Immigration from the Migrants’ Perspective

Immigration from the Migrants’ Perspective Social Inclusion Immigration from the Migrants’ Perspective Editors Alice Ramos, Eldad Davidov, Peter Schmidt, Marta Vilar Rosales and Dina Maskileyson Open Access Journal | ISSN: 2183-2803 Volume 7, Issue 4 (2019) Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4 Immigration from the Migrants’ Perspective Published by Cogitatio Press Rua Fialho de Almeida 14, 2º Esq., 1070-129 Lisbon Portugal Academic Editors Alice Ramos (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal) Eldad Davidov (University of Cologne, Germany/University of Zurich, Switzerland) Peter Schmidt (University of Giessen, Germany) Marta Vilar Rosales (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal) Dina Maskileyson (University of Cologne, Germany) Available online at: www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion This issue is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Articles may be reproduced provided that credit is given to the original and Social Inclusion is acknowledged as the original venue of publication. Immigration from the Immigrants’ Perspective: Analyzing Survey Data Collected among Immigrants and Host Society Members Alice Ramos, Eldad Davidov, Peter Schmidt, Marta Vilar Rosales and Dina Maskileyson 253–256 Political Interest among European Youth with and without an Immigrant Background Oshrat Hochman and Gema García-Albacete 257–278 The Influence of a Migration Background on Attitudes Towards Immigration Charlotte Clara Becker 279–292 Feeling Blue by Extension: Intrafamily Transmission and Economic Pressures Explain the Native-Immigrant Gap in Well-Being among Youth in Switzerland Oriane Sarrasin, Eva G. T. Green, Gina Potarca, Claudio Bolzman and Ursina Kuhn 293–303 In Search of the Healthy Immigrant Effect in Four West European Countries Dina Maskileyson, Moshe Semyonov and Eldad Davidov 304–319 Contacts between Natives and Migrants in Germany: Perceptions of the Native Population since 1980 and an Examination of the Contact Hypotheses Bryan Bohrer, Maria-Therese Friehs, Peter Schmidt and Stefan Weick 320–331 Nostalgic, Converted, or Cosmopolitan: Typology of Young Spanish Migrants Rubén Rodríguez-Puertas and Alexandra Ainz 332–342 Table of Contents Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 253–256 DOI: 10.17645/si.v7i4.2695 Editorial Immigration from the Immigrants’ Perspective: Analyzing Survey Data Collected among Immigrants and Host Society Members Alice Ramos 1,*, Eldad Davidov 2, 3, Peter Schmidt 4, Marta Vilar Rosales 1and Dina Maskileyson 2 1Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, 1600-189 Lisbon, Portugal; E-Mails: alice.r[email protected] (A.R.), marta.r[email protected] (M.V.R.) 2Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany; E-Mails: [email protected] (E.D.), [email protected] (D.M.) 3University Research Priority Program “Social Networks,” University of Zurich, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland 4Department of Political Science, University of Giessen, 35390 Giessen, Germany; E-Mail: peter[email protected] * Corresponding author Submitted: 8 December 2019 | Published: 27 December 2019 Abstract Immigration has been one of the most crucial global phenomena, changing the fabric of many societies, and a topic of substantial research. Much of this research has focused on how the host society views immigrants and immigration, or on the societal factors influencing the latter. The goal of this thematic issue is to present different studies focusing on various aspects of immigration from a perspective that has not been often viewed under the magnifying glass so far, but which is of major importance: looking at immigration from the immigrants’ point of view. Keywords adaptation; attitudes toward immigration; community; immigrants’ reception; integration; migrants’ perspective; perceived health; well-being Issue This editorial is part of the issue “Immigration from the Migrants’ Perspective” edited by Alice Ramos (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal), Eldad Davidov (University of Cologne, Germany/University of Zurich, Switzerland), Peter Schmidt (University of Giessen, Germany), Marta Vilar Rosales (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal) and Dina Maskileyson (University of Cologne, Germany). © 2019 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Immigration has been one of the most crucial global phenomena changing the fabric of many societies, and a topic of substantial research. Much of this research has focused on how the host society views immigrants and immigration or on the societal factors influencing immigration. The goal of this thematic issue is to present different studies focusing on various aspects of immigration from a perspective that has not been often viewed under the magnifying glass so far, but which is of major importance: looking at immigration from the immigrants’ point of view. Natives’ attitudes toward immigration have been thoroughly analyzed in the literature using survey data. A multitude of articles contributing to the study of citizens’ attitudes and opinions about immigrants and immigration policies, including their determinants and consequents, have been published based on survey data, for example, from the European Social Survey (Heath et al., 2019) or other international large-scale surveys. Indeed, opposition of members of the host society to immigration, their perceptions of threat due to immigrants and immigration, or preferences regarding immigration and integration policies, are just some of the topics that have been addressed from the perspective of the host society members (Ceobanu & Escandell, 2010; Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014). However, and in spite of the considerSocial Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 253–256 253 able number of qualitative, ethnography-based research projects focusing on the point of view of immigrants, we lack extensive survey-based work on immigrants’ experience of immigration and their opinions or attitudes about immigration. Indeed, little is known about immigrants’ own experience of immigration, about how immigrant populations and communities evaluate the arrival of other immigrants into the country, their political interests, their health or well-being, or their contact with natives. In reality, immigrants may possess multiple identities: On the one hand, they are conceived of as immigrants from the point of view of natives; on the other hand, they are in the process of integrating into the host society themselves, they may experience difficulties associated with immigration, and may in turn be threatened by new immigrants. This thematic issue includes studies that analyze, in a theory-driven way and using survey data, such various aspects of immigrants’ experience in the host society, like political interest and participation (Hochman & García-Albacete, 2019), attitudes toward other immigrants (Becker, 2019), wellbeing (Sarrasin, Green, Potarca, Bolzman, & Kuhn, 2019), perceived health (Maskileyson, Semyonov, & Davidov, 2019), contact with natives (Bohrer, Friehs, Schmidt, & Weick, 2019), or adaptation and integration into the host society (Rodríguez-Puertas & Ainz, 2019). These questions are focused on in these studies from a comparative or longitudinal perspective. The first article, by Hochman and García-Albacete (2019), studies whether—and to what extent—youth with and without an immigration background engage with politics by looking at differences in political interest among immigrants, their offspring, and natives. Indeed, political interest is considered an important aspect of immigrants’ integration into the host society. The authors focus on four European countries, England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, using data from the CILS4EU project (N =11,747 respondents). Relying on social identity theory, they expect a link with national identification and political interest. Their findings show that respondents with an immigration background who also have a strong national identification with their host country are more likely to report political interest than natives. By way of contrast, respondents with an immigration background, who have a low national identification, are less likely to report political interest than natives. While national identification was of little importance for political interest of young people in Sweden, it was significant in Germany. Becker (2019) investigates whether there are any differences in attitudes toward immigration between immigrants and natives. The author used pooled data from the 2008–2016 rounds of the American General Social Survey. The subsample included 7,362 respondents, 2,811 of whom had a migration background of the first, second, or third generation. Relying on social distance and contact theory, the study demonstrated that first-generation immigrants had, as expected, more favorable attitudes toward immigration compared to those without a migration background. However, the attitudes of secondand third-generation immigrants did not differ significantly from those of natives. Sarrasin et al. (2019) combine two explanations for the native–immigrant gap in well-being. The first suggests that low parental well-being is transmitted to their offspring, thus deteriorating offspring’s well-being. The second suggests that immigrants suffer from a higher economic pressure which is in turn transmitted to their offspring and lowers offspring’s well-being. The study employs data from the Swiss Household Panel (N =1,354) to examine the extent to which immigrant background and economic pressures relate to well-being of adolescents and young adults through the negative affect experienced by their mothers and fathers. The findings demonstrated that young people with foreign roots were more likely to live in a household that experienced economic pressures, which, in turn, was related to impaired parental well-being which was then in turn related to an impaired own well-being. An immigration background, economic pressures, and parental wellbeing were all related to young people’s negative affect. Maskileyson et al. (2019) examine whether the “healthy immigrant effect” thesis observed in the American context prevails also in the West European context. According to the healthy immigrant effect, immigrants are expected to be healthier than the native population. This effect has been observed repeatedly in immigration countries like the USA, Canada, or Australia. Four countries were analyzed—Austria, France, Germany, and the Netherlands—using the Gender and Generations Survey (Austria N =3,892, France N =8,731, Germany N=8,052, and the Netherlands N =7,219). Unlike previous findings, in these European countries, immigrants reported worse health than natives, thus, not lending support to the effect. The study tries to suggest several explanations for the findings in the specific West European context. Bohrer et al. (2019) explore whether, and to what extent, contact between native East and West Germans and foreigners has changed in the last four decades, employing ALLBUS data collected between 1980 and 2016. The authors evidence a large increase in contact over these 36 years. Furthermore, the study also employs four waves of the GESIS access panel data collected between 2015 and 2016 in Germany to test the contact theory and examine whether and to what extent positive contact with immigrants is linked with more positive attitudes toward immigrants (or vice versa) among German respondents. Although there was some evidence for such a link in the data, the effects were much smaller than in other previous cross-sectional studies, and they were also mixed, depending on the method of analysis used. Finally, Rodríguez-Puertas and Ainz (2019) conduct indepth interviews with young Spanish migrants and analyze data obtained from these interviews and from discussion groups to understand the migration process and Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 253–256 254 sociocultural integration of those migrants in their host countries. They describe and explain changes in their perceptions of both their home and host societies. We hope that the thematic issue and the studies included in it further contribute to a better understanding of immigrants’ experience in contemporary societies. Acknowledgments All academic editors would like to thank the editorial team of Social Inclusion for their support during work on this thematic issue. The academic editors would also like to thank Lisa Trierweiler for the English proof of this editorial. The work of Eldad Davidov was supported by the University of Zurich Research Priority Program “Social Networks.” Conflict of Interests The authors declare no conflict of interests. References Becker, C. C. (2019). The influence of a migration background on attitudes towards immigration. Social Inclusion,7(4), 279–292. Bohrer, B., Friehs, M.-T., Schmidt, P., & Weick, S. (2019). Contacts between natives and migrants in Germany: Perceptions of the native population since 1980 and an examination of the contact hypotheses. Social Inclusion,7(4), 320–331. Ceobanu, A. M., & Escandell, X. (2010). Comparative analyses of public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration using multinational survey data: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology,36, 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.soc.012809.102651 Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science,17, 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-polisci-102512-194818 Heath, A., Davidov, E., Ford, R., Green, E. G. T., Ramos, A., & Schmidt, P. (2019). Contested terrain: Explaining divergent patterns of public opinion towards immigration within Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Advanced online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1550145 Hochman, O., & García-Albacete, G. (2019). Political interest among European youth with and without an immigrant background. Social Inclusion,7(4), 257–278. Maskileyson, D., Semyonov, M., & Davidov, E. (2019). In search of the healthy immigrant effect in four west European countries. Social Inclusion,7(4), 304–319. Rodríguez-Puertas, R., & Ainz, A. (2019). Nostalgic, converted, or cosmopolitan: Typology of young Spanish migrants. Social Inclusion,7(4), 332–342. Sarrasin, O., Green, E. G. T., Potarca, G., Bolzman, C., & Kuhn, U. (2019). Feeling blue by extension: Intrafamily transmission and economic pressures explain the native-immigrant gap in well-being among youth in Switzerland. Social Inclusion,7(4), 293–303. About the Authors Alice Ramos, PhD in Sociology by the University of Lisbon, is a Researcher at the Institute of Social Sciences (ICS), University of Lisbon. Her academic core interests follow two main lines of research: one aiming to analyze the impact of the articulation between individual factors (values and attitudes) and social contexts in the development of discriminatory attitudes; another, focused on the methodology of comparative and longitudinal studies and on advanced methods of data analysis. She is currently the Portuguese national coordinator of the European Social Survey and the European Values Study. Eldad Davidov is Professor at the Institute for Sociology and Social Psychology at the University of Cologne, Germany, and the Department of Sociology at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, and codirector of the University of Zurich Research Priority Program “Social Networks.” He was president of the European Survey Research Association (ESRA) between 2015 and 2017. His research interests are applications of structural equation modeling to survey data, especially in cross-cultural and longitudinal research. Applications include human values, national identity, and attitudes toward immigrants and other minorities. Peter Schmidt is Professor Emeritus of Social Research Methods and Political Science at the University of Giessen, at the department of political science, Germany. His research interests are the foundations and applications of structural equation models, analysis of panel data, and empirical testing of rational choice theory. Applications include national identity, immigration, and environmental behavior. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 253–256 255 Marta Vilar Rosales, PhD in Anthropology, is a Researcher at Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon. Her main field of research is contemporary migration movements in and out of Portugal and their intersections with the movements of things. She has done ethnographic research in Mozambique, Brazil, Canada and the USA, and is currently engaged in a large research project which involves the transits of people and stuff between four major cities: Lisboa, Sidney, Berlin and Luanda. She is a member of IMISCOE—A European Network of Excellence on Migration Studies. Dina Maskileyson is Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology at the University of Cologne. Her research interests lie in the areas of immigration, health, and labor market and wealth inequality. Her recent publications focus on immigrants’ labor market integration as well as health trajectories of immigrants after the arrival to the host country. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 253–256 256 Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 DOI: 10.17645/si.v7i4.2312 Article Political Interest among European Youth with and without an Immigrant Background Oshrat Hochman 1,* and Gema García-Albacete 2 1GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, 68159 Mannheim, Germany; E-Mail: [email protected] 2Department of Social Sciences, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28903 Madrid, Spain; E-Mail: gemgar[email protected] * Corresponding author Submitted: 28 June 2019 | Accepted: 19 November 2019 | Published: 27 December 2019 Abstract Our article investigates political engagement among youth with and without an immigration background. Tapping to current debates on intergenerational assimilation processes in Europe, we look at differences in levels of political interest between immigrants, children of immigrants and natives. In particular, we argue that such differences are a function of respondents’ identification with the receiving society. We predict that among respondents with an immigrant background higher levels of national identification will be positively correlated with political interest. Among natives, political interest will not depend on levels of national identification. These expectations reflect the ideas of the social identity perspective according to which group identification increases adherence to group norms and adherence to norms is stronger among individuals who suffer from identity uncertainty. We test our model in four European countries: England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, using data from the CILS4EU project. Our findings indicate that interest in the politics of the survey country differs between respondents with and without an immigrant background. Respondents with an immigrant background who also have a strong national identification are more likely to report a political interest than natives. Respondents with an immigrant background who have a low national identification, are less likely to report a political interest than natives. The findings also reveal that political discussions at home and associationism positively predict political interest whereas girls show significantly lower odds to be politically interested. Keywords assimilation; CILS4EU project; immigrant background; national identification; political interest; youth Issue This article is part of the issue “Immigration from the Migrants’ Perspective” edited by Alice Ramos (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal), Eldad Davidov (University of Cologne, Germany/University of Zurich, Switzerland), Peter Schmidt (University of Giessen, Germany), Marta Vilar Rosales (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal) and Dina Maskileyson (University of Cologne, Germany). © 2019 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction Political interest indicates “the degree to which politics arouses a citizen’s curiosity” (van Deth, 1990, p. 278). It is often understood as one of the main determinants of political participation (Milbrath, 1965, p. 40; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995, p. 334), also for young people (García-Albacete, 2014), and as a prerequisite for an active and democratic citizenry (i.e., van Deth & Elff, 2004, p. 478). Whether young people develop political interest or not is particularly critical for their future as active (or inactive) citizens. Political interest has been found to develop during young adulthood, particularly during the so-called “formative years” (Kinder & Sears, 1985; Verba et al., 1995) and to be remarkably stable over the lifespan (Neundorf, Smets, & García-Albacete, 2013). For that reason, adolescence and young adulthood are key periods to study political interest. Corroborating the relevance of this period, previous research indicates that individuals who develop Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 257 a taste for politics in adolescence will be more politically engaged in adulthood (Greco Morasso, 2012; Prior, 2010). Active political engagement, at the same time, can be understood as an important civic norm in democracy and a central quality of citizens’ ideal of “good citizen” (van Deth, 2009). Despite its relevance as an indication of social integration and a future active citizenry, the development of interest in politics among young people with an immigrant background has rarely been examined. One exception in this regard is the PIDOP project, in which Kim and Amnâ (2015) for example, compared Iraqi and Kurdish immigrants and natives in Sweden. Using a small and non-random sample (N =538) of young adults aged 16 to 26 years, the authors find no differences between the two immigrant groups and the natives (Kim & Amnâ, 2015, p. 257). Fernandes-Jesus, Malafaia, Ribeiro, and Menezes (2015) compared Portuguese natives and Brazilian and Angolan immigrants in Portugal. With a slightly larger yet non-random sample, they report that Portuguese youth shows a significantly higher interest in politics compared with the two migrant groups. In the current study, we too focus on political interest. Complementing existing work, we investigate the emergence of interest in the politics of the “receiving” country in particular and estimate differences between natives and immigrants as well as differences between natives and children of immigrants, thus exploring political assimilation trends. Following Alba and Nee (1997) we define assimilation as “the decline and at its endpoint the disappearance, of an ethnic/racial distinction and the cultural and social differences that express it” (Alba & Nee, 1997, p. 863). In addition, we test whether differences in political interest are moderated by levels of national identification. In our investigation, we also control for respondents’ friendship and language preferences as well as additional factors associated with immigrants’ assimilation. Following political behavior theories, we further include several predictors of political interest in the analysis. Parental transmission, that is, the frequency of political talk within the family while an individual was a child, has been repeatedly found to be among the most important predictors of political interest (Neundorf et al., 2013; Prior, 2010; Terriquez & Kwon, 2015). Parents influence their children’s political engagement both through their social status, and their interest, engagement and participation style (Jennings, Stoker, & Bowers, 2009). Jennings et al. (2009) further show that growing up in a politicized family, in which politics is often discussed, is also a good predictor of an early development of political interest as well as other political orientations. Not only the parents but also peers, the school, and other institutions contribute to the political engagement of youth (Quintelier, 2015). The contribution of peers to political engagement is particularly large among young people who have not developed a political interest at home (García-Albacete, 2013; Neundorf, Niemi, & Smets, 2016). The relationship between national identification and political interest has thus far gained surprisingly limited attention from immigration research (Hindriks, Verkuyten, & Coenders, 2017). One reason for this lacuna is surely the fact that the causal relations between the two concepts are difficult to disentangle. In this article, we do not attempt to solve this debate. Relying on the Social Identity Theory (SIT), we maintain instead that identification shapes political interest and not the other way around. Specifically, we contend that national identification shapes the probabilities of immigrants and children of immigrants to express interest in politics and moderates the effect of having an immigrant background on political interest. Analytically, we are however unable to exclude the possibility of reversed causality. Our study makes the following contributions: (1) we investigate differences between natives and immigrants, as well as between natives and children of immigrants, utilizing data from four different European countries. Pooling these countries together we have sufficient data to estimate logistic regression models for this purpose, with a wide set of control variables; (2) to avoid mixing interest in the politics of the receiving society with interest in the politics of a respective country of origin, we focus specifically on the former; (3) referring to the SIT we propose a mechanism that may clarify the emergence of differences in political interest between natives, immigrants and children of immigrants. Specifically, we test for a moderation of national identification in the relations between immigrant status and political interest. 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1. Political Engagement: An Intergenerational Assimilation Process? Since very early on, researchers maintained that assimilation is an intergenerational process (e.g., Gans, 1979; Liberson, 1973). However, while some scholars maintain that assimilation increases over generations (Alba & Nee, 1997; Gans, 1992), others are of the opinion that this is not necessarily the case (e.g., Zhou, 1997). Indeed, proponents of the segmented assimilation theory in North America showed that children of immigrants are unable to narrow the structural gap with peers who are not children of immigrants. They also report that in some immigrant groups, the offspring often hold on to their cultural heritage and ethnic identification (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Studies on assimilation in Europe to the most part failed to indicate a process of segmented assimilation and seem to support the idea that assimilation intensifies over generations (see, e.g., Diehl & Schnell, 2006; Hochman, 2010; Kalter, 2018). In line with the classic assimilation theory, previous studies report that among immigrants, the longer they stay in the receiving society, the stronger is their political engagement (Bass & Casper, 2001; Messina, 2006; Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 258 Within this context, we focus our attention on the issue of political interest, a key determinant of political assimilation, which until now remained understudied. We investigate political interest among youth in four European immigrant-receiving countries. Our focus on youth allows us to learn about the emergence of political interest, which according to the literature develops in adolescence. In particular, we look into the relations between political interest and national identification, another personality element that develops during this stage in the life-course, among individuals with and without an immigrant background. We first investigated whether interest in the politics of the receiving society differs between natives, children of immigrants and immigrants. Second, we tested whether such differences can be explained by differential levels of national identification. The assumption here was that due to their identity uncertainty, IIBs will show higher political interest as their national identification becomes stronger. As mentioned elsewhere in the article, we did not attempt to solve the causal debate regarding the relations between national identification and political interest. Instead, we used data from the second wave of the CILS4EU to investigate the relations between assimilation and interest in the politics of the survey country, assuming that national identification is an important predictor of it. Interest in the politics of the receiving country was only measured twice in the CILS4EU project crossnationally, limiting our possibilities to measure its longterm relationship with national identification. An obvious extension of this project is thus to use the longitudinal version of the CILS4EU in Germany, where the question was included in further waves. Furthermore, a question could be raised as to the potential of class or schoollevel information that is available in the CILS4EU data, of which we made no use. Regarding the sample, it is important to note that the data covers a highly selective set of countries in Europe which warns caution regarding generalizing the conclusions to other countries. Future research should thus try to include more countries and consider macro-level mechanisms to account for differences between them. Notwithstanding its limitations, the current study is a first and necessary step that provides important insights into immigrants’ political assimilation. The findings presented above indicate first that national identification, defined as a sense of attachment to the in-group, is an important mechanism that positively contributes to political interest among youth in Europe. Given that democracies require, by definition, citizens’ political participation, and that political interest is a prerequisite of such participation, our findings indicate that European democracies would be smart in exploring potential ways to increase national identification among young persons. After all, whether they develop political interest–or not—at an early age will determine their future participatory behavior and among others their electoral turn-out. Second, our findings show that the relevance of national identification for political interest differs between natives and IIBs. Two issues arise from this result: first, considering the importance of developing national identification among young people, this finding speaks for the fact that nations compete with a long list of other social groups with which youth, and particularly native youth identifies. Thus, the task of increasing this identification among them should not be underestimated. Second, considering the stronger association between national identification and political interest among immigrants, we believe this finding supports previous indications for the assimilation of immigrants in European societies. Moreover, it shows how the attachment of immigrants to the receiving society increases their chances to be interested in its politics. This finding thus indicates that national identification of immigrants holds an important key for sustaining democracy in more than one way. By increasing national identification among immigrants, and to some extent also children of immigrants, receiving societies in Europe may foster their political participation and increase democratization in their highly diversified societies. Moreover, by providing immigrants the opportunity to raise their voice in politics, democracies can become more equalitarian. Hochman (2011) finds in this context that party identification increases the odds of IIBs in Germany to report intentions of naturalization. Finally, the country-differences we observe in our data remain to be explained. Although this is a goal that goes beyond the scope of this article, our first interpretation refers to the important role of the prestige of political interest as a norm of citizenship in each country on the one hand, and the openness of the political system to immigrants in terms of assimilation on the other. While national identification matters little for the political interest of young people in Sweden, it matters significantly in Germany. In addition, in Germany political interest is relatively high. The combination of both factors could explain why in Germany those immigrants or children of immigrants that are politically interested are the ones motivated due to their positive identification with the country and their willingness to assimilate. This is a speculation that requires further analysis and provides a future venue for research. Acknowledgments We thank the three anonymous reviewers as well as members of the GESIS Political Science Roundtable (2018) for their useful and constructive comments. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grant CSO2016-75090-R, and by the GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. Conflict of Interests The authors declare no conflict of interests. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 265 References Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. The International Migration Review,31(4), 826–874. Bass, L. E., & Casper, L. M. (2001). Impacting the political landscape: Who registers and votes among naturalized Americans? Political Behavior,23(2), 103–130. Bevelander, P., & Pendakur, R. (2011). Voting and social inclusion in Sweden. International Migration,49(4), 67–92. Buis, M. L. (2010). Stata tip 87: Interpretation of interactions in nonlinear models. Stata Journal,10(2), 305–308. Diehl, C., & Schnell, R. (2006). “Reactive ethnicity” or “Assimilation”? Statements, arguments, and first empirical evidence for labor migrants in Germany. International Migration Review,40(4), 786–816. Dollmann, J., Jacob, K., & Kalter, F. (2014). Examining the diversity of youth in Europe. A classification of generations and ethnic origins using CILS4EU data (Technical Report). Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung. European Social Survey. (2014). ESS7—2014 Data. File edition 2.2. European Social Survey.https://doi.org/ 10.21338/NSD-ESS7-2014 Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton & Company. Fernandes-Jesus, M., Malafaia, C., Ribeiro, N., & Menezes, I. (2015). Participation among youth, women and migrants: Findings from Portugal. In M. Barret & B. Zani (Eds.), Political and civic engagement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 311–333). Surrey: Routledge. Ferrín, M., Fraile, M., García-Albacete, G. M. & Gómez, R. (2019). The gender gap in political interest revisited. International Political Science Review. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0192512119860260 Gans, H. J. (1979). Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic and racial studies,2(1), 1–20. Gans, H. J. (1992). Second-generation decline: Scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post-1965 American immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies,15(2), 173–192. García-Albacete, G. M. (2013). Promoting political interest in schools: The role of civic education. In S. Abendschön (Ed.), Growing into politics: Contexts and timing of political socialisation (pp. 91–113). Oxon: ECPR Press. García-Albacete, G. M. (2014). Young people’s political participation in Western Europe: Continuity or generational change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology,78(6), 1360–1380. Greco Morasso, S. (2012). Learning as a precondition of immigrants’ interest and engagement. Human Affairs,22(3), 313–324. Greenstein, F. I. (1965). Children and politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hindriks, P., Verkuyten, M., & Coenders, M. (2017). Evaluating political acculturation strategies: The perspective of the majority and other minority groups. Political Psychology,38(5), 744–756. Hochman, O. (2010). Ethnic identification preferences among Germany’s immigrants and their descendants: A comprehensive perspective (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. Hochman, O. (2011). Determinants of positive naturalisation intentions among Germany’s labour migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,37(9), 1403–1421. Hogg, M. A., Adelman, J. R., & Blagg, R. D. (2010). Religion in the face of uncertainty: An uncertainty-identity theory account of religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Review,14(1), 72–83. Hogg, M. A., Hardie, E. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (1995). Prototypical similarity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: A perspective on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology,25(2), 159–177. Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, selfcategorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory,16(1), 7–30. Huddleston, T., Bilgili, Ö., Joki, A. L., & Vankova, Z. (2015). Integration policies: Who benefits? The development and use of indicators in integration debates. Migrant Integration Policy Index 2015. Retrieved from http:// mipex.eu Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology,22(1), 127–156. International IDEA. (2019). Voter turnout dataset. International IDEA. Retrieved from https://www.idea.int/ data-tools/data/voter-turnout Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined. The Journal of Politics,71(3), 782–799. Joppke, C. (2007). Transformation of immigrant integration: Civic integration and antidiscrimination in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. World Politics, 59(2), 243–273. Kalter, F., Heath, A. F., Hewstone, M., Jonsson, J. O., Kalmijn, M., Kogan, I., & van Tubergen, F. (2017). Children of immigrants longitudinal survey in four European countries (CILS4EU): Data file version 3.3.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/cils4eu.5656.3.3.0 Kalter, F. (2018). Setting “Spanish legacies” into further context: Some findings and thoughts from CILS4EU. Ethnic and Racial Studies,41(3), 500–508. Kim, Y., & Amnâ, E. (2015). Civic engagement among immigrant youth in Sweden: Do parental norms or immigration generation matter? In M. Barrett & B. Zani (Eds.), Political and civic engagement Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 266 multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 248–267). Surrey: Routledge. Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 659–741). New York, NY: Random House. Klandermans, P. G. (2014). Identity politics and politicized identities: Identity processes and the dynamics of protest. Political Psychology,35(1), 1–22. Klandermans, P. G., van der Toorn, J., & van Stekelenburg, J. (2008). Embeddedness and identity: How immigrants turn grievances into action. American Sociological Review,73(6), 992–1012. Liberson, S. (1973). Generational differences among blacks in the north. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 550–565. Lien, P. (2004). Asian Americans and voting participation: Comparing racial and ethnic differences in recent U.S. elections. International Migration Review, 38(2), 493–517. Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2014). The political downside of dual identity: Group identifications and religious political mobilization of Muslim minorities. British Journal of Social Psychology,53(4), 711–730. Messina, A. M. (2006). The political incorporation of immigrants in Europe: Trends and implications. In A. M. Messina & G. Lahav (Eds.), The migration reader: Exploring politics and policies (pp. 470–93). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Milbrath, L. W. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics? Skokie: Rand McNally & Co. Monforte, P., & Morales, L. (2018). The participation, mobilization and political representation of migrants in Europe. In A. Weinar, S. Bonjour, & L. Zhyznomirska (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the politics of migration in Europe (pp. 126–136). London: Routledge. Neundorf, A., Niemi, R. G., & Smets, K. (2016). The compensation effect of civic education on political engagement: How civics classes make up for missing parental socialization. Political Behavior,38(4), 921–949. Neundorf, A., Smets, K., & García-Albacete, G. M. (2013). Homemade citizens: The development of political interest during adolescence and young adulthood. Acta Politica,48(1), 92–116. O’Toole, T., Lister, M., Marsh, D., Jones, S., & McDonagh, A. (2003). Tuning out or left out? Participation and non-participation among young people. Contemporary Politics,9(1), 45–61. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499–514. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Prior, M. (2010). You’ve either got it or you don’t? The stability of political interest over the life cycle. The Journal of Politics,72(3), 747–766. Quintelier, E. (2015). Engaging adolescents in politics: The longitudinal effect of political socialization agents. Youth & Society,47(1), 51–69. Ramakrishnan, S. K., & Espenshade, T. (2001). Immigrant incorporation and political participation in the United States. International Migration Review,35(3), 870–909. Schwartz, S. J., Coté, J. E., & Jensen Arnett, J. (2005). Identity and agency in emerging adulthood: Two developmental routes in the individualization process. Youth Society,37(6), 201–229. Simon, B., & Grabow, O. (2010). The politicization of migrants: Further evidence that politicized collective identity is a dual identity. Political Psychology,31(5), 717–738. Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist,56(4), 319–331. Simon, B., Loewy, M., Stürmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., . . . & Spahlinger, P. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74(3), 646–658. Simon, B., Reichert, F., & Grabow, O. (2013). When dual identity becomes a liability: Identity and political radicalism among migrants. Psychological Science,24(3), 251–257. Tajfel, H. (1974). Intergroup behavior, social comparison and social change. Unpublished Katz-Newcomb Lectures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Terriquez, V., & Kwon, H. (2015). Intergenerational family relations, civic organisations, and the political socialisation of second-generation immigrant youth. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,41(3), 425–447. Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content,3(1), 6–34. van Deth, J. W. (1990). Interest in politics. In M. K. Jennings, J. W. van Deth, S. H. Barnes, D. Fuchs, F. Heunks, R. Inglehart, . . . J. J. A. Thomassen (Eds.), Continuities in political action: A longitudinal study of political orientations in three Western democracies (pp. 275–312). Berlin: De Gruyter. van Deth, J. W. (2009). The ‘good European citizen’: Congruence and consequences of different points of view. European Political Science,8(2), 175–189. van Deth, J. W., Abendschön, S., & Vollmar, M. (2011). Children and politics: An empirical reassessment of early political socialization. Political Psychology, 32(1), 147–174. van Deth, J. W., & Elff, M. (2004). Politicisation, economic development and political interest in Europe. European Journal of Political Research,43(3), 477–508. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, S., Nevitte, N., Blais, J., Fournier, P., & Gidengil, E. (2006). Making up for lost time, Immigrant voter Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 267 turnout in Canada. Electoral Insight, Electoral Participation of Ethnocultural Communities,8(2), 10–16. Zhou, M. (1997). Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies and recent research on the new second generation. International Migration Review,31(4), 975–1008. About the Authors Oshrat Hochman is a Team Leader at GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Mannheim, Germany. Her research relates to social integration of immigrants and attitudes towards immigrants and immigration in Europe and Israel, as well as to social inequality primarily in wealth. Her work has been published in journals like the European Social Survey, the International Journal of Comparative Sociology, International Migration, the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, and Research in Social Stratification and Mobility among others. Gema García-Albacete is Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Sciences of Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Her research relates to citizens’ inequalities in political interest, knowledge and political participation across Western democracies. Her work has been published in journals such as West European Politics, International Journal of Press/Politics,Politics & Gender, the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, or Information, Communication and Society, among others. Her monograph Young People’s Political Participation in Western Europe summarizes some of her work on youth and politics. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 268 Appendix Table A1. List of variables and how they were measured. Variable Original item Final measure Political interest How interested are you in survey country’s politics? (1) very much (5) very little or not at all (0) Not interested (1) Interested Immigrant status Generated CILS4EU variable (1) Immigrants (2) Children of immigrants (0) Other and native National identification How strongly do you feel [survey country member] (1) very strongly to (5) not at all strongly (1) not at all, not strongly (2) Fairly strongly (3) very strongly Ethnic identification How strongly do you feel you belong to [group 1] (1) very strongly to (5) not at all strongly (1) not at all, not strongly (2) Fairly strongly (3) very strongly Friendship patterns Thinking now about all of your friends. How many of them have a [survey country] background (0) half or more of friends same group (1) half or more of friends other group Language preferences Is there a language other than <survey country language> spoken at your home? In this language, how often do you: Talk to your family, watch TV, talk to your friends Sum scale among those who reported “yes” to other language spoken at home Subjective discrimination (Round 1) How often feel discriminated against or treated unfairly/ In the last 12 month felt discriminated in: school; trains/buses/trams/subways; shops/stores/cafés/ restaurants/ nightclubs;by police or security guards (1) always to (4) never (0) never felt discriminated (1) Felt discriminated rarely or more often Nationality (Round 1) What is your nationality (which country is your passport from)? If you have more than one nationality, please tick all that apply (1) Only survey country, (2) survey country and other, (3) only other Same as original item Political discussions at home In general, how often does/do one or both of your parents do the following things with you? talk to you about political and social issues (1) every day to (5) never Same as original item Associationism In your spare time how often spend time in a sports/music/drama/other club (1) every day to (5) never Same as original item Religious participation How often do you visit a religious meeting place (e.g., a church, mosque, synagogue or temple)? (1) never to (5) every day Same as original item Girl Are you a boy or a girl (1) and (2) respectively (0) boy (1) girl Region of origin Generated SILC4EU variable Africa and Middle-East; Asia; South America and the Carribean; Europe North-America and Oceania; Survey country Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 269 Table A2. Descriptive statistics of the sample in the analysis with weights (immigrants and children of immigrants only). England Germany The Netherlands Sweden Political interest (original scale) 2.1 (1.1) 2.7 (1.2) 2.6 (1.0) 2.2 (1.1) % Strong political interest 29.7% 60.6% 62.3% 40.2% Immigrant status: Immigrant 36.2% 18.3% 22.3% 25.8% Child of immigrant 63.8% 81.7% 77.7% 74.2% % Very strong National identification 28% 31.9% 21.9% 26.8% % Very strong Ethnic identification 23.6% 26.9% 26.6% 22.7% Use of second language 2.4 (2.6) 3.4 (2.6) 2.6 (2.7) 3.0 (2.6) Nationality: Only of survey country 47.7% 49.8% 73.4% 85.8% Only of other country 17.2% 22.9% 19.3% 14.2% Survey country and other 35.1% 27.3% 7.3% — Mixed friendships: No 29.9% 23% 20.5% 24% Yes 70.1% 77% 79.5% 76% % experienced discrimination 61.1% 61.5% 36.2% 44.6% Talk to parents about politics 2.9 (1.2) 2.8 (1.2) 3.0 (1.2) 2.8 (1.2) Associationism 2.8 (1.3) 3.0 (1.4) 3.1 (1.4) 2.9 (1.4) Religious participation: Less than once a month 63.3% 71.6% 77.5% 85.3% At least once a month 36.7% 28.4% 22.5% 14.7% Gender: Boy 47.7% 44.9% 44.7% 50.6% Girl 52.3% 55.1% 55.3% 49.4% Country of origin: Africa and the Middle East 20.38% 30.6% 24.4% 28.6% Asia 50.8% 9.5% 27.4% 14.6% South America and the Caribbean 10.5% 5% 20.5% 7% Europe and north America 18.3% 54.8% 27.7% 49.7% N 993 1113 850 1481 Source: CILS4EU Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 270 Table A3. Code for country of origin. England Germany Netherlands Sweden Africa and Middle Nigeria, West Africa, North Africa, Morocco North Africa, East (+Turkey) Lebanon Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran East Africa Other Africa Africa Other Africa East Africa, Somalia Other Africa Asia South Asia, East Asia South Asia, South Asia, Indonesia South Asia, Southeast Asia Pakistan, India, West Asia West Asia West Asia Bangladesh other Asia other Asia other Asia other Asia Latin America and Latin America and the Latin America Latin America and the Latin America and the Caribbean Caribbean, Caribbean and the Caribbean, Surinam, the Caribbean Caribbean Antilleans Europe, North North America and North America North America and Oceania North America and America and Oceania and Oceania Oceania Oceania East Europe East Europe, FSU, Poland, Former Yugoslavia East Europe east Europe, Former Yugoslavia, Poland South Europe South Europe, South Europe South Europe Italy, Greece Finland, Denmark, Norway Other Europe, Ireland Other Europe, West Europe Missing Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Survey country Survey country Survey country Survey country Survey country Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 271 Table A4. Odds ratios (robust SE) from the pooled logit model predicting the probabilities to report interest in politics of the survey country with parental information (weighted sample, listwise deletion). Source: CILS4EU data; own analysis. M1 M2 M3 Immigrant 0.33** 0.36** 0.35** (0.15) (0.16) (0.16) Child of immigrant(s) 0.38** 0.39** 0.40** (0.15) (0.15) (0.16) National identification (somewhat strongly, ref: not at all/not very) 0.98 0.98 0.96 (0.26) (0.25) (0.25) National identification (strongly) 1.15 1.12 1.12 (0.29) (0.27) (0.28) Immigrant * national identification somewhat strongly 2.24* 2.12 2.21* (1.07) (0.99) (1.05) Immigrant * national identification very strongly 2.57* 2.48* 2.53* (1.37) (1.30) (1.34) Child of immigrant * national identification somewhat strongly 2.62** 2.53** 2.57** (1.04) (1.00) (1.02) Child of immigrant * national identification very strongly 1.84 1.85 1.82 (0.73) (0.73) (0.72) England 0.64*** 0.64*** 0.66*** (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) Germany 4.65*** 4.31*** 4.82*** (0.52) (0.47) (0.57) the Netherlands 1.54*** 1.34** 1.59*** (0.21) (0.17) (0.22) No ethnic identification (ref: identify very strongly) 0.94 0.95 0.94 (0.21) (0.21) (0.20) Ethnic identification: not at all/not very strongly 1.22 1.20 1.21 (0.33) (0.33) (0.33) Ethnic identification somewhat strongly 1.09 1.09 1.08 (0.26) (0.26) (0.25) Girl 0.48*** 0.49*** 0.48*** (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) Citizenship =survey country and other 0.76 0.78 0.77 (0.18) (0.19) (0.19) Citizenship =only other country 0.84 0.84 0.86 (0.23) (0.23) (0.24) Political discussion at home 2.17*** 2.23*** 2.18*** (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) Mixed friendships 1.38* 1.41* 1.39* (0.26) (0.27) (0.27) Use of second language 1.01 1.01 1.01 (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) Associationism 1.02 1.04 1.02 (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) Religious activities 1.25*** 1.25*** 1.24*** (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) Felt discriminated rarely or more often 0.91 0.91 0.91 (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) Africa and Middle East 1.38 1.43 1.41 (0.32) (0.32) (0.32) Asia 2.10** 2.09** 2.01** (0.61) (0.61) (0.58) Latin America and Caribbean 0.93 1.00 0.93 (0.34) (0.38) (0.34) Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 272 Table A4. (Cont.) Odds ratios (robust SE) from the pooled logit model predicting the probabilities to report interest in politics of the survey country with parental information (weighted sample, listwise deletion). Source: CILS4EU data; own analysis. M1 M2 M3 National identification mother somewhat strongly 1.12 1.14 (0.19) (0.19) National identification mother very strongly 1.19 1.25 (0.21) (0.22) Parents academics 1.42*** 1.44*** (0.17) (0.18) Constant 0.04*** 0.03*** 0.03*** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Observations 7,700 7,700 7,700 AIC 678831.7 680908.6 678364.9 Log pseudolikelihood −339387.83 −340425.32 −339152.44 Note: Robust se (eform) in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Table A5. Odds ratio (SE) predicting political interest among respondents with interaction effects (weighted sample, listwise deletion). Source: CILS4EU data; own analysis. M1 M2 Immigrant 0.77 0.50* (0.24) (0.19) Child of immigrant(s) 0.78 0.45*** (0.19) (0.13) National identification (somewhat strongly, ref: not at all/not very) 0.99 0.88 (0.20) (0.18) National identification (strongly) 1.11 1.00 (0.21) (0.19) Immigrant * national identification somewhat strongly 1.63 1.75 (0.61) (0.64) Immigrant * national identification very strongly 2.83*** 2.34** (1.12) (1.00) Child of immigrant * national identification somewhat strongly 2.11*** 2.19** (0.59) (0.67) Child of immigrant * national identification very strongly 1.46 1.56 (0.41) (0.50) England 0.72*** 0.58*** (0.06) (0.06) Germany 4.09*** 4.43*** (0.32) (0.40) the Netherlands 1.50*** 1.38*** (0.14) (0.15) No ethnic identification (ref: identify very strongly) 1.03 (0.18) Ethnic identification: not at all/not very strongly 1.23 (0.26) Ethnic identification somewhat strongly 1.16 (0.21) Girl 0.55*** (0.05) Citizenship =survey country and other 0.82 (0.15) Citizenship =only other country 0.84 (0.16) Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 273 Table A5. (Cont.) Odds ratio (SE) predicting political interest among respondents with interaction effects (weighted sample, listwise deletion). Source: CILS4EU data; own analysis. M1 M2 Political discussion at home 2.28*** (0.09) Mixed friendships 1.36** (0.20) Use of second language 0.10 (0.03) Associationism 1.08** (0.03) Religious activities 1.23*** (0.05) Felt discriminated rarely or more often 1.00 (0.09) Africa and Middle East 1.81*** (0.33) Asia 1.68*** (0.33) Latin America and Caribbean 1.231 (0.35) Constant 0.42*** 0.03*** (0.08) (0.01) Observations 11,747 11,747 AIC 1146178 960698.1 Log pseudolikelihood −573077.17 −480322.03 Note: Robust se (eform) in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Table A6. Odds ratio (SE) predicting political interest among individuals with an immigrant background (weighted sample, listwise deletion). Source: CILS4EU data; own analysis. M1 M2 M3 Immigrant 0.87 0.94 1.06 (0.13) (0.14) (0.17) National identification (somewhat strongly, ref: not at all/not very) 1.63*** 1.60*** (0.26) (0.28) National identification (strongly) 1.64*** 1.46* (0.28) (0.30) England 0.64*** 0.63*** 0.40*** (0.08) (0.08) (0.07) Germany 2.26*** 2.36*** 2.55*** (0.28) (0.30) (0.39) the Netherlands 2.45*** 2.34*** 2.12*** (0.47) (0.45) (0.44) No ethnic identification (ref: identify very strongly) 1.09 (0.20) Ethnic identification: not at all/not very strongly 0.82 (0.22) Ethnic identification somewhat strongly 0.90 (0.16) Girl 0.58*** (0.08) Citizenship =survey country and other 1.06 (0.20) Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 257–278 274 sonal characteristics and traits on immigration attitudes included inter alia variables on the respondents’ heritage or migration background (Bridges & Mateut, 2014; Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007; Mayda, 2006; O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006). Since most of these researchers did not discuss the effects of these variables directly, information must be gleaned by a close inspection of their models and tables. For instance, in their assessment of attitudes towards immigration of migrants of a different and of the same race, Bridges and Mateut (2014) showed that those classified as foreign were significantly less likely to be opposed to immigration. Similarly, Hainmueller and Hiscox’s (2007) as well as O’Rourke and Sinnott’s (2006) results indicated that those who were born in the country of data collection were significantly less likely to take a pro-immigration stance compared to those born elsewhere. The same was true for those whose parents were born in the interview country as reflected in the significantly higher probability of these persons to endorse a substantial reduction in the number of immigrants in comparison to those with parents born abroad (O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006). Also, having parents with a foreign citizenship significantly increased respondents’ likelihood to be pro-immigration (Mayda, 2006). Overall, it appears that in studies focusing on the comparison of immigrants’ and non-immigrants’ attitudes towards immigration as well as in studies focusing on the majority population, those with some form of migration background had significantly more positive attitudes towards immigration policies and immigration than those without a migration background (Bridges & Mateut, 2014; Buckler et al., 2009; Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007; Just & Anderson, 2015; Mayda, 2006; O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006). While similar conclusions can be drawn from the presented studies, it should be noted that each of them operationalized the concept “migration background” differently. While some researchers controlled for migration backgrounds by simply excluding all participants who were born outside the country of interest (Mayda, 2006), others opted to include variables assessing the birth place of the respondents or their ancestors (e.g., Bridges & Mateut, 2014; Buckler et al., 2009; Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007; Mayda, 2006; O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006). The simplest form was to include the respondent’s birthplace (Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007). This made it possible to compare first-generation migrants with the rest of the population. An alternative was the inclusion of the birthplace of the respondent’s parents (Buckler et al., 2009; Mayda, 2006) as well as a single variable covering both birthplace aspects simultaneously (Bridges & Mateut, 2014). Neither of them allowed a comparison between different generations of migrants. A comparison of multiple generations of migrants with each other as well as with persons without a migration background requires separate variables for the different generations’ birth places to be included into the analyses. Only one of the above-mentioned studies allowed such comparisons: O’Rourke and Sinnott’s (2006) results suggest that those who are native born to native-born parents were most likely to report anti-immigrant attitudes, followed by those who could be described as second-generation migrants. Respondents with a firstgeneration migration background reported the most positive attitude towards immigration. In addition to O’Rourke and Sinnott’s (2006) study, other studies utilising migrant-exclusive data sets can be employed to further explore the differences between the generations. Among Latino immigrants, for example, Rouse, Wilkinson, and Garand (2010) found that those belonging to the second generation as well as those belonging to later generations were significantly less likely to report a pro-immigration attitude and had less favourable attitudes towards allowing more legal immigrants into the US, compared to first-generation Latino immigrants. On the other hand, in his descriptive analyses of Latino attitudes, Suro (2005) showed that whereas first-generation Latinos were more likely to think that immigrants strengthen the country, there were only few differences in the generations’ opinions about whether the amount of legal immigration from Latin America should be reduced or increased. Similarly, when comparing firstand second-generation Mexican Americans with Mexican Americans whose families have been in the country for more generations, Polinard, Wrinkle, and de la Garza (1984) found no significant differences in their attitudes towards the rate of immigration as well as other aspects of immigration. The sample for this study, however, was not nationally representative, rather it was comprised of Mexican Americans from Texas, with a large share of the respondents living along the Mexican border. The high concentration of immigrants in this area might have increased respondents perceived competition for resources (Hood et al., 1997). As suggested in a large body of literature on intergroup conflict, this perceived threat can be used as an explanation for negative attitudes towards outgroup members (Blalock, 1967; Campbell, 1967; Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006), such as new or potential immigrants (Meuleman, Davidov, & Billiet, 2009; Quillian, 1995). Hence, the conclusion drawn from studies conducted in specific regions of the US might not be transferable to generational differences within the population of the entire country. In summary, the currently existing literature does not draw a clear picture as to whether later generations of migrants have less favourable attitudes towards immigration in comparison to those whose families immigrated more recently. Studies with broader, nationally representative samples, including respondents with various migration backgrounds and from different origins would be necessary to focus on these questions in detail. Notwithstanding these findings, it is apparent that there is very limited research on the comparison of migrants’ and non-migrants’ attitudes towards immigration. First insights concerning this effect had to be gathSocial Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 281 ered from studies that either did not focus on attitudes towards immigration or did only include migration aspects as control variables into their analyses. The goal of this study is to bring the comparison of migrants’ and non-migrants’ attitudes towards immigration into focus. In addition, this article will continue the line of work on the attitudes of the different migrant generations. Here, an approach similar to that utilised by O’Rourke and Sinnott (2006) will be followed. In contrast to their work and similar studies on immigrant specific data sets, however, the following study actively differentiates three generations of migrants from the rest of the population. By examining and comparing the attitudes of the different generations, a closer look at the assimilation of attitudes towards immigrants and the differences among generations as well as between them and the general population will be possible. 3. Theory Reviewing the literature, I find two theories providing an underlying rationale as to why attitudes towards immigration may differ between a country’s native citizens and their counterparts with a migration background: the concept of social distance and the contact theory. First, social distance is seen as a subjective measure describing the “degrees of understanding and intimacy” (Park, 1924, p. 339) between persons as well as between social groups. It is often measured as the willingness to engage with persons from specific social groups at various levels of intimacy (Bogardus, 1925, 1967; Hindriks et al., 2014). The higher the willingness to engage, the lower the social distance. Within social groups the willingness to engage is usually high; hence, the perceived social distance is low. However, as social distance towards a group increases, the uncertainty that comes with the engagement increases as well due to the decrease in knowledge that individuals have about the other person and his or her group (Hill, 1984; Maddux, Scheiber, & Bass, 1982). This uncertainty leads to more difficult interactions as well as to the reinforcement and amplification of existing prejudices (Hill, 1984; Maddux et al., 1982). Hence, people generally have a more positive attitude towards those individuals whom they perceive less social distance towards, in other words, persons who are similar to themselves, and they prefer interacting and engaging with them rather than with more socially distant others (Hill, 1984). It is likely that persons with a migration background show a greater understanding for new immigrants and immigration in general, because they experienced the same themselves or have ancestors who experienced immigration. Therefore, these individuals are expected to perceive a smaller social distance between themselves and new or potential immigrants. The social distance between those without a migration background and new immigrants on the other hand is expected to be larger. Hence, those with a migration background are expected to have a more positive attitude towards immigration than those without a migration background (Hypothesis 1). But not all migrant generations are expected to perceive the same social distance to new or potential immigrants. Those who migrated themselves most likely feel that they belong to the same social group (Constantinou & Harvey, 1985; Masuda, Hasegawa, & Matsumoto, 1973; Masuda, Matsumoto, & Meredith, 1970) and possibly perceive the lowest social distance. This group of individuals can relate best to the potential immigrants because they experienced the same situation themselves. In comparison, secondor thirdgeneration migrants did not have the experience themselves and therefore possibly perceive a larger social distance. Especially third-generation migrants, who do not even hear tales of migration recounted by their parents, is expected to show less understanding towards new migrants. Therefore, of the three generations examined here, they are expected to perceive the largest social distance towards immigrants. In conclusion, individuals with a first-generation migration background are expected to have more positive attitudes towards immigrants than individuals with a secondor thirdgeneration background (Hypothesis 2). Moreover, individuals with a second-generation migration background are expected to have more positive attitudes towards immigration than third-generation migrants (Hypothesis 3). In other words, the attitudes towards immigration become less positive with the increasing time span since the own family’s migration experience. Second, the contact theory should also be taken into consideration when trying to explain differences in immigration attitudes of those with and without a migration background. It assumes that interaction between two people or two social groups is necessary in order to dissolve group barriers existing between them (Allport, 1954). Through contact, people start seeing each other as individuals with unique characteristics rather than as simple representatives of a uniform group (Brewer & Miller, 1984). This individualisation also leads to a decrease in discrimination and stereotypes as well as to more positive attitudes towards each other and each other’s groups (Brewer & Miller, 1984). However, contact alone is not sufficient to develop a positive attitude towards a group (Amir, 1969). Rather, certain characteristics of the contact situation influence the potential positive change (Brewer & Miller, 1984). The main situation characteristics assumed to increase the positive attitude are a similar social status of the persons involved, a collective goal or cooperative interdependence, the possibility to refute existing stereotypes, direct personal contact, as well as the presence of egalitarian norms (Allport, 1954; Brewer & Miller, 1984; Cook, 1978). Existing research supports the assumptions made by the contact theory (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) and has shown that people who live in mixed neighbourhoods as well as people who have immigrants in their Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 282 social network have more positive attitudes towards immigration (Hayes & Dowds, 2006; Jolly & DiGiusto, 2014; Quillian, 1995). Since many families with migration backgrounds live in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods (Musterd, 2005; Semyonov & Glikman, 2009), and generally migrants tend to have other migrants in their direct social network (Lubbers, Molina, & McCarty, 2007), it can be expected that people with a migration background have more regular contact with new immigrants. Individuals without a migration background, on the other hand, tend to live in neighbourhoods predominantly inhabited by natives (Musterd, 2005; Semyonov & Glikman, 2009) and to have fewer inter-ethnic friendships and contacts with immigrants (Lancee & Hartung, 2012; Martinović, 2013). This is especially relevant because contact with immigrants in the neighbourhood and within one’s direct social network probably meets the requirements for a positive attitude change. For that reason, the contact theory supports the earlier presented notion that those with a migration background are likely to have a more positive attitude towards immigration than those without (Hypothesis 1). One can also assume that not all generations of migrants will have the same amount of contact with new immigrants. While first-generation migrants might have difficulties getting in contact with non-migrants because of language barriers, second-generation migrants, even though raised in the neighbourhoods their parents live in, should have relatively more contact to natives because they have lived their entire lives in the host country and have grown up learning the native language. Existing research supports this assumption, showing that second-generation migrants tend to have more native friends than first-generation migrants (Martinović, 2013) and are more likely to live in less segregated neighbourhoods (Denton & Massey, 1988; Freeman, 2000). Because of their relatively increased contact with natives, they probably have less contact with new immigrants. This could be especially true for third-generation migrants. Therefore, the contact theory supports the idea that later generations of migrants will have less positive attitudes towards immigration than earlier generations (Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3). Hence, the contact theory endorses the expectations held for the results by the social distance concept, not only when it comes to the effect of a migration background in general, but also with respect to the effects of the different generations. Table 1 summarizes the hypotheses. 4. Data and Variables The analyses presented in this article utilise pooled data from the 2008 to 2016 biennial rounds of the GSS, collected mostly via personal interviews by the independent research organisation NORC at the University of Chicago (Smith et al., 2018). The data set, a nationally representative sample of 11,446 respondents, was chosen as it contains information on the respondents’ attitude towards immigration and all information necessary to identify three different generations of migrants. However, since 35% of respondents did not answer the attitude question, the following analyses will all use the subsample of 7,362 respondents between the ages of 18 and 88 who provided an answer to this question. While the respondents participating in the 2010 round were slightly more likely to answer the question, there are no systematic differences in the socio-demographic characteristics between those who answered the question and those who did not. To measure the attitude towards immigration (dependent variable), a well-established question used by several other researchers in the past (e.g., Mayda, 2006; O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006) was applied: Do you think the number of immigrants to America nowadays should be: (1) increased a lot, (2) increased a little, (3) remain the same, (4) reduced a little, or (5) reduced a lot. A higher response on this question indicated a less positive attitude towards immigration. Additionally, robustness checks with different groupings of the five categories were run, all yielding very similar results to the ones presented below. The general migration background was defined as a binary variable, which had the value 1 if the respondent had a migration background and the value 0 otherwise. Only respondents classified as first-, secondor third-generation migrants according to the definitions below were coded as having a migration background. Migrants of later generations could not be identified in the data set and were therefore coded as members of the reference category “without a migration background.” Additionally, I created a binary variable for each of the three migrant generation. It scored the value 1 if the respondent belonged to the specific generation and the value 0 otherwise. Afirst-generation migrant was defined by being born outside of the US and having both parents also born abroad. This definition is in line with classifications used Table 1. Summary of the hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 Individuals with a migration background have more positive attitudes towards immigration compared to those without a migration background. Hypothesis 2 Individuals with a first-generation migration background have more positive attitudes towards immigration than individuals with a secondor third-generation migration background. Hypothesis 3 Individuals with a second-generation migration background have more positive attitudes towards immigration than third-generation migrants. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 283 by many other researchers (e.g., Algan, Dustmann, Glitz, & Manning, 2010). The demarcation of the second generation, however, is not so unambiguous. While researchers agree that being born in the host country is a necessary requirement (Algan et al., 2010; Bauer & Riphahn, 2007; Jensen & Chitose, 1994), there is a disagreement as to whether both parents (Algan et al., 2010; Dustmann, Frattini, & Lanzara, 2012) or only one parent (Alba, Logan, Lutz, & Stults, 2002; Bauer & Riphahn, 2007; Jensen & Chitose, 1994) has to be born abroad in order to be classified as a second-generation migrant. The latter, slightly more common approach is the one applied here. Only those who were born within the US and have at least one parent who was born outside the US were categorised as second-generation migrants. As there has only been limited research on thirdgeneration migrants, a common definition remains to be determined. But researchers agree that in order to be athird-generation migrant, both parents as well as the respondent himor herself need to be born in the host country (so in this case within the US), and the grandparents need to be born abroad (e.g., Alba et al., 2002; Hammarstedt, 2009). The number of grandparents born outside the host country necessary is again debatable. Alba et al. (2002) as well as Hammarstedt (2009) declared one foreign-born grandparent to be sufficient for this classification. This definition is also used here, as it guarantees that, by the definition presented above, at least one parent is a second-generation migrant. Besides the migration background, another migration-related aspect was operationalised: the origin. It is possible that migrants with different roots have different opinions on immigration. Here North American, European,African,Asian, and Spanish-speaking South and Middle American roots were distinguished and integrated as binary variables (details reported in Table A1 in the Appendix). Respondents with a migration background which could not be attributed to any of these groups formed the “Other Origin” category. Respondents without a migration background, as described above, were coded 0 on all origin variables even though they might have foreign roots when looking more than three generations back. Because some of the origin categories are underrepresented there will be analyses with and without them. In addition to the variables linked to the migration background, further variables, such as personal characteristics and socio-economic background, were included. One factor which has repeatedly been associated with attitudes towards immigration is age, with older people showing more negative attitudes (Bridges & Mateut, 2014; Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007; O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006). Therefore, age in years was included into the analyses as well as gender, whose effects are disputed (Mayda, 2006; O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006). Here, the binary variable male, equalling 1 for males and 0 for females, was used. Also, a binary variable describing the respondents’ race was included, since previous research indicated that race might influence the attitude towards immigration (Diamond, 1998). This effect was captured by the variable non-white, which equalled 1 for respondents identifying as a race other than white and 0 for respondents identifying as white. Another important aspect to include was the respondents’ education, since a positive effect of education on pro-immigrant attitudes has been found by various researchers (e.g., Bridges & Mateut, 2014; Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007; Hindriks et al., 2014). Education was measured by the highest year of school completed. This included completed years of college and university. Also related to the concept of income and work, labour force status was considered. Even though unemployment did not have a significant effect in other studies (O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006), binary variables measuring the participation in the labour force were included. Respondents who were temporarily not working or unemployed were defined as unemployed (1) while all others were assigned the value 0. Similarly, binary variables for inactive (in education, retired, and homemakers) respondents and for respondents coded as “other labour force status” in the GSS were included. The reference category persisted of those who reported a partor full-time employment status. Class could not be included into the analyses due to the fact that those inactive in the labour market largely displayed missings on the class variables. However, additional analyses on a subsample of the employed and unemployed respondents showed similar results to those presented below when including class in the form of ISCO-08 coding. Detailed information on these analyses can be obtained from the author upon request. Lastly, four binary variables indicating the year of data collection (2010,2012,2014, and 2016) were added to the analyses. In each case, the respondents who participated in the respective year received a score of 1, while all other respondents were assigned the value 0. The reference category will be all respondents who participated in 2008. Including these variables will ensure that time trends as well as potential political changes are accounted for. Detailed information on all variables, their operationalisation as well as some descriptive statistics can be found in Table A2 in the Appendix. 5. Results The average respondent was 47.94 years old and completed 13.60 years of education. With 55%, the slight majority was female. Three-quarters of the respondents identified as white. Besides that, most respondents (n =4,358) were working partor full-time. A migration background was reported by 38% of respondents of which the majority was classified as third-generation migrants. Almost half of those with a migration background named a European country as their place of origin (48%). Analyses revealed that 24% of respondents indicated support of the notion that immigration to the US should Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 284 be reduced “a lot,” 23% thought it should be reduced “a little” and the category endorsed most often (38%) was the “remain the same” category. Only 10% of respondents thought that immigration should be increased “a little” and even fewer (5%) that it should be increased “a lot.” Figure 1 indicates that there are substantial differences in the attitudes towards immigration between respondents with and without a migration background as well as between the different migrant generations. Out of the respondents without a migration background 27% shared the notion that immigration should be “reduced a lot.” This response was given by approximately the same number of third-generation migrants (25%), but only 6% of first-generation migrants. Generally, it appears that with each successive generation, the attitude towards immigration became increasingly less positive (i.e., more negative), with the attitude of the third generation approaching that of respondents with no migration background. In order to test whether and to what extent these differences are significant and hold after controlling for aspects of the migration history as well as socioeconomic factors, I applied ordered logit regressions across four models. Detailed information regarding each models’ sample composition in relation to the respondents’ migration background can be found in Table A3 in the Appendix. Model 1 describes the influence of the general migration background on the attitudes towards immigration under the consideration of all socio-demographic variables and year dummies described above. The migration background had a significant negative effect, indicating that those with a migration background were less likely to think that immigration into the US should be reduced “a lot” and were more likely to support the notion that immigration should be increased “a lot.” Whereas gender and labour force status had no significant effects, the likelihood for negative attitudes towards immigration increased with age and decreased with education and the identification as non-white. Additionally, a time trend towards more positive attitudes was found. In Model 2, I substituted the general migration background for the specific origins of the migrants, this allowed for the different ethnic groups of migrants to be compared to those without a migration background. The results indicate that migrants, regardless of origin, were less likely to support the view that immigration should be reduced “a lot.” This being said, there were significant differences among the views of those with a migration background: Those of North American and African origin showed the most positive attitude towards immigration while those of European origin show the least positive. Concerning the socio-demographic variables as well as the years of data collection, the results appear to be similar to those found for Model 1. Overall, these results support Hypothesis 1, indicating that individuals with a migration background have more positive attitudes towards immigration compared to their counterparts without a migration background. When comparing the two models, both the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) support the model differentiating between the migrants’ ethnic groups (Model 2) over the model without the origin aspects (Model 1). The next step was to analyse and compare the effects of the different migration generations on the attitude towards immigration. Here, I estimated a model similar to Model 1, exchanging the general migration background for the three generation variables (Model 3). Additionally, I ran a model in which both the three generations as well as the various origins were considered (Model 4). In Model 3, all three migrant generations exerted a significant effect on the attitude towards immigration, showing that all three generations had more favourable attitudes towards immigration than those without a migration background. However, t-tests comparing the co50% 60% … increased a lot … remain the same … reduced a lile … reduced a lot … increased a lile 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Without migraon background First generaon Second generaon Third generaon Do you think the number of immigrants to America nowadays should be… Figure 1. Attitudes towards immigration by migrant generation in percentage points. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 285 Table 2. Ordered logit models with general migration background and separate migration generations. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Migration Background −0.58*** (−12.84) First-generation −1.28*** −0.72* (−17.55) (−2.34) Second-generation −0.50*** −0.01 (−6.39) (−0.03) Third-generation −0.20*** 0.21 (−3.39) (0.73) North American −1.25*** −0.95** (−13.81) (−3.07) European −0.27*** −0.32 (−4.55) (−1.08) African −1.32*** −0.86* (−5.87) (−2.30) Asian −0.88*** −0.42 (−6.78) (−1.29) Spanish-speaking South −0.97*** −0.52 and Middle American (−7.51) (−1.60) Other Origin −0.55** −0.25 (−3.18) (−0.74) Age 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** (8.32) (6.31) (7.51) (6.70) Male −0.06 −0.06 −0.07 −0.07 (−1.42) (−1.38) (−1.51) (−1.48) Non-White −0.59*** −0.42*** −0.42*** −0.40*** (−11.29) (−7.24) (−7.76) (−6.78) Education −0.08*** −0.09*** −0.09*** −0.10*** (−10.27) (−11.38) (−11.77) (−12.11) Unemployed 0.06 −0.01 0.02 −0.02 (0.68) (−0.08) (0.18) (−0.26) Inactive −0.09 −0.09 −0.10 −0.10 (−1.64) (−1.66) (−1.90) (−1.89) Other Labour Force Status 0.20 0.10 0.13 0.05 (1.42) (0.74) (0.96) (0.38) 2010 −0.21** −0.21** −0.23** −0.22** (−2.89) (−2.82) (−3.12) (−3.00) 2012 −0.28*** −0.27*** −0.29*** −0.28*** (−3.77) (−3.60) (−3.89) (−3.62) 2014 −0.35*** −0.32*** −0.35*** −0.33*** (−4.97) (−4.40) (−5.00) (−4.53) 2016 −0.51*** −0.48*** −0.52*** −0.49*** (−7.51) (−6.93) (−7.55) (−7.02) Number of observations 6949 6662 6921 6640 Log likelihood −9623.84 −9157.54 −9504.28 −9083.79 AIC 19279.68 18357.08 19044.56 18215.57 BIC 19389.22 18499.97 19167.72 18378.79 Chi value: t-test first and 64.27*** 48.86*** second generation Chi value: t-test second and 10.85*** 4.90* third generation Chi value: t-test first and 154.59*** 80.57*** third generation Notes: tstatistics in parentheses; * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 286 efficients revealed that the effects differed significantly in strength. The more generations ago the family came to the US, the more likely the claim that immigration to the US should be reduced “a lot” is supported. These findings support Hypotheses 2 and 3. However, when additionally introducing the origin variables into the analyses (Model 4), the results changed. Whereas in comparison to those without a migration background, first-generation migrants still had a lower probability of expressing that immigration into the United States should be reduced “a lot,” the effect for the second and third generation appeared to be no longer significant, indicating that secondand third-generation migrants do not differ from the general population in their attitudes towards immigration. The coefficient comparison for Model 4 again revealed that the effect for the first generation was significantly more negative than the effects for the second and third generation. Further, and only at the 5% level, it appeared that the coefficient for the second generation was more negative than the one for the third generation. The latter being the only migration aspect throughout the analyses indicating that those with a migration background could have more negative attitudes than the general population. While the difference between the two coefficients appeared to be significant, it has to be kept in mind that neither of the two generations differed significantly from those without a migration background. Interestingly, the results also revealed that those with a North American or African migration background were significantly less likely to support the strong reduction of immigration. All other origins did not have a significant effect on the attitude when simultaneously controlling for the migrant generation. Concerning all other control variables, similar effects to those in Model 1 and Model 2 were found in both models analysing migrant generations. Both the AIC and the BIC endorse the usage of the full Model 4 over the restricted Model 3. The results support both Hypothesis 2, postulating that firstgeneration migrants have more positive attitudes towards immigrants than secondand third-generation migrants, and Hypothesis 3, which expected respondents with a second-generation migration background to have more positive attitudes towards immigration than those with a third-generation background. However, even though Hypothesis 3 did find empirical support, it is important to point out that neither secondnor thirdgeneration migrants differed from the general population in their attitudes when control variables for the migrants’ origins were included in the analyses. 6. Conclusion The literature review and the theories suggested that migrants’ attitudes towards immigration can be expected to be more positive than the attitudes toward immigration of the general population. Further, they led to the expectation that later generations of migrants will have less positive attitudes towards immigration than earlier generations. The analyses revealed strong support for Hypothesis 1, showing that respondents with a migration background, no matter their origin, were more likely to favour increasing the number of migrants into the US. Similarly, Hypothesis 2 found corroboration. Individuals belonging to the first generation showed more positive attitudes towards immigration in comparison to secondand third-generation migrants. The results further revealed that the attitudes of second-generation migrants were more positive than the attitudes of the third generation. It should be noted, however, that under the consideration of migrants’ origins, neither of the two generations differed significantly from those without a migration background. This might be because secondand third-generation migrants are well integrated into the society and, hence, have adopted the natives’ attitudes and values. One aspect that was not considered in the present study but could still be of great relevance is whether and to what extent respondents have contact to persons with migration backgrounds. As the contact theory describes, interaction with members of a certain group should, under the right situational conditions, positively influence the attitude towards this group (Brewer & Miller, 1984). Therefore, the inclusion of a variable measuring the contact to migrants could show whether the attitude differences between individuals with and without a migration background and the different generations could partly or maybe even fully be attributed to the contact. Due to considerable limitations of the present data, however, such an approach was not possible here. Besides the contact to migrants, the definition of the migration background and specifically of the different generations might influence the results as well. Here, the most common operationalisations were used, but other definitions could be justified as well. Especially for the third generation, little research exists, and multiple different definitions are conceivable. Future studies could examine in what way the different definitions influence the results, as it is possible that more restrictive definitions, for example, requiring more than one parent or grandparent to be born abroad, lead to stronger effects. Such an enquiry was beyond the scope of this article. Not only would it be interesting to test different operationalisations of the migrant generations, the choice of the dependent variable should also be discussed. The analyses presented here measured attitudes towards immigration by asking respondents for their views on the number of immigrants that should be allowed to enter the country. This question is highly related to immigration policy. Attitudes towards immigration, however, are multi-faceted, covering much more than policy aspects alone. Hence, other questions and measurements, such as whether immigrants make countries more liveable (European Social Survey, 2018) or whether the respondents feel their culture or society is threatened by immiSocial Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 287 gration (de Graaf, Kalmijn, Kraaykamp, & Monden, 2010; ISSP Research Group, 2015), could be used as well. In conclusion, there are still many unresolved difficulties in researching immigrants’ attitudes towards immigration which require further attention. Yet despite the many aspects future research needs to consider, the migration background seems to be a relevant characteristic when explaining immigration attitudes: Having a migration background influences the formation of positive attitudes towards other immigrants. Therefore, migrants’ opinions on immigration should not be disregarded but rather taken into account, particularly in countries with a high share of people with migration backgrounds. Conflict of Interests The author declares no conflict of interests. References Alba, R. D., Logan, J., Lutz, A., & Stults, B. (2002). Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the grandchildren of contemporary immigrants. Demography,39(3), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2002.0023 Algan, Y., Dustmann, C., Glitz, A., & Manning, A. (2010). The economic situation of first and secondgeneration immigrants in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The Economic Journal,120(542), F4–F30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009. 02338.x Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin,71(5), 319–342. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0027352 Bauer, P., & Riphahn, R. T. (2007). Heterogeneity in the intergenerational transmission of educational attainment: Evidence from Switzerland on natives and second-generation immigrants. Journal of Population Economics,20(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00148-005-0056-5 Berry, J. W., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 National Survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement,27(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0008-400X.27.3.301 Binder, N. E., Polinard, J. L., & Wrinkle, R. D. (1997). Mexican American and Anglo attitudes toward immigration reform: A view from the border. Social Science Quarterly,78(2), 324–337. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology,9, 299–308. Bogardus, E. S. (1967). A forty year racial distance study. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Retrieved from http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B978012497780850019X Bridges, S., & Mateut, S. (2014). Should they stay or should they go? Attitudes towards immigration in Europe. Scottish Journal of Political Economy,61(4), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjpe.12051 Buckler, K., Swatt, M. L., & Salinas, P. (2009). Public views of illegal migration policy and control strategies: A test of the core hypotheses. Journal of Criminal Justice,37(4), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jcrimjus.2009.06.008 Campbell, D. T. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception of group differences. American Psychologist,22(10), 817–829. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025079 Constantinou, S. T., & Harvey, M. E. (1985). Dimensional structure and intergenerational differences in ethnicity: The Greek Americans. Sociology & Social Research,69(2), 234–254. Cook, S. W. (1978). Interpersonal and attitudinal outcomes in cooperating interracial groups. Journal of Research & Development in Education,12, 97–113. de Graaf, P. M., Kalmijn, M., Kraaykamp, G., & Monden, C. (2010). Design and content of the Netherlands Longitudinal Life course Study (NELLS). Nijmegen: Tilburg University and Radboud University. Denton, N. A., & Massey, D. S. (1988). Residential segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by socioeconomic status and generation. Social Science Quarterly,69(4), 797–815. Diamond, J. (1998). African-American attitudes towards United States immigration policy. International Migration Review,32(2), 451–470. https://doi.org/10. 2307/2547191 Dustmann, C., Frattini, T., & Lanzara, G. (2012). Educational achievement of second-generation immigrants: An international comparison. Economic Policy,27(69), 143–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1468-0327.2011.00275.x European Social Survey. (2018). ESS cumulative data wizard. European Social Survey. Retrieved from https:// www.europeansocialsurvey.org/downloadwizard Freeman, L. (2000). Minority housing segregation: A test of three perspectives. Journal of Urban Affairs,22(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2166.00037 Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2007). Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization,61(2). https://doi. org/10.1017/S0020818307070142 Hammarstedt, M. (2009). Intergenerational mobility and the earnings position of first-, second-, and third-generation immigrants. Kyklos,62(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2009.00436.x Hayes, B. C., & Dowds, L. (2006). Social contact, cultural marginality or economic self-interest? Attitudes toSocial Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 288 wards immigrants in Northern Ireland. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,32(3), 455–476. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13691830600554890 Hill, P. B. (1984). Räumliche Nähe und soziale Distanz zu ethnischen Minderheiten [Spacial proximity and social distance towards ethnic minorities]. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie,13(4), 363–370. https://doi.org/10. 1515/zfsoz-1984-0406 Hindriks, P., Verkuyten, M., & Coenders, M. (2014). Interminority attitudes: The roles of ethnic and national identification, contact, and multiculturalism. Social Psychology Quarterly,77(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0190272513511469 Hood, M. V., Morris, I. L., & Shirkey, K. A. (1997). “¡Quedate o vente!”: Uncovering the determinants of Hispanic public opinion toward immigration. Political Research Quarterly,50(3), 627–647. https://doi.org/10. 1177/106591299705000307 ISSP Research Group. (2015). ZA5950: International social survey programme: National identity III — ISSP 2013 [Data file version 2.0.0]. https://doi.org/10. 4232/1.12312 Jensen, L., & Chitose, Y. (1994). Today’s second generation: Evidence from the 1990 U.S. census. International Migration Review,28(4), 714–735. https://doi. org/10.2307/2547155 Jolly, S. K., & DiGiusto, G. M. (2014). Xenophobia and immigrant contact: French public attitudes toward immigration. The Social Science Journal,51(3), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2013.09.018 Just, A., & Anderson, C. J. (2015). Dual allegiances? Immigrants’ attitudes toward immigration. The Journal of Politics,77(1), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 678388 Lancee, B., & Hartung, A. (2012). Turkish migrants and native Germans compared: The effects of interethnic and intra-ethnic friendships on the transition from unemployment to work. International Migration,50(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682435.2011.00736.x Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2007). Personal networks and ethnic identifications: The case of migrants in Spain. International Sociology,22(6), 721–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0268580907082255 Maddux, C. D., Scheiber, L. M., & Bass, J. E. (1982). Self-concept and social distance in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly,26(2), 77–81. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/001698628202600207 Martinović, B. (2013). The inter-ethnic contacts of immigrants and natives in the Netherlands: A twosided perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,39(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369183X.2013.723249 Masuda, M., Hasegawa, R. S., & Matsumoto, G. (1973). The ethnic identity questionnaire: A comparison of three Japanese age groups in Tachikawa, Japan, Honolulu, and Seattle. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,4(2), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002202217300400207 Masuda, M., Matsumoto, G. H., & Meredith, G. M. (1970). Ethnic identity in three generations of Japanese Americans. The Journal of Social Psychology,81(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00224545.1970.9922441 Mayda, A. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics,88(3), 510–530. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest. 88.3.510 Meuleman, B., Davidov, E., & Billiet, J. (2009). Changing attitudes toward immigration in Europe, 2002–2007: A dynamic group conflict theory approach. Social Science Research,38(2), 352–365. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ssresearch.2008.09.006 Musterd, S. (2005). Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: Levels, causes, and effects. Journal of Urban Affairs,27(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 0735-2166.2005.00239.x O’Rourke, K. H., & Sinnott, R. (2006). The determinants of individual attitudes towards immigration. European Journal of Political Economy,22(4), 838–861. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2005.10.005 Park, R. E. (1924). The concept of social distance as applied to the study of racial attitudes and racial relations. Journal of Applied Sociology,8, 339–344. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90(5), 751–783. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Polinard, J. L., Wrinkle, R. D., & de la Garza, R. (1984). Attitudes of Mexican Americans toward irregular Mexican immigration. International Migration Review, 18(3), 782–799. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review,60(4), 586–611. https://doi. org/10.2307/2096296 Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A metaanalytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review,10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327957pspr1004_4 Rouse, S. M., Wilkinson, B. C., & Garand, J. C. (2010). Divided loyalties? Understanding variation in Latino attitudes toward immigration. Social Science Quarterly,91(3), 856–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-6237.2010.00723.x Semyonov, M., & Glikman, A. (2009). Ethnic residential segregation, social contacts, and anti-minority attitudes in European societies. European Sociological Review,25(6), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1093/ esr/jcn075 Smith, T. W., Davern, M., Freese, J., & Hout, M. (2018). General social surveys, 1972–2016. GSS Data ExSocial Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 289 plorer. Retrieved from https://gssdataexplorer.norc. org Suro, R. (2005). Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy: Surveys among Latinos in the US and Mexico. Pew Research. Retrieved from https:// www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 5/reports/52.pdf Trevelyan, E., Gambino, C., Gryn, T., Larsen, L., Acosta, Y., Grieco, E., . . . Walters, N. (2016). Characteristics of the U.S. population by generational status: 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. About the Author Charlotte Clara Becker is a PhD candidate at the Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology and a scholarship recipient of the Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Cologne in Germany. In her dissertation she discusses attitudes towards immigration and immigrants. She is especially interested in the attitudes of currently under-researched social groups, such as persons with migration backgrounds and children. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 279–292 290 2. Do you often have negative feelings such as having the blues, being desperate, suffering from anxiety or depression, if 0 means “never” and 10 “always”? (𝛼=.74; M =2.93, SD =1.64). The same items were used to estimate mothers’ (𝛼=.78; M=3.21, SD =1.80) and fathers’ (𝛼=.77; M =2.63, SD =1.65) subjective well-being. 3.4. Analytical Strategy Multilevel path models accounting for adolescents and young adults being nested within households were performed with Mplus 8.3. Indeed, a significant portion of the variance of respondents’ subjective well-being (31.9%; 𝜎2 household =0.86, SE =0.15, p<.001) was due to the household structure of the data, which calls for multilevel analyses. Because around a quarter of the respondents lived with one parent only, separate models were performed for mothers and fathers. Respondents’ citizenship status (Swiss vs. dual citizen; Swiss vs. foreigner) was used as proxy for “household with an immigrant background.” However, a share of respondents did not report the same citizenship status (e.g., they are dual citizens and their parent is a foreigner) as their mother (18.61%) or father (30.58%). To ensure that mixed households did not stand out, whether young people shared or not a citizenship status with their parent was entered as a control variable in the model (along with its interaction with respondents’ citizenship status). Also note that, while previous research on immigrants’ well-being has typically compared individuals having migrated to the receiving country (first generation) to those born there (second generation; e.g., Arpino & de Valk, 2018; Levecque & van Rossem, 2015; Missinne & Bracke, 2012), the very low proportion of respondents born abroad did not allow to use such a distinction in the current study. However, in a country where naturalization is a long and complicated process, dual citizenship can be considered an indicator of stronger ties with the host country. Based on the FSM, low satisfaction with the household income was used as a measure of economic pressures and set as a predictor of parental well-being. Being below the poverty line, a measure of economic hardships, was treated as a control variable. Other control variables included: respondents’ age, gender (1 =female), and occupation (1 =in education); parental occupation (mother: working full-time vs. part-time and working full-time vs. other; father: working full-time vs. other), educational attainment (both parents: 1 =high school diploma or higher), and presence of the other parent in the household. Both indirect and direct paths from nationality status to young people’s subjective well-being were estimated (see Figure 1). 4. Results Results are presented in Table 2 (mothers) and Table 3 (fathers). Preliminary (and unpresented) analyses showed that interactions between respondents’ and parents’ citizenship status, or citizenship status and economic pressures, had no significant impact. For this reason, these interaction terms were not included in the final models. Both final models were found to fit the data adequately (mothers: 𝜒2(6) =14.86, p=.02, CFI =.977, RMSEA =.03; fathers. 𝜒2(6) =8.09, p=.23, CFI =.993, RMSEA =.02; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Most results are similar when considering maternal and paternal variables. In line with previous research, young immigrants reported lower well-being than Swiss natives of the same age group (see first section, or the first column of both Table 2 and Table 3). The native-immigrant gap emerged Table 2. Results of path model (respondents and their mothers). SWB Parental SWB Economic pressures b SE b SE b SE Swiss vs. Foreigners 0.45*** 0.12 0.44** 0.16 0.77*** 0.18 Dual citizens 0.54* 0.24 0.28 0.27 1.04** 0.31 Same citizenship as parent −0.09 0.14 −0.17 0.21 −0.30 0.22 Age 0.03* 0.01 Female 0.86*** 0.09 In education 0.31** 0.12 Economic pressures 0.06* 0.02 0.21*** 0.04 Below poverty 0.12 0.17 0.25 0.26 1.65*** 0.31 Parental SWB 0.16*** 0.03 Other parent in HH −0.13 0.13 −0.08 0.17 −0.10*** 0.19 Full time vs. Part time 0.10 0.16 −0.18 0.21 −0.05 0.21 Other occupation 0.17 0.18 −0.06 0.25 0.74** 0.26 Parental education 0.01 0.10 −0.03 0.13 −0.49*** 0.15 Notes: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05; SWB stands for subjective well-being, HH for household. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 293–303 297 Table 3. Results of path model (respondents and their fathers). SWB Parental SWB Economic pressures b SE b SE b SE Swiss vs. Foreigners 0.37*** 0.13 0.48* 0.20 0.68** 0.24 Dual citizens 0.29 0.24 1.04*** 0.24 0.86* 0.35 Same citizenship as parent −0.16 0.14 −0.10 0.21 −0.42 0.27 Age 0.04** 0.01 Female 0.87*** 0.09 In education 0.33** 0.12 Economic pressures 0.07 0.03 0.16*** 0.04 Below poverty 0.08 0.18 0.31 0.27 1.82*** 0.36 Parental SWB 0.19*** 0.04 Other parent in HH −0.27 0.23 0.09 0.27 −0.28 0.36 Full time vs. other −0.08 0.12 0.07 0.17 −0.09 0.18 Parental education 0.02 0.10 −0.17 0.14 −0.67*** 0.17 Notes: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05; SWB stands for subjective well-being, HH for household. even when parental well-being, economic pressures and control variables were considered, which suggests that intrafamily dynamics and economics did not fully explain the lower well-being expressed by immigrants. The difference between Swiss natives and dual citizens was significant only in the model including variables from the mothers’ side. In both cases however, females, older respondents and those still in education reported a lower wellbeing. In addition, despite not directly hypothesizing the interaction between gender and origins, additional analyses revealed that the gender gap in subjective wellbeing was wider among dual citizens and immigrants (although present in all groups), but this only in the model including mothers (results available upon request). Turning to parental well-being (see second column of both Table 1 and Table 2), parents of young immigrants were found to report more negative affect than parents of young natives. As explained above, this result emerged no matter whether the parents shared their children’s citizenship status or not. The difference between dual citizens and Swiss natives was significant only when fathers were considered. No other variable (with the exception of economic pressures) had any significant effect on parental well-being. Importantly and as hypothesized in the present study, the lower the parental well-being (mothers and fathers alike), the lower children’s well-being (see Tables 2 and 3, third section of first column). The role of economic pressures is now examined. Economic pressures were higher in households below the poverty line, when the father was not present, when the mother did not work (‘other occupation’ category), and when mothers and fathers had no high school diploma. Compared to native families, households in which young people with an immigrant background lived (both immigrants and dual citizens) were characterized by higher economic pressures. In line with findings from the FSM, economic pressures impacted the well-being of both parents and their children. Finally, indirect paths of the model (see Figure 1) from respondents’ citizenship status to their reported well-being were examined. Considering either parents’ well-being, the full FSM (i.e., immigrant background → economic pressures →parental well-being →young people’s well-being) was found to be significant (immigrants vs. Swiss natives: bmothers =0.03, SE =0.01, p=.003; bfathers =0.02, SE =0.01, p=.03; dual citizens vs. Swiss natives: bmothers =0.04, SE =0.01, p=.009; bfathers =0.03, SE =0.01, p=.05). It is thus (at least partially) through economic pressures and low parental wellbeing that young people with an immigrant background experienced more negative affect than native youth. However, economic pressures also impacted directly (i.e., not through a low parental well-being) the well-being of young people with an immigrant background more than natives (immigrants vs. Swiss natives: bmothers =0.05, SE =0.02, p=.02; bfathers =0.05, SE =0.03, p=.06; dual citizens vs. Swiss natives: bmothers =0.06, SE =0.03, p=.04; bfathers =0.06, SE =0.03, p=.06; note that the effects were only marginally significant in the model including paternal variables, which had a slightly lower sample size). Finally, the gap between young immigrants and Swiss natives was also directly (i.e., not through economic pressures) explained by a low parental wellbeing (bmothers =0.07, SE =0.03, p=.02; bfathers =0.09, SE =0.04, p=.03), while the gap between dual citizens and Swiss natives was significant in the case of the fathers only (bmothers =0.05, SE =0.05, p=.30; bfathers =0.19, SE =0.06, p=.002). 