increased digital connectivity should
more precisely be understood as changing, rather than only improving, migrants’ bonds
with different communities. Digital communities provide different barriers to integra-
tion, and social media “can be as much about cutting people off as including them in”
(Miller, 2021: 89). Furthermore, information and communication technologies can be
both empowering and used as a means of surveillance, which has been described as the
“empowerment-control nexus” by Nedelcu and Soysüren (2020). Increased connectivity
of migrants thus provides challenges as well as opportunities for migrants’ connections
to different communities, including the receiving society.
Digital connectivity and integration in the receiving society
Increased digital connectivity impacts migrants’ integration in receiving societies. While
there is no common understanding of integration (Alencar & Deuze, 2017), it is often
understood as having a better position on the labour market and being socially and
politically involved in the receiving society. More recently, subjective experiences of
migrants – such as life satisfaction, the “overall assessment of an individual’s quality
of life according to his/her personal judgment and criteria” (Amit, 2009: 516), or trust
in the receiving society (Arcand et al., 2020) – have been considered as measures of
integration.
The most influential model for understanding immigrants’ integration in receiv-
ing societies is Berry’s (1997) acculturation theory, which introduced the following
strategies: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation. Integration
(or biculturalism), involving a hybrid of both receiving and sending society, is the
strategy that is most associated with successful adaption in a receiving society; as-
similation rejects the culture of one’s place of origin to adopt that of the receiving
society; separation renounces any adoption of the culture of the receiving society; and
marginalisation rejects both cultures (Berry, 1997). Berry’s approach remains the most
robust framework for explaining migrants’ acculturation, although limitations in his
theory have been acknowledged, especially the lack of consideration for more com-
22
Lara Hoffmann, Þorlákur Axel Jónsson, & Markus Meckl
plex individual and cultural attitudes towards integration, as was discussed in detail
by Bierwiaczonek and Kunst (2021) and Rudmin (2003). Recent publications have
drawn on Berry’s framework to advance understanding of the relationship between
migrants’ use of media and their integration in receiving societies (Alencar & Deuze,
2017; Mitra & Evansluong, 2019).
A study on news consumption amongst migrants to the Netherlands and Spain indi-
cated that migrants who use country-of-origin media frequently follow Berry’s integra-
tion strategy and actively participate both in the receiving society and the country of
origin (Alencar & Deuze, 2017). Another study on Italian migrants in London indicated
that “digital togetherness of migrants in the digital space is considerably improving the
process of integration in the host society” (Marino, 2015: 5). A possible explanation
for the link between transnational connectivity and strong commitment to local com-
munities has been provided by Licoppe (2004), who claimed that high frequencies of
digital connectivity to migrants’ countries of origin multiplies feelings of connectedness
to both places.
While studies indicate positive links between migrants’ social integration in the
receiving society and their digital connectivity, there are indicators that migrants who
use more media from their countries of origin feel resistance towards their place of
residence, as shown in a study on media consumption amongst Iranian migrants in
Norway (Alghasi, 2009). Itzigsohn and Saucedo (2002) coined the term “reactive trans-
nationalism” to describe migrants seeking out connections to their places of origin due
to dissatisfaction with life in the receiving society.
The relationship between life satisfaction – which has been considered a factor of
integration in recent years (Amit, 2009) – and migrants’ use of media remains under-
studied, but some studies indicate that a “culture of connectivity” and having access to
communities across national borders has positive effects on migrants’ life satisfaction in
the receiving society (Liu et al., 2017). Migrants’ connections to their countries of origin
can, therefore, be a strategy to cope with being in an unfamiliar culture and environment
(Hofhuis et al., 2019; King-O’Riain, 2015).
Given the distinct characteristics of online communities, it is of interest to differ-
entiate between integration in online and ofine communities of the receiving society.
Mitra and Evansluong (2019: 477) nd that the opportunity to maintain constant ties to
countries of origin can also lead to migrants having “little incentive to establish both
online and ofine connections with the host country”. Highlighting distinct practices
of media use amongst migrants, Mittelstädt and Odag (2015) suggested a framework
for integration that distinguishes between ofine and online integration as distinct
practices of integration in the receiving society. We aim to advance the understanding
of the association between migrants’ contacts with their countries of origin and their
integration in receiving societies with a study conducted amongst a sample of migrants
in a destination country.
The Icelandic context
Iceland is an island nation of 360,000 inhabitants located in the Atlantic Ocean, with
mainland Europe (Norway) being 970 kilometres away and mainland North America
being 2,070 kilometres away. Iceland has the highest number of Internet users per
23
Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity
capita in the Nordic countries (Europe Internet Stats, 2021), and Facebook is the most
popular social media platform and very positively received amongst Icelanders (EMC
Rannsóknir, 2019; Guðmundsson, 2019). According to a survey amongst 929 Icelanders
(aged 18 and older) conducted by Gallup in 2018, the percentage of Facebook users in
Iceland is 93 per cent, the highest in the Nordic countries (MMR, 2018).
The number of migrants in Iceland has increased rapidly in recent years. In September
2020, about 15 per cent of inhabitants in Iceland were migrants, whereas in 2000, mi-
grants comprised only about 3 per cent of the country’s population. We follow Statistics
Iceland (2020: para. 2) in dening a migrant as “a person born abroad with both parents
foreign born and all grandparents foreign born”.
The Icelandic migrant population is largely driven by labour migration, with
many migrants working in the tourism, fishing, and construction industries and
care work (Júlíusdóttir et al., 2013). There is a relatively small number of refugees
(Ragnarsdóttir, 2020). The largest group of migrants in Iceland (37%) is from Po-
land (20,477), followed by those from Lithuania (3,277) and the Philippines (2,085)
(Statistics Iceland, 2020). Poland’s and Lithuania’s EU memberships in 2004 en-
couraged migration from these countries to countries within the EEA (Skaptadóttir,
2015). People from Asian countries, such as the Philippines and Thailand, increas-
ingly migrated to Iceland during the economic boom of the 2000s, often to work in
fisheries (Skaptadóttir, 2015).
Access to the Icelandic labour market is prioritised for migrants from the new EU
member states. Consequentially, migrants from the Philippines “increasingly indicate
uniting with family as a reason for migrating to Iceland” (Skaptadóttir, 2015: 178).
Dziekońska (2021: 145) discussed the case of circular migrants from Poland and how
their intention to stay in Iceland temporarily – even though they often stayed longer
than intended – “stopped them from entering into close relationships with individuals
from the host society”. Dziekońska (2021: 145) added that they surround themselves
with Polish customs and culture “also by means of electronic media and transnational
communication with family and friends in the homeland”. Migrants from the Philippines
maintain ties to their country of origin, particularly through remittances, and mention
that connections through digital media are an important factor in ensuring the continu-
ation of these ties (Skaptadóttir, 2019).
The considerable geographical distance between Iceland and mainland Europe and
North America affects the way migrants connect to their countries of origin, as frequent
return visits are more challenging compared with migrants located closer to their place
of origin (Dziekońska, 2021). This geographical separation is reected in the media use
of migrants who maintain ties with their families abroad. A comparative study amongst
Polish migrants in Iceland and Austria indicated that migrants in Iceland use comput-
er hardware more often than those in Austria, who use telephones more frequently
(Krzyżowski, 2015). The same study showed that migrants in Iceland communicate with
their elderly parents more frequently than those in Austria, demonstrating that migrants
in Iceland compensated for their absence and infrequency of visits with more frequent
communication (Krzyżowski, 2015).
Another study showed that Polish migrants in Iceland who perceive the discourse
on migrants more negatively are drawn to Polish-language media (Ólafs & Zielińska,
2010). This could indicate that such migrants resort to reactive transnationalism when
24
Lara Hoffmann, Þorlákur Axel Jónsson, & Markus Meckl
confronted with negative portrayals, turning to media from their country of origin rather
than Icelandic media. Studies analysing Icelandic media reports between 2006–2010
indicated that “one third of the coverage [about migrants] in Iceland was in relation to
crime and police matters” (Ólafs & Zielińska, 2010: 77). Loftsdóttir discussed negative
portrayals of Lithuanians in Icelandic media and in the popular Icelandic crime television
series Trapped (Loftsdóttir, 2017; Lóftsdóttir et al., 2017). Some of Loftsdóttir’s inter-
locutors decided not to disclose their country of origin to Icelanders due to the negative
public discourse in Iceland about migrants from specic countries (Loftsdóttir, 2017),
demonstrating the power of the media on migrants’ integration and trust. The increase
of migration to Iceland has encouraged the emergence of different types of ethnic media,
particularly Polish-language media, such as a Polish version of the Icelandic national
broadcaster RÚV, or the news media Iceland News Polska.
Based on research on migrants’ integration in receiving societies, we examine how
migrants’ practices of news consumption and social media consumption relate to their
integration in the receiving country. Scholarship demonstrates that media use can be
associated both with more effective integration of migrants and with migrants’ with-
drawal from interactions in receiving countries. We aim to supplement the number of
smaller-scale, often qualitative studies conducted amongst specic groups of migrants
with a study on data collected amongst a large number of migrants in a destination
country, in order to investigate the factors driving migrants’ media use overall. Having
observed that frequent connections to countries of origin are often associated with more
integration in the receiving society, our rst hypothesis is based on the expectation that
migrants who have frequent contact with their countries of origin will also be socially
integrated in their place of residence:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Migrants who are in more contact to their countries of origin
through social media and other media are more socially integrated in the receiv-
ing society.
We also query the association between migrants’ contact to countries of origin through
social and other media and their attitudes towards life in the receiving society. Our
second hypothesis is therefore based on the expectation of nding evidence of reactive
transnationalism in our study, with migrants who are more dissatised with life in the
receiving society being less connected abroad:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Migrants who are in more contact to countries of origin through
media and other media express more negative attitudes towards institutions and
the public discourse about migration in the receiving society.
As studies have shown that connections to migrants’ countries of origin have positive
effects on their well-being, our third hypothesis is based on our expectation of a posi-
tive association between frequent connections to country of origin and migrants’ life
satisfaction:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Migrants who use more media from country of origin are more
satisfied with life in the receiving society.
25
Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity
Method
The research presented in this article drew on empirical data derived from a quantitative
study conducted in 2018. A survey (N = 2,139) was carried out in the form of an online
questionnaire amongst migrants in Iceland. The study used convenience and snowball
sampling. The University of Akureyri Research Centre (RHA) distributed the survey –
available in Icelandic, English, Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Arabic, Russian, and Thai
– via language schools, social media platforms and, in selected areas, through local as-
sistants who were well-connected to migrant communities in these regions. Participants
received written information on the purpose of the study, condentiality, and anonymity
of the data collected. Personal details, such as names, were not collected. Due to the
small population of Iceland, additional measures were taken to protect participants’
identities, and instead of collecting information on countries of origin, information of
world regions of origin was collected.
Measures
The background variables included were gender, age, world region of origin, time of
residence in Iceland, intended time of residence in Iceland, and level of education (see
Table 1). We included standard demographic questions in order to gain insight into how
factors such as gender, age, and geographic and educational background are associated
with media use and to be able to differentiate between different groups of migrants.
This approach was justied because media use is “reecting power differences derived
from the intersection of gender, race, class, generation, and geopolitical relationships,
within specic social, political and emotional contexts” (Nedelcu & Soysüren, 2020:
4). Intended length of stay in Iceland was included to differentiate between short-term
and long-term migrants, as it may affect their motivation to connect to the receiving
society (Dziekońska, 2021). Participants could choose between the following world
regions: Western Europe, Nordic Countries, or North America; Central or Eastern Eu-
rope; Asia; Africa; Central America; South America; and Other. Due to the low number
of participants from the latter ve regions, these categories were merged into one for
our analysis (“Other”).
26
Lara Hoffmann, Þorlákur Axel Jónsson, & Markus Meckl
Table 1 Background information of survey respondents
Variable Category Percentage
Gender Female 66.5
Age 18–25 years 12.5
26–40 years 58.5
41–66 years 29.0
World region of origin Western Europe, Nordic Countries, or
North America 21.9
Central or Eastern Europe 65.3
Other 12.7
Time of residence in
Iceland
< 1 year 9.5
1–2 years 21.2
3–5 years 22.2
6–10 years 18.6
11–20 years 24.3
20+ years 4.2
Intended time of residence < 1 year 5.3
1–2 years 9.8
3–5 years 16.6
6–10 years 11.1
11–20 years 8.9
20+ years 48.2
Education Primary school 4.0
Vocational training 12.2
Matriculation exam 30.7
University degree 48.7
Other 4.5
Media and social media use were measured with three questions. Questions 1 and 3
measure what has been termed “home country media use” (Vidal, 2018; Yin, 2013).
Question 2 measures “ethnic media use” (Yin, 2013), meaning migrants’ connections
to other migrants from their place of origin residing in the same country.
1. When you use social media, how often do you follow or communicate with the fol-
lowing types of people? – People from my home country
2. When you use social media, how often do you follow or communicate with the fol-
lowing types of people? – People from my own country that live in Iceland
3. How often do you follow news or current affairs programmes in the media of your
country of origin?
Frequencies of these questions were measured on a 5-point scale from 1 (never or
almost never) to 5 (every day or almost daily). We coded responses to each question
dichotomously, where 1 meant daily or almost daily and 2 meant less than daily or
almost daily (see Table 2).
27
Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity
Table 2 Country-of-origin social media contact and media use by migrants in Iceland
Question Daily or almost daily
Less than daily or
almost daily
Social media contact with people from
country of origin (%)
49.4 50.6
Social media contact with people from
country of origin living in Iceland (%)
33.6 66.4
Use of media from country of origin (%) 50.8 49.2
We operationalised integration based on several variables (see Table 3) covering social,
economic, and political factors that are commonly used to measure integration. We fur-
ther included life satisfaction and trust in institutions of the receiving society as subjec-
tive measures of integration in the receiving society (Amit, 2009; Arcand et al., 2020).
As research indicates that migrants perceiving the public discourse about migrants and
migration in the receiving society more negatively tend to seek out more connections
to their countries of origin through media (Alghasi, 2009; Ólafs & Zielińska, 2010), we
also included migrants’ opinion about the public discourse on migrants in Iceland. We
investigate migrants’ monthly income before tax – < ISK 200,000 (EUR 1,370); ISK
200,000–399,000 (EUR 2,733); ISK 400,000–599,000 (EUR 4,102); ISK 600,000–
899,000 (EUR 6,157); ISK 900,000–1,199,000 (EUR 8,212); and ISK 1,200,000+ –
knowing that the medium monthly income in Iceland is ISK 416,000 before tax at the
time this survey was conducted (Statistics Iceland, 2018). We further asked whether
migrants voted in the municipal elections of 2018 (with possible answers being “yes”,
“no”, “did not have the right to vote”, “did not know there were elections”, or “did not
know I could vote in this election”) and whether they took part in clubs and activities
(“took part” or “did not take part”). Social contact with Icelanders was measured by
combining two questions measured on a scale from 1 (never) to 4 (many times): “Have
you a.) Invited Icelandic friends to your home? b.) Been invited by Icelandic friends
to their home?”
Migrants’ social media contact with Icelanders was measured by asking the following
question: “When you use social media, how often do you follow or communicate with
the following types of people? – Icelanders and other people I have met in Iceland”. We
further investigated migrants’ use of media from their countries of origin by asking the
following question: “How often do you follow news or current affairs programmes in the
media of your country of origin?” Frequencies of these questions were measured on a
5-point scale from 1 (never or almost never) to 5 (every day or almost daily). We further
investigated migrants’ experiences of discrimination in Iceland. This was measured by
asking the following questions that were combined into one variable:
Have you experienced any of the following incidents in Iceland? a.) People have
made fun of my accent, b.) I have been treated in an unfriendly manner in a shop
or supermarket, c.) I have not been hired for a job because of my background, d.)
I have been paid less than my Icelandic co-workers for the same kind of work.
Trust in institutions in Iceland was measured with the following questions that were
combined into one variable and measured on a scale from 1 (a lot of trust) to 5 (no trust
at all):
28
Lara Hoffmann, Þorlákur Axel Jónsson, & Markus Meckl
How much trust do you have in the following institutions in Iceland? a.) The
police, b.) Parliament [Alþingi], c.) Job centres (the directorate of labour), d.)
Schools in Iceland, e.) The health care system.
We further investigated migrants’ opinions about current discussions about migrants and
migration in Iceland with the following question measured on a 5-point scale from 1 (too
positive) to 5 (too negative): “In your opinion is the public discussion in Iceland about
migrants…”. The variable for life satisfaction in Iceland was measured with the follow-
ing question measured on a 5-point scale from 1 (very unsatised) to 5 (very satised):
“On the whole, how satised are you with living in your municipality?”
Table 3 Factors of integration for migrants in Iceland
Variable Category Percentage
Income (%) < ISK 200,000 10.2
ISK 200,000–399,000 47.9
ISK 400,000–599,999 29.2
ISK 600,000–899,000 10.3
ISK 900,000–1,119,000 1.4
ISK 1,200,000+ .9
Vote in municipal elections: did not vote
(%)
– 77.6
Participation in clubs and activities:
does not participate (%)
– 71.3
Social contact with Icelanders (continu-
ous 0–6, mean as % of max value)
– 56.5
Social media contact with Icelanders (%) Less than daily or almost daily 64.8
Daily or almost daily 35.2
Use of Icelandic media (%) Less than daily or almost daily 68.7
Daily or almost daily 31.3
Experiences of discrimination (continu-
ous 0–24, mean as % of max value)
– 27.2
Trust in institutions in Iceland (continu-
ous 0–20, mean as % of max value)
– 58.5
Opinion about public discussion on mig-
rants in Iceland (%)
Too positive 5.4
Somehow too positive 19.7
Neither too positive nor too negative 48.1
Somehow negative 23.3
Too negative 3.6
Overall satisfaction with life in municipality
(%)
Unsatisfied or neutral 31.1
Satisfied 68.9
Analytic approach
To explore determinants of digital connectivity, we performed three binomial logistics
regression analyses (method enter) for the following dependent variables: social media
contact with people from respondents’ country of origin; social media contact with
29
Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity
people from respondents’ country of origin living in Iceland; and use of media from
respondents’ country of origin. To correct for multiple comparisons calculating p-values,
we used the Bonferroni-Dunn correction. In the multiple comparisons in the regression
analyses, we divided the alpha level of .05 by the number of comparisons being made
and therefore report only on signicance below the relevant threshold.
Results
Tables 1–3 provide descriptive statistics for the following background variables: use of
media and social media, and integration in the receiving society. Almost half of all re-
spondents (49%) reported connecting with people from their country of origin on social
media daily or almost daily. A third of respondents (34%) reported connecting with people
from their countries of origin living in Iceland daily or almost daily. Slightly over half of
all respondents (51%) reported using media from their countries of origin daily or almost
daily. About two-thirds of the respondents (65%) were born in Central or Eastern Europe
(73% of these answered in Polish); about one-fth (22%) in Western Europe, Nordic
Countries, or North America (73% of these answered in English); and 13 per cent in Asia,
Africa, Central America, South America, or other countries (61% answered in English).
Social media contact with people from country of origin
The results of the regression analyses for migrants’ social media contact with people
from their country of origin are shown in Table A1 (see the Appendix). Female migrants
were in more contact with people from their country of origin. Those who had been in
Iceland for a short time only were likely to be in more contact with their place of origin
through social media than those who had been there longer. Those who were actively
participating in clubs and activities in Iceland were less likely to maintain frequent
online contact with people from their countries of origin. More contact with people
from countries of origin online was associated with less social contact with Icelanders
ofine, but with more contact with Icelanders on social media. The other factors in the
regression model were not signicant predictors.
Social media contact with people from country of origin living in Iceland
The results of the regression analyses for migrants’ social media contact with people from
their country of origin living in Iceland are shown in Table A2 (see the Appendix). Migrants
from Central or Eastern Europe and the heterogenous group “Other” were in more frequent
contact with people from their countries of origin living in Iceland than those from Western
Europe, Nordic Countries, or North America. Those who had been in Iceland for less than
11–20 years had less contact with people from their countries of origin living in Iceland.
Migrants who completed an apprenticeship were more likely to be in contact with people
from their countries of origin than those who have a university education. Those who voted
in municipal elections had less contact with people from their countries of origin living in
Iceland. Those who were in frequent contact with Icelanders had less contact with people
from their countries of origin living in Iceland on social media. Frequent contact with Ice-
landers online was associated with frequent contact with people from migrants’ countries
of origin online. The other factors in the regression model were not signicant predictors.
30
Lara Hoffmann, Þorlákur Axel Jónsson, & Markus Meckl
Use of media from country of origin
The results of the regression analyses for migrants’ use of country-of-origin media are
shown in Table A3 (see the Appendix). Female migrants used media from their coun-
try of origin less frequently, while younger migrants used media from their countries
of origin more frequently. Migrants who had been in Iceland 11–20 years were more
likely to use media from their countries of origin than those who had been in Iceland
for shorter time or for more than 20 years. Participants who intended to stay in Iceland
for a shorter time consumed media from their countries of origin more frequently than
those intending to stay more than 20 years. Those who actively participated in clubs and
activities in Iceland were less likely to use media from their countries of origin. Those
who consumed media from their countries of origin more frequently had less contact
with Icelanders ofine but used Icelandic media more frequently. The other factors in
the regression model were not signicant predictors.
Migrants’ digital connectivity to countries of origin
and integration in receiving societies
Prior studies emphasise the positive effect of migrants’ use of media from their countries
of origin on their integration in receiving societies (Alencar & Deuze, 2017; Licoppe,
2004). Our ndings provide a more nuanced perspective on migrants’ integration in
communities across national borders. On the one hand, when the social factors “inviting
Icelanders to your home and being invited by Icelanders to their home” and “participa-
tion in clubs and activities” are used as indicators for integration, those with more fre-
quent contact with people from their country of origin are less integrated. On the other
hand, we nd that highly connected migrants are also more connected to the receiving
society through media. Almost half of migrants in Iceland use social media and other
media daily or almost daily to connect to their countries of origin, 30 per cent of which
are with people from their country of origin living in Iceland.
Our research partially conrms H1, that migrants who engage with their countries of
origin through media and social media are also integrated in the receiving societies, thus
practicing the integration strategy in Berry’s model (Alencar & Deuze, 2017). However,
it is noteworthy that we only nd evidence of this form of biculturalism with regards
to media use, and not regarding other factors of integration. Drawing on Berry’s (1997)
model, this strategy is a form of digital biculturalism. Mitra and Evansluong (2019:
477) argue that migrants who are highly connected to their countries of origin “have
little incentive to establish both online and ofine connections with the host country”.
Our ndings indicate that this is the case for ofine interactions, in which migrants with
frequent contact to their countries of origin tend to participate less, but not for online
activities. The practice of digital biculturalism and less integration in ofine activities
of the receiving society is in accordance with Miller’s (2021: 89) ndings that “social
media can effectively become the primary ‘home’ for an individual”.
The fact that migrants who are more connected to their countries of origin tend to be
less involved in receiving societies could be explained by reactive transnationalism. Prior
studies abroad (Alghasi, 2009); Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002) and in Iceland (Loftsdóttir,
2017; Ólafs & Zielińska, 2010) indicated that migrants with more negative attitudes
towards the receiving society seek out connections with their countries of origin. We
31
Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity
therefore expected to nd evidence of reactive transnationalism in our study (H2);
however, our ndings do not support this conclusion. Migrants with frequent contact
with their countries of origin do not differ from other migrants in their opinion about
the local discourse on migrants in Iceland, level of trust in institutions in the receiving
society, and experiences of discrimination.
Due to evidence that migrants’ connections abroad have a positive impact on their
life satisfaction, we expected those with more connections abroad to express higher
life satisfaction (H3). Our ndings do not support this hypothesis, as we do not nd an
association between life satisfaction and migrants’ media use. A possible explanation
for this nding is that both online and ofine communities can provide the benets of
sharing space and social support with other members of digital communities (Baym,
2010). Thus, being a member of digital communities seems to be sufcient, or the
primary way of socialising, for some digitally connected cosmopolitan migrants. This
might be explained by Licoppe’s (2004) statement that digital connectivity to both places
multiplies feelings of connectedness.
We also investigated other areas of integration, nding that economic integration
was not associated with migrants’ media use and that political integration (voting) was
associated with less contact with people from migrants’ countries of origin living in
Iceland. This could indicate a segregation strategy in terms of political involvement,
where migrants who are in more contact with other people from their country of origin
are less integrated in the receiving community, politically speaking. Our study has im-
plications for studies on migrant integration in the digital age because we identify ofine
and online integration as two distinct spheres of integration. Online integration in the
receiving society might be considered as an additional, distinct factor used to measure
social integration in receiving communities.
A few demographic factors were associated with migrants’ use of media from their
country of origin. Overall, we nd those factors were not relevant in explaining migrants’
connections abroad in comparison with other factors. We nd that those intending to stay
for a shorter time consume news and current affairs programmes from their countries of
origin less but have more contact with their countries of origin. This is in line with the
result that younger migrants used media from their country of origin more frequently,
indicating that migrants have fewer contacts through social and other media to their
countries of origin over time.
We identify differences in media use with regards to gender. Women are in more
frequent contact with their country of origin through social media but consume news
and current affairs programmes from their country of origin less frequently. This can be
explained by different preferences for media use or different types of migration, with men
being more likely to move for work and women for family reasons (Skaptadóttir, 2015).
Migrants from Western Europe, Nordic Countries, and North America are less likely
to be in contact with people from their countries of origin living in Iceland. This can
be explained by the size of the group of migrants from these regions, giving access to
a larger group of migrants from the same place of origin, and the availability of social
media groups and ethnic media targeting, for example, Polish migrants in Iceland.
Furthermore, migration from Central and Eastern Europe is often circular labour mi-
gration, rather than migration because of family reasons where a network in Iceland
already exists. Another possible explanation might be that discrimination experienced
32
Lara Hoffmann, Þorlákur Axel Jónsson, & Markus Meckl
by migrants who are not from Western Europe, Nordic Countries, or North America
(Lóftsdóttir, 2017; Lóftsdóttir et al., 2017) results in migrants being more inclined to
seek out the community and comfort provided by ethnic media and by people from the
same country of origin.
The results from this study conducted in Iceland is unique to some degree because
of Iceland’s remote location and high digitalisation, resulting in migrants having fewer
options for maintaining contact with people from their countries of origin (Krzyżowski,
2015). Furthermore, with migration being a relatively recent development in Iceland,
the number of second-generation migrants is relatively small, and the tradition of trans-
national migrant communities is not as anchored as in other European places with third
or fourth generations of migrants.
Basing our study on data collected amongst a large number of migrants in a des-
tination country allows us to demonstrate the factors that drive migrants’ media use
overall. We can thus supplement the number of smaller-scale, often qualitative studies
conducted amongst specic groups of migrants. However, limitations of our study need
to be acknowledged. We only focus on two types of media (social media and news and
current affairs programmes). Further research could differentiate between types of media
(e.g., different platforms, including print media). Furthermore, future research could
expand this topic by including use of media from other locations, which would reect
the realities of migrants who maintain transnational bonds in multiple places. Another
limitation is that the question about social media contact with migrants’ countries of
origin does not specify whether the people connected with are in the country of origin.
Future studies could differentiate between contact with people or groups located in
countries of origin and those located in other countries. Since we used convenience and
snowball sampling, we received a higher response rate amongst educated migrants who
were more willing to share their experiences. Studies targeting hard-to-reach members of
the population specically, for example, circular migrants (Dziekońska, 2021), might add
further insights into migrants’ relationship to the receiving society and their media use.
Conclusion
Information and communication technologies enable migrants to maintain bonds with
multiple localities. This is exemplied in our study, because half the participants use
social and other media from their countries of origin daily or almost daily. We distinguish
two distinct spheres of migrant integration through ofine and online spaces. Drawing
on Berry’s (1997) integration strategy, we conclude that highly connected migrants en-
gage in a form of digital biculturalism: They maintain active bonds with both receiving
and sending societies through media. They tend to be less integrated in terms of ofine
activities, such as inviting Icelanders to their home or being invited by Icelanders to
their homes, indicating that social and other media is the primary way of creating bonds
with the country of origin and receiving society for some migrants. Our study thus has
implications for studies on migrant integration, as our ndings indicate the importance
of distinguishing between integration in ofine and online communities to adequately
reect how migrants form communities and a sense of belonging in the digital age.
33
Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity
Acknowledgements
A sincere thank you to Stéphanie Barillé for her diligent proofreading of this manuscript
and thoughtful comments. We also thank those who discussed our manuscript with us
at various conferences, especially the participants of the study circle “Understanding
Migration” at the Nordic Summer University. This work was supported by Rannís, the
Icelandic Centre for Research (grant number 184903-051).
References
Alencar, A., & Deuze, M. (2017). News for assimilation or integration? Examining the functions of news in
shaping acculturation experiences of immigrants in the Netherlands and Spain. European Journal of
Communication, 32(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323117689993
Alghasi, S. (2009). Iranian-Norwegian media consumption: Identity and positioning. Nordicom Review, 30(1),
67–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0139
Amit, K. (2009). Determinants of life satisfaction among immigrants from western countries and from the
FSU in Israel. Social Indicators Research, 96, 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9490-1
Arcand S., Facal, J., & Armony, V. (2020). Understanding the integration process through the concept of
trust: A case study of Latin American professionals in Québec. Journal of International Migration and
Integration, 22(2), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-020-00765-2
Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Polity.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
Bierwiaczonek, K., & Kunst, J. R. (2021). Revisiting the integration hypothesis: Correlational and longitudinal
meta-analyses demonstrate the limited role of acculturation for cross-cultural adaptation. Psychological
Science, 32(9), 1476–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211006432
Diminescu, D. (2008). The connected migrant: An epistemological manifesto. Social Science Information,
47(4), 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018408096447
Diminescu, D. (2019). Researching the connected migrant. In K. Smets, K. Leurs, M. Georgiou, S. Wit-
teborn, & R. Gajjala (Eds.), The Sage handbook of media and migration (pp. 74–78). Sage.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526476982
Dziekońska, M. (2021). ‘This is a country to earn and return’: Polish migrants’ circular migration to Iceland.
Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 11(2), 142–155. https://doi.org/10.33134/njmr.414
EMC Rannsóknir [EMC Research]. (2019, August 31). Jákvæð viðhorf landsmanna til Facebook [Positive
attitude of Icelanders towards Facebook]. https://emcrannsoknir.is/nidurstodur
Europe Internet Stats. (2021). Internet stats and Facebook usage in Europe 2021 mid-year statistics.
https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm
Glick-Schiller, N. G., Basch, L., & Blanc-Szanton, C. (1992). Transnationalism: A new analytic frame-
work for understanding migration. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 645, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb33484
Guðmundsson, B. (2019). Logics of the Icelandic hybrid media system. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 43–59.
https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0001
Hofhuis, J., Hanke, K., & Rutten, T. (2019). Social network sites and acculturation of international sojourners
in the Netherlands: The mediating role of psychological alienation and online social support. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 69, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.02.002
Itzigsohn, J., & Saucedo, S. G. (2002). Immigrant incorporation and sociocultural transnationalism. Interna-
tional Migration Review, 36(3), 766–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2002.tb00104.x
Júlíusdóttir, M., Skaptadóttir, U. D., & Karlsdóttir, A. (2013). Gendered migration in turbulent times
in Iceland. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography, 67(5), 266–275.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2013.847483
Kernalegenn, T., & Van Haute, E. (2020). Introduction: Why study political parties abroad? Diasporas as new
arenas for party politics. In T. Kernalegenn, & É. van Haute (Eds.), Political parties abroad: A new arena
for party politics (pp. 1–18). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003015086
King-O’Rian, R. (2015). Emotional streaming and transconnectivity: Skype and emotion practices in transna-
tional families in Ireland. Global Networks, 15(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12072
Krzyżowski, Ł. (2015). Social remittances and modications of Polish intergenerational care cultures: Polish
migrants in Austria and Iceland and their elderly parents. Studia Socjologiczne, 217(2), 97–118.
Leurs, K., & Ponzanesi, S. (2018). Connected migrants: Encapsulation and cosmopolitanization. Popular
Communication, 16(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2017.1418359
34
Lara Hoffmann, Þorlákur Axel Jónsson, & Markus Meckl
Licoppe, C. (2004). ‘Connected’ presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relation-
ships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
22(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1068/d323t
Liu, Y., Zhang, F., Wu, F., Liu, Y., & Li, Z. (2017). The subjective wellbeing of migrants in Guang-
zhou, China: The impacts of the social and physical environment. Cities, 60 (A), 333–342.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.008
Loftsdóttir, K. (2017). Being “The damned foreigner”: Affective national sentiments and racialization of Lithua-
nians in Iceland. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 7(2), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/njmr-2017-0012
Loftsdóttir, K., Kjartansdóttir, K., & Lund, K. A. (2017). Trapped in clichés: Masculinity, lms and tourism in
Iceland. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(9), 1225–1242. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369x.2017.1372383
Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2011). Migration and new media: Transnational families and polymedia.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203154236
Marino, S. (2015). Making space, making place: Digital Togetherness and the redenition of migrant identities
online. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 205630511562247. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115622479
Miller, D. (2021). The anthropology of social media. In H. Geismar, & H. Knox (Eds.), Digital anthropol-
ogy (pp. 85–100). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003087885
Mitra, A., & Evansluong, Q. (2019). Narratives of integration: Liminality in migrant accultura-
tion through social media. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 474–480.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.011
Mittelstädt, A., & Odag, Ö. (2015). Social media use and social integration of ethnic minorities in Germany:
A new interdisciplinary framework. Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications, 2(1), 21–32.
https://doi.org/10.30958/ajmmc.2.1.2
MMR. (2018, June 29). Facebook trónir á toppnum [Facebook reigns supreme]. MMR market and media
research. https://mmr.is/frettir/birtar-nieurstoeeur/689/
Nedelcu, M., & Soysüren, I. (2020). Precarious migrants, migration regimes and digital tech-
nologies: The empowerment-control nexus. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2020.1796263
Ólafs, H., & Zielińska, M. (2010). I started to feel worse when I understood more: Polish immigrants and the
Icelandic media. Þjóðarspegillinn 2010, 76–85.
Østergaard-Nielsen, E., & Ciornei, I. (2018). Political parties and the transnational mobilisation of the emi-
grant vote. West European Politics, 42(3), 618–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1528105
Ragnarsdóttir, H. (2020). Refugee families in Iceland: opportunities and challenges in schools and so-
ciety. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 15(2), 1764294.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1764294
Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration,
and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.3
Rydin, I., & Sjöberg, M. (2008). Introduction: Establishing the context of the book. In I. Rydin, & M. Sjöberg
(Eds.), Mediated crossroads: Identity, youth culture and ethnicity (pp. 9–16). Nordicom, University of
Gothenburg. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:norden:org:diva-10028
Skaptadóttir, U. D. (2015). What happened to the migrant workers? In E. Durrenberger, & G. Palsson (Eds.),
Gambling debt: Iceland’s rise and fall in the global economy (pp. 175–186). University Press of Colorado.
Skaptadóttir, U. D. (2019). Transnational practices and migrant capital: The case of Filipino women in Iceland.
Social Inclusion, 7(4), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v7i4.2320
Smets, K., Leurs, K., Georgiou, M., Witteborn, S., & Gajjala, R. (2019). Editorial introduction – Media and mi-
gration: Research encounters. In K. Smets, K. Leurs, M. Georgiou, S. Witteborn, & R. Gajjala (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of media and migration (pp. xlv–xii). Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526476982
Statistics Iceland. (2018, August 24). Total income the same as in 2007. https://statice.is/publications/news-
archive/wages-and-income/tekjur-2017-skattframtol/
Statistics Iceland. (2020, September 16). Immigrants and persons with foreign background 2020. https://www.
statice.is/publications/news-archive/inhabitants/immigrants-and-persons-with-foreign-background-2020
Vidal, X. M. (2018). Latino immigrant home-country media use and participation in U.S. politics. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 40(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986317751899
Yin, H. (2013). Chinese-language cyberspace, homeland media and ethnic media: A contested space for being
Chinese. New Media & Society, 17(4), 556–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813505363
35
Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity
Appendix
Table A1 Binomial logistic regression (enter) of social media contact with people from
country of origin
Variable Category B (SE) OR 95% CI
Gender: Female* – .33 (.13) 1.38 1.08–1.78
Age (reference: 41–66 years) 18–25 years .00 (.21) 1.00 .66–1.52
26–40 years -.21 (.14) .81 .61–1.07
World region of origin (reference: Western
Europe, Nordic Countries, or North America)
Central or Eastern Europe -.05 (.15) .95 .71–1.27
Other .17 (.21) 1.18 .79–1.77
Length of residence in Iceland (reference:
11–20 years)
< 1 year** .83 (.25) 2.30 1.42–3.77
1–2 years .44 (.20) 1.55 1.05–2.30
3–5 years .30 (.19) 1.35 .94–1.95
6–10 years .04 (.18) 1.05 .74–1.47
20+ years -.32 (.31) .73 .39–1.34
Intended length of residence (reference:
20+ years)
< 1 year .24 (.26) 1.27 .76–2.14
1–2 years .29 (.21) 1.33 .88–2.01
3–5 years .10 (.17) 1.10 .79–1.54
6–10 years .20 (.19) 1.22 .84–1.77
11–20 years -.09 (.20) .91 .62–1.35
Education (reference: University degree)
Primary school -.67 (.32) .51 .28–.96
Vocational training .24 (.19) 1.27 .87–1.85
Matriculation exam -.12 (.14) .87 .68–1.16
Other exam .22 (.28) 1.24 .72–2.14
Income (reference: ISK 200,000–399,000)
< ISK 200,000 -.22 (.20) .80 .54–1.20
ISK 400,000–599,000 -.04 (.13) .96 .74–1.24
ISK 600,000–899,000 -.23 (.20) .79 .54–1.17
ISK 900,000–1,199,000 .28 (.51) 1.32 .49–3.55
ISK 1,200,000+ -.98 (.74) .38 .09–1.60
Vote in municipal elections (refe-
rence: voted) – -.05 (.17) .95 .68–1.32
Participation in clubs and activities
(reference: participating)** – -.38 (.13) .69 .53–.89
Social contact with Icelanders*** – -.14 (.03) .87 .82–.93
Social contact with Icelanders on
social media (reference: almost
daily)***
– 1.64 (.13) 5.18 4.01–6.69
Use of Icelandic media (reference:
almost daily) – .09 (.13) 1.09 .85–1.41
Experiences of discrimination – .02 (.01) 1.00 .98–1.03
Trust in institutions in Iceland – .03 (.01) 1.00 .98–1.03
Opinion on discussion on migrants (refe-
rence: too negative)
Too positive -.28 (.39) .75 .35–1.61
Somehow too positive -.25 (.33) .78 .40–1.49
Neither nor -.28 (.31) .75 .41–1.39
Somehow negative -.33 (.32) .93 .39–1.20
Satisfaction with life in municipality
(reference: satisfied) – -.07 (.13) .93 .72–1.20
Intercept – -.06 (.48) .95
Model χ ² (df)*** – 259.5 (36)
R² (Nagelkerke) – .20
R² (Cox and Snell) – .15
Comments: Reference category: using social media to connect to country of origin daily or almost daily. B = unstandardised regression coeicient; SE =
standard error; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval for OR.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
36
Lara Hoffmann, Þorlákur Axel Jónsson, & Markus Meckl
Table A2 Binomial logistic regression (enter) of social media contact with people from
country of origin living in Iceland
Variable Category B (SE) OR 95% CI
Gender (reference: female) – .17 (.14) 1.18 .90–1.56
Age (reference: 41–66 years) 18–25 years .15 (.23) 1.16 .74–1.80
26–40 years -.07 (.15) .93 .69–1.26
World region of origin (reference:
Western Europe, Nordic Countries,
or North America) Central or Eastern Europe*** .95 (.17) 2.59 .71–2.97
Other** .62 (.24) 1.87 1.85–3.63
Length of residence in Iceland
(reference: 11–20 years) < 1 year -.64 (.27) .53 0.31–.89
1–2 years*** -.82 (.22) .44 .29–.68
3–5 years** -.57 (.20) .57 .38–.84
6–10 years -.37 (.18) .69 .48–1.00
20+ years -.30 (.35) .74 .38–1.47
Intended length of residence
(reference: 20+ years) < 1 year -.22 (.29) .81 .45–1.43
1–2 years -.31 (.24) .74 .46–1.75
3–5 years .27 (.19) 1.31 .91–1.89
6–10 years -.16 (.21) .85 .56–1.30
11–20 years -.17 (.21) 1.18 .78–1.79
Education (reference: University
degree) Primary school .06 (.33) 1.06 .56–2.03
Vocational training** .63 (.20) 1.88 1.26–2.80
Matriculation exam .14 (.15) 1.15 .86–1.53
Other exam -.25 (.33) 0.78 .41–1.49
Income (reference: ISK 200,000–
399,000) < ISK 200,000 -.46 (.20) 0.63 .40–.97
ISK 400,000–599,000 -.24 (.14) 0.79 .60–1.05
ISK 600,000–899,000 -.19 (.21) 0.83 .55–1.26
ISK 900,000–1,199,000 .54 (.51) 1.71 .63–4.62
ISK 1,200,000+ -20.41 (.74) .00 .00
Vote in municipal elections (refe-
rence: voted)* – -.39 (.18) .68 .47–.97
Participation in clubs and activi-
ties (reference: participating) – -.15 (.14) .86 .65–1.15
Social contact with Icelanders*** – -.17 (.04) .85 .79–.90
Social contact with Icelanders on
social media (reference: almost
daily)***
– 2.06 (.14) 7.83 5.93–10.3
Use of Icelandic media (refe-
rence: almost daily) – -.08 (.14) .92 .69–1.21
Experiences of discrimination – -.01 (.02) .99 .96–1.02
Trust in institutions in Iceland – -.01 (.02) .99 .96–1.02
Opinion on discussion on migrants
(reference: too negative) Too positive .20 (.42) 1.22 0.53–2.78
Somehow too positive -.09 (.37) .92 0.45–1.90
Neither nor -.06 (.35) .95 0.48–1.87
Somehow negative -.09 (.35) .91 0.46–1.81
Satisfaction with life in municipa-
lity (reference: satisfied) – -.04 (.14) .96 0.72–1.27
Intercept – -.87 (.53) .42
Model χ² (df)*** – 331.7 (36)
R² (Nagelkerke) – .26
R² (Cox and Snell) – .19
Comments: Reference category: using social media to connect with people from country of origin living in Iceland daily or almost daily. B = unstandar-
dised regression coeicient; SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval for OR.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
37
Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity
Table A3 Binomial logistic regression (enter) of use of media from country of origin
Variable Category B (SE) OR 95% CI
Gender: female** – -.29 (.13) .75 .58–.95
Age (reference: 41–66 years) 18–25 years*** -1.01 (.21) .37 .24–.55
26–40 years*** -.62 (.14) .54 .41–.71
World region of origin (reference: Western
Europe, Nordic Countries, or North
America)
Central or Eastern
Europe -.12 (.15) .89 .67–1.18
Other -.35 (.21) .71 .47–1.06
Length of residence in Iceland (reference:
11–20 years)
< 1 year** -.81 (.25) .45 .27–.73
1–2 years*** -.96 (.20) .39 .26–.57
3–5 years** -.63 (.19) .53 .37–.77
6–10 years** -.53 (.17) .59 .42–.83
20+ years** -.87 (.31) .42 .23–.76
Intended length of residence (reference:
20+ years)
< 1 year .51 (.26) 1.67 1.01–2.76
1–2 years .38 (.21) 1.47 .98–2.20
3–5 years** .58 (.17) 1.79 1.28–2.50
6–10 years** .52 (.19) 1.68 1.15–2.44
11–20 years .20 (.20) 1.22 .83–1.80
Education (reference: University degree) Primary school -.10 (.30) .90 .50–1.63
Vocational training -.04 (.19) .96 .66–1.40
Matriculation exam -.10 (.14) .90 .69–1.18
Other exam -.50 (.28) .61 .35–1.05
Income (reference: ISK 200,000–399,000) < ISK 200,000 .02 (.20) 1.02 .69–1.52
ISK 400,000–599,000 .05 (.13) 1.05 .82–1.36
ISK 600,000–899,000 -.06 (.19) .94 .64–1.37
ISK 900,000–1,199,000 .16 (.47) 1.18 .47–2.97
ISK 1,200,000+ -.21 (.69) .81 .21–3.11
Vote in municipal elections (refe-
rence: voted) – -.32 (.17) .73 .53–1.01
Participation in clubs and activi-
ties (reference: participating)*** – -.47 (.13) .63 .49–.81
Social contact with Icelanders*** – -.12 (.03) .89 .83–.94
Social contact with Icelanders on
social media (reference: almost
daily)
– .10 (.12) 1.02 .87–1.4
Use of Icelandic media (refe-
rence: almost daily)*** – 1.11 (.13) 3.03 2.34–3.93
Experiences of discrimination – .02 (.01) 1.02 .99–1.05
Trust in institutions in Iceland – -.02 (.01) .98 .95–1.01
Opinion on discussion on migrants
(reference: too negative)
Too positive -.15 (.38) 0.86 .41–1.81
Somehow too positive .18 (.33) 1.19 .63–2.26
Neither nor -.14 (.31) .87 .48–1.60
Somehow negative -.25 (.31) .78 .43–1.44
Satisfaction with life in municipa-
lity (reference: satisfied) – -.01 (.13) .99 .77–1.28
Intercept*** – 1.71 (.48) 5.53
Model χ² (df)*** – 223.6 (36)
R² (Nagelkerke) – .17
R² (Cox and Snell) – .13
Comments: Reference category: using media from country of origin daily or almost daily. B = unstandardised regression coeicient; SE = standard error;
OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval for OR.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
© 2022 Respective authors. This is an Open Access work licensed under the terms of the Crea-
tive Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public licence (CC
BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/