5. Conclusion Taking advantage of a panel survey that contained selfreported measures of well-being for two generations, Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 293–303 298 the present study examined the extent to which immigrant background and economic pressures affected the well-being of adolescents and young adults in Switzerland through the negative affects experienced by their parents. Confirming previous research on the topic (e.g., Levecque & van Rossem, 2015; Missinne & Bracke, 2012), in the Swiss context too adolescents and young adults with an immigrant background—both foreigners and dual citizens—reported being more anxious, sad and depressed than natives. Path models showed that young people with foreign roots were more likely to live in a household that experienced economic pressures, which, in a turn, impacted their parents’ (mothers and fathers alike) well-being and their own. Having an immigrant background, experiencing economic pressures, and parents’ well-being were also found to independently affect young people’s negative affects. 5.1. The Two Routes to Immigrants’ Lower Well-Being Adolescents and young people who have an immigrant background suffer from a double burden: On the one hand, as individuals with foreign roots, they are likely to have first-hand experiences of discrimination (that impact individuals’ well-being to a greater extent that simply knowing that one’s group is discriminated against; see Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014); on the other hand, very likely their own parents have also personally suffered from discrimination. While unfortunately the survey used did not contain measures of perceived discrimination, the results of the present study suggest this double disadvantage. First, even when economic variables, parental well-being, and other factors known to impact individuals’ well-being were taken into account, a gap in anxiety, sadness and depression between immigrant and native young people remained. This hints to possible personal experiences of discrimination and issues with integration. The fact that we did not find a significant interaction with the parents’ citizenship status further suggests that young people’s own citizenship status explains part of their well-being (for instance, natives with an immigrant or dual citizen parent did not appear to differ in well-being from a native with native parents). This pattern appeared in a survey where most respondents with an immigrant background came from countries neighboring Switzerland: They, or their (grand)parents, most likely immigrated voluntarily (unlike refugees for instance). We can thus assume that the gap should be even greater if immigrant groups that usually face stronger discrimination (such as those from more geographically distant and culturally different countries, e.g., Rapp, 2015; Stolz, 2005) were surveyed. Findings regarding parents’ well-being also support the assumption that the worse psychological health often reported by immigrants and dual citizens is not entirely due to poorer economic circumstances (e.g., on the role played by discrimination see Schunck et al., 2015), even though a lower satisfaction with the household financial situation (and other vulnerability related factors on the mother’s side) did predict a lower parental wellbeing. Still our results indicate that economic conditions are an integral part of the story, and that any study on the native-immigrant gap should include measures of economic hardships and pressures. While second generation immigrants are less likely to be poor than natives (SFSO, 2019f), a low satisfaction with the household income was found in the present study to partly explain, beyond being above vs. below the poverty line, why young people with an immigrant background (the great majority of them being born in Switzerland) report a lower wellbeing than natives. Both immigrants and dual citizens appeared to be affected. Within families with foreign roots, economic pressures had a double impact: directly on the well-being of the young people, but also through their parents. This result highlights the role played by economic pressures (day-to-day hassles), which, according to the FSM, have to be distinguished from economic hardships (i.e., being poor). All in all, these findings highlight the complexity of the factors underlying the wellknown immigrant–native gap in well-being and psychological health. 5.2. Maternal and Paternal Influences Maternal psychological health issues are generally found to have a slightly greater impact on young children’s internalizing symptoms (e.g., anxiety, depression), which is explained by mothers spending on average more time with babies and toddlers (for a meta-analysis see Connell & Goodman, 2002). This should be even more marked in countries such as Switzerland where there is no paternity leave, and where most women switch to part-time work after the birth of the first child (le Goff & Levy, 2016). The results of the present study, however, showed that maternal and paternal (low levels of) well-being had an equally strong impact on adolescents and young adults (independently of their origins). The next step in future research should be to investigate how the well-being of parents of young people with an immigrant background interact, since research on within-family transmission of psychological health issues have shown that having both parents with poor mental health is an aggravating factor (e.g., Kahn, Brandt, & Whitaker, 2004; Meadows, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). Differences between mothers and fathers did emerge in the factors underlying economic pressures, though. While in both cases lower educational achievements were related to a lower satisfaction with household income, other factors appeared to make mothers more vulnerable: not being in employment (which was the case for hardly any father) and when the father did not live in the household. In Switzerland there are few work-family reconciliation policies and mothers generally work part time, which makes lone mothers with no or low employment particularly vulnerable. Also using data from the Swiss Household data, Struffolino, Bernardi, Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 293–303 299 and Voorpostel (2016) showed that lone mothers suffer from poorer health than partnered mothers, a tendency which is aggravated in the case of low employment. Altogether, this suggests that lone mothers with an immigrant background cumulate disadvantages that are likely to affect the well-being of their children. Confirming previous research conducted in Europe, the present study showed that adolescents and young adults with an immigrant background report lower wellbeing than native young people of the same age. A lower well-being at early stages of life can have life-long consequences, for example through lower educational achievement. Low well-being in middle school has for instance been related to lower attendance and low grades over time (Suldo, Thalji, & Ferron, 2011). Policies that prevent children with an immigrant background from cumulating spiraling disadvantages from early in life should thus be implemented. Acknowledgments A part of this work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (NCCR—On the Move Grant No. 51NF40–142020). Conflict of Interests The authors declare no conflict of interests. References Aisenberg, E., Trickett, P. K., Mennen, F. E., Saltzman, W., & Zayas, L. H. (2007). Maternal depression and adolescent behavior problems: An examination of mediation among immigrant Latino mothers and their adolescent children exposed to community violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,22, 1227–1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507304292 Anderson, R. E., Hussain, S. B., Wilson, M. N., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., & Williams, J. L. (2015). Pathways to pain: Racial discrimination and relations between parental functioning and child psychosocial wellbeing. The Journal of Black Psychology,41, 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798414548511 Arpino, B., & de Valk, H. (2018). Comparing life satisfaction of immigrants and natives across Europe: The role of social contacts. Social Indicators Research,137, 1163–1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11205-017-1629-x Bengi-Arslan, L., Verhulst, F., van der Ende, J., & Erol, N. (1997). Understanding childhood (problem) behaviors from a cultural perspective: Comparison of problem behaviors and competencies in Turkish immigrant, Turkish and Dutch children. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,32, 477–484. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF00789143 Bolzman, C., & Vagni, G. (2018). And we are still here: Life courses and life conditions of Italian, Spanish and Portuguese retirees in Switzerland. In I. Vlase & B. Voicu (Eds.), Gender, family, and adaptation of migrants in Europe (pp. 75–97). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family,64, 361–373. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737. 2010.00725.x Connell, A. M., & Goodman, S. H. (2002). The association between psychopathology in fathers versus mothers and children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,128, 746–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.128.5.746 de Vroome, T., & Hooghe, M. J. (2014). Life satisfaction among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands: Immigration experience or adverse living conditions? Happiness Studies,15, 1389–1406. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10902-013-9483-2 de Vroome, T., & Hooghe, M. J. (2015). Explaining the ethnic minority disadvantage in subjective well-Being: A multilevel analysis of European countries. In F. Maggino (Ed.), A new research agenda for improvements in quality of life (Vol. 57, pp. 87–108). Cham: Springer. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin,125, 276–302. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 Ford, R. (2011). Acceptable and unacceptable immigrants: How opposition to immigration in Britain is affected by migrants’ region of origin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,37, 1017–1037. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2011.572423 Giugni, M., & Passy, F. (2004). Migrant mobilization between political institutions and citizenship regimes: A comparison of France and Switzerland. European Journal of Political Research,43, 51–82. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00145.x Havekes, E., Uunk, W., & Gijsberts, M. (2011). Explaining ethnic outgroup feelings from a multigroup perspective: Similarity or contact opportunity? Social Science Research,40, 1564–1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ssresearch.2011.06.005 Heizmann, B., & Böhnke, P. (2019). Immigrant life satisfaction in Europe: The role of social and symbolic boundaries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45, 1027–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X. 2018.1438252 Helbling, M. (2010). Naturalization politics in Switzerland: Explaining rejection rates at the local level. In T. Caponio & M. Borkert (Eds.), The local dimension of migration policymaking (pp. 33–45). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 293–303 300 Hou, Y., Kim, S. Y., Hazen, N., & Benner, A. D. (2017). Parents’ perceived discrimination and adolescent adjustment in Chinese American families: Mediating family processes. Child Development,88, 317–331. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12603 Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Kahn, R. S., Brandt, D., & Whitaker, R. C. (2004). Combined effect of mothers’ and fathers’ mental health symptoms on children’s behavioral and emotional well-being. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine,158, 721–729. https://doi.org/10.1001/ archpedi.158.8.721 Kavanaugh, S. A., Neppl, T. K., & Melby, J. N. (2018). Economic pressure and depressive symptoms: Testing the family stress model from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology,32, 957–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000462 Laganà, F., Elcheroth, G., Penic, S., Kleiner, B., & Fasel, N. (2013). National minorities and their representation in social surveys: Which practices make a difference? Quality & Quantity,47, 1287–1314. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11135-011-9591-1 Landers-Potts, M. A., Wickrama, K., Simons, L. G., Cutrona, C., Gibbons, F. X., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. (2015). An extension and moderational analysis of the family stress model focusing on African American adolescents. Family Relations,64, 233–248. https:// doi.org/10.1111/fare.12117 le Goff, J.-M., & Levy, R. (2016). Devenir parents, devenir inégaux [Becoming parents, becoming unequal]. Zurich: Seismo. Levecque, K., Lodewyckx, I., & Bracke, P. (2009). Psychological distress, depression and generalised anxiety in Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in Belgium: A general population study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,44, 188–197. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00127-008-0431-0 Levecque, K., & van Rossem, R. (2015). Depression in Europe: Does migrant integration have mental health payoffs? A cross-national comparison of 20 European countries. Ethnicity & Health,20, 49–65. https://doi. org/10.1080/13557858.2014.88336 Malmusi, D. (2015). Immigrants’ health and health inequality by type of integration policies in European countries. European Journal of Public Health,25, 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku156 Masarik, A. S., & Conger, R. D. (2017). Stress and child development: A review of the Family Stress Model. Current Opinion in Psychology,13, 85–90. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008 Meadows, S. O., McLanahan, S. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). Parental depression and anxiety and early childhood behavior problems across family types. Journal of Marriage and Family,69, 1162–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00439.x Mendoza, M. M., Dmitrieva, J., Perreira, K. M., HurwichReiss, E., & Watamura, S. E. (2017). The effects of economic and sociocultural stressors on the well-being of children of Latino immigrants living in poverty. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,23, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000111 Missinne, S., & Bracke, P. (2012). Depressive symptoms among immigrants and ethnic minorities: A population based study in 23 European countries. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,47, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0321-0 Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,44, 122–159. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022022111435097 Oppedal, B., Røysamb, E., & Sam, D. L. (2004). The effect of acculturation and social support on change in mental health among young immigrants. International Journal of Behavioral Development,28, 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000126 Özbek, E., Bongers, I. L., Lobbestael, J., & van Nieuwenhuizen, C. (2015). Turkish and Moroccan young adults in the Netherlands: The relationship between acculturation and psychological problems. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health,17, 1687–1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0203-3 Pilowsky, D. J., Wickramaratne, P., Poh, E., Hernandez, M., Batten, L. A., Flament, M. F., . . . Weissman, M. M. (2014). Psychopathology and functioning among children of treated depressed fathers and mothers. Journal of Affective Disorders,164, 107–111. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.012 Ponnet, K. (2014). Financial stress, parent functioning and adolescent problem behavior: An actor–partner interdependence approach to family stress processes in low-, middle-, and high-income families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,43, 1752–1769. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0159-y Potarca, G., & Bernardi, L. (2018). The (un)healthy migrant effect: The role of legal status and naturalization timing. In R. Tillman, M. Voorpostel, & P. Farago (Eds.), Social dynamics in Swiss society (pp. 79–93). Cham: Springer. Rapp, C. (2015). More diversity, less tolerance? The effect of type of cultural diversity on the erosion of tolerance in Swiss municipalities. Ethnic and Racial Studies,38, 1779–1797. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01419870.2015.1015582 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,14, 921–948. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0035754 Schunck, R., Reiss, K., & Razum, O. (2015). Pathways between perceived discrimination and health among immigrants: Evidence from a large national panel survey in Germany. Ethnicity & Health,20, 493–510. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 293–303 301 https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2014.932756 Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2019a). Enquête sur le vivre ensemble en Suisse (VeS): Résultats 2018 [Survey on “living together” in Switzerland: 2018 results]. SFSO. Retrieved from https://www.bfs. admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/population/ migration-integration/vivre-ensemble-suisse. assetdetail.7466705.html Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2019b). Population résidante permanente selon le sexe et la catégorie de nationalité, résultats annuels provisoires [Resident population according to sex and nationality category, provisory annual results]. SFSO. Retrieved from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/ population.assetdetail.7966020.html Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2019c). Santé autoévaluée [Self-reported health]. SFSO. Retrieved from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/ population/migration-integration/indicateursintegration/tous-indicateurs/sante/sante-autoevaluee.html Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2019d). Sentiment de solitude [Feelings of loneliness]. SFSO. Retrieved from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/ statistiques/population/migration-integration/ indicateurs-integration/tous-indicateurs/sante/ sentiment-solitude.html Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2019e). Taux d’activité des 15–64 ans [Activity rate, 15–64 years old]. SFSO. Retrieved from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/ bfs/fr/home/statistiques/population/migrationintegration/indicateurs-integration/tousindicateurs/marche-travail/taux-activite.html Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2019f). Taux de pauvreté [Poverty rate]. SFSO. Retrieved from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/ population/migration-integration/indicateursintegration/tous-indicateurs/aide-socialepauvrete/taux-pauvrete.html Sobolewski, J. M., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Economic hardship in the family of origin and children’s psychological well-being in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family,67, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 0022-2445.2005.00011.x Steinhausen, H.-C., Bearth-Carrari, C., & Metzke, C. W. (2009). Psychosocial adaptation of adolescent migrants in a Swiss community survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,44, 308–316. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00127-008-0437-7 Stevens, G. W., & Vollebergh, W. A. (2008). Mental health in migrant children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,49, 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1469-7610.2007.01848.x Stolz, J. (2005). Explaining Islamophobia. A test of four theories based on the case of a Swiss city. Swiss Journal of Sociology,31, 547–566. Struffolino, E., Bernardi, L., & Voorpostel, M. (2016). Self-reported health among lone mothers in Switzerland: Do employment and education matter? Population,71, 187–213. https://doi.org/10.3917/popu. 1602.0193 Suldo, S., Thalji, A., & Ferron, J. (2011). Longitudinal academic outcomes predicted by early adolescents’ subjective well-being, psychopathology, and mental health status yielded from a dual factor model. The Journal of Positive Psychology,6, 17–30. https://doi. org/10.1080/17439760.2010.536774 Walsh, S. D., Harel-Fisch, Y., & Fogel-Grinvald, H. (2010). Parents, teachers and peer relations as predictors of risk behaviors and mental well-being among immigrant and Israeli born adolescents. Social Science & Medicine,70, 976–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.socscimed.2009.12.010 White, R. M. B., Liu, Y., Nair, R. L., & Tein, J.-Y. (2015). Longitudinal and integrative tests of family stress model effects on Mexican origin adolescents. Developmental Psychology,51, 649–662. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0038993 Zhang, X. (2014). Family income, parental education and internalizing and externalizing psychopathology among 2–3-year-old Chinese children: The mediator effect of parent–child conflict. International Journal of Psychology,49, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ijop.12013 About the Authors Oriane Sarrasin (PhD) is Lecturer in Social Psychology at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. In her research she examines how both individual and contextual factors shape how people react toward social and political objects such as climate change, immigration and gender equality. She does so by relying on survey data combined with contextual information. She also uses experiments to evaluate social influence mechanisms in campaigns or political posters. Eva G. T. Green (PhD) is Associate Professor in Social Psychology at University of Lausanne, Switzerland. At the crossroads of social, cross-cultural and political psychology, her research interests focus on intergroup relations (e.g., prejudice, power relations, political identities) in multicultural societies. Her research is mainly informed by survey, experimental and mixed methods approaches. She is currently leading a project within nccr—On the move (National Center of Competence in Research—The Migration-Mobility Nexus) funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 293–303 302 Gina Potarca (PhD) is an Ambizione research fellow at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. She obtained her PhD degree at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands) in 2014. Her research interests revolve around the application of multilevel and longitudinal methods for the study of assortative mating, the social effects of the digital revolution, cross-national comparisons, and mental health. Claudio Bolzman (PhD) is Professor in Sociology at University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES–SO Geneva). His research interests focus on migrations, life course and intergenerational relations. He is currently member of the nccr LIVES (National Center of Competence in Research—Overcoming Vulnerability. Life Course Perspectives) funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. Ursina Kuhn (PhD) is Senior Researcher at the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences (FORS), where she works for the Swiss Household Panel (SHP). She holds a master and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Zurich. Current research interests comprise subjective well-being, quality of survey data, income and wealth distribution and consequences of negative life events on party preferences. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 293–303 303 Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 DOI: 10.17645/si.v7i4.2330 Article In Search of the Healthy Immigrant Effect in Four West European Countries Dina Maskileyson 1,*, Moshe Semyonov 2and Eldad Davidov 1,3 1Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany; E-Mail: [email protected] (D.M.), [email protected] (E.D.) 2Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Tel Aviv University, 6997801 Tel-Aviv, Israel; E-Mail: [email protected] 3University Research Priority Program “Social Networks,” University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland * Corresponding author Submitted: 30 June 2019 | Accepted: 27 November | Published: 27 December 2019 Abstract The present research examines whether the ‘healthy immigrant effect’ thesis observed in the American context prevails also in the West European context. According to this thesis, immigrants are likely to be healthier than comparable nativeborn. Data for the analysis are obtained from the Generations and Gender Survey for the following countries: Austria, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Ordered logit regression models are estimated to compare the health of immigrants with the native-born population. The findings reveal that in all countries, immigrants tend to report poorer health than comparable third generation native-born Europeans, and that health disparities between second and third generation are smaller than health disparities between first-generation members and native-born regardless of secondor thirdgeneration membership. The findings in the West-European countries do not lend support to the healthy immigrant effect. We attribute the differences between the United States and the West European countries to differential selection processes and differences in healthcare policies. Keywords comparative health; generation studies; healthy immigrant effect; immigrants; United States; Western Europe Issue This article is part of the issue “Immigration from the Migrants’ Perspective” edited by Alice Ramos (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal), Eldad Davidov (University of Cologne, Germany/University of Zurich, Switzerland), Peter Schmidt (University of Giessen, Germany), Marta Vilar Rosales (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal) and Dina Maskileyson (University of Cologne, Germany). © 2019 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction Scholars have long observed that immigrants in the United States and in other traditional immigrant societies (i.e., Canada and Australia) tend to be healthier than comparable native-born populations (Cunningham, Ruben, & Narayan, 2008; Goldman et al., 2014; McDonald & Kennedy, 2004). Immigrants’ health advantage is most evident shortly after arrival, but the health of immigrants tends to converge with that of the nativeborn with the passage of time (McDonald & Kennedy, 2004; Ronellenfitsch & Razum, 2004). The health of children of immigrants (i.e., second generation) is likely to be poorer than that of the first-generation and to converge with that of the third generation (and beyond) the native-born (Singh & Siahpush, 2002). The patterns of health disparities that were observed in the United States (and other immigrant societies such as Australia and Canada) are referred to in the literature as ‘the healthy immigrant effect’ (or ‘the Hispanic paradox’ in the case of Mexican immigrants; Kennedy, McDonald, & Biddle, 2006). Surprisingly, however, whereas the literature on the healthy immigrant effect in the United States has become substantial, relatively little is known Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 304 on health disparities between immigrants and natives in Europe (for notable exceptions see Darmon & Khlat, 2001; Razum, Zeeb, Akgün, & Yilmaz, 1998). Indeed, it is not clear from previous studies whether the differences across nations are a result of nation-specific characteristics (of the host country or the country of origin). For example, it is not clear whether and to what extent differences between the context of country of origin and the context of country of destination (e.g., level of economic resources and accessibility to quality healthcare services) affects the size of the disparities between immigrants and the native-born. Using data from four national samples, we aim to evaluate whether the healthy immigrant effect that has been observed in the United States prevails in four Western European countries, Austria, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, or whether it is dependent on the unique conditions associated with differences between country of origin and country of destination. 2. Previous Research 2.1. Explaining the Healthy Immigrant Effect Two alternative—but by no means contradictory— explanations have been advanced in the literature for understanding why first-generation immigrants tend to be healthier than the native-born population. The first focuses on positive self-selection of immigrants. According to the ‘selection hypothesis,’ the health advantage of first-generation immigrants is attributed to positive health selection whereby healthier (vs. unhealthy) chose to migrate. Therefore, immigrants are likely to be, on average, healthier than the population of the country of origin and often healthier than the population of the host country (e.g., Jasso, Massey, Rosenzweig, & Smith, 2004; Martinez, Aguayo-Tellez, & Rangel-Gonzalez, 2015). The positive health selection hypothesis was repeatedly supported in the context of American society by a large number of studies for various groups of immigrants. For example, positive health selection (according to which immigrants are healthier than comparable native-born) was observed for Hispanics (e.g., Martinez et al., 2015), for Asians and Pacific Islanders (e.g., Frisbie, Cho, & Hummer, 2001), and for immigrants from the former Soviet Union (Mehta & Elo, 2012). Likewise, Singh and Siahpush (2002) found that risk for all causes of mortality and specific causes of mortality, morbidity, and health problems is lower among immigrants (belonging to various ethnic groups) than among comparable nativeborn citizens. Akresh and Frank (2008) found that selfreported health is higher among immigrants than among the native-born both in the United States and in country of origin (except for the case of refugees). The second explanation for the better health of immigrants that was advanced in the literature is known as the ‘salmon bias’ effect (e.g., Abraído-Lanza, Dohrenwend, Ng-Mak, & Turner, 1999; Lu & Qin, 2014; Martinez et al., 2015). This explanation should not be viewed as contradictory to the ‘positive health selection hypothesis’ but rather as complementary. The logic embodied in the salmon bias thesis contends that immigrants with poorer health are more likely than healthy immigrants to return to country of origin. It should be noted, however, that the body of research that examined the salmon bias effect is much smaller than the research on the positive selection effect. In addition, the body of research on salmon bias effect has focused almost exclusively on Latino immigrants in the United States (Palloni & Arias, 2004) mostly due to difficulties in tracking returning immigrants and in obtaining high quality reliable data in a wide-ranging number of countries. It should be noted, however, that most studies on the issue have provided, in one way or another, some support for the salmon effect (Riosmena, Wong, & Palloni, 2013; Turra & Elo, 2008). Recently, in a systematic and detailed analysis of data on Mexican returnee migrants between 2005 and 2012, Arenas, Goldman, Pebley, and Teruel (2015) found that health of returnee immigrants is significantly poorer than that of stayers even after controlling for a variety of potential covariates including demographic characteristics, economic status, family ties, and characteristics of origin and destination. Yet despite the general support for the salmon-bias hypothesis, several researchers have questioned its impact on the overall better health of immigrants. For example, it was argued that the salmon bias cannot account for the lower mortality rates among Cubans and Puerto Ricans in the United States (AbraídoLanza et al., 1999) or Turks and other international immigrants in Germany (Razum et al., 1998; Wallace & Kulu, 2014). The evidence for the impact of generational status on health among immigrants and their offspring is quite limited, mostly due to the small number of studies on the topic (Acevedo-Garcia, Bates, Osypuk, & McArdle, 2010). The few existing studies, however, reveal meaningful differences between firstand secondgeneration immigrants (Guendelman & Abrams, 1995; Guendelman, Gould, Hudes, & Eskenazi, 1990). These studies show that first-generation (foreign-born) immigrants, despite the deterioration in their general health prospects over time, still enjoy better health than nativeborn populations (Acevedo-Garcia et al., 2010). The second generation (native-born offspring of immigrants) and the 1.5-generation (foreign-born immigrants who migrated to the host country at a young age) are more likely to narrow the health-gap with the native population (i.e., third generation native-born children of native-born parents; see Acevedo-Garcia et al., 2010). For example, Guendelman et al., (1990) observed generational differences in low birthweight among women of Mexican origin with first-generation having a much smaller rate of low birthweight than second-generation immigrants. In another study, Guendelman and Abrams (1995) pointed out that as compared to the second Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 305 generation, first-generation Mexican women stand a markedly lower risk of eating poor dietary food. The nutrient intake of second-generation women resembles that of white non-Hispanic women. Apparently, the few studies, particularly in the United States, that compared the first and second generation suggest that health of first-generation immigrants tends to be better than that of second-generation immigrants and of that of other native-born populations. 2.2. Immigration and Health Outside the United States The overwhelming majority of research on the healthy immigrant effect has focused on American society. Yet the few studies that focused health disparities between immigrants and native-born population in traditional immigrant societies other than the United States (i.e., Canada and Australia) lend general support to the healthy immigrant effect thesis. For example, researchers observed that recently arrived immigrants in Canada and Australia are less likely to be diagnosed with chronic conditions than comparable native-born citizens (Biddle, Kennedy, & McDonald, 2007; McDonald & Kennedy, 2004). They also observed that health disparities between the immigrant and the native-born populations tend to decline with the passage of time in the host country (Biddle et al., 2007; McDonald & Kennedy, 2004). Indeed, patterns of health disparities that were detected in Canada and Australia are highly similar to those observed in the United States and in line with the healthy immigrant effect thesis. Additional support for the positive health selection of immigrants was recently provided by Kennedy, Kidd, McDonald, and Biddle (2015) who utilized data from four major immigrant recipient countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The researchers compared the health of immigrants with that of their compatriots who have no intention to immigrate. The findings revealed that the health of immigrants was better than that of those who stayed in the home country. Indeed, the body of research on the topic lends firm support to the positive health selection thesis revealing that when compared to native-born citizens, firstgeneration immigrants not only have substantially lower risks of smoking, drinking, obesity, hypertension, and chronic diseases but also a lower risk of mortality from almost all causes of death (Kennedy et al., 2015). In Israel, however, where immigration (of Jewish people) is not restricted and where the criterion for admission is based on ancestry (and not on other criteria such as age, professional skills, or health), the findings differ sharply from those reported in the United States, Canada, or Australia. Research on recent immigrants in Israel refer to the ‘sick immigrant effect’ and reveal that illnesses, such as ischemic heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, chronic diseases, limiting symptoms, and self-reported (poor) health are significantly more abundant among immigrants than among comparable nativeborn Israelis (e.g., Constant, García-Muñoz, Neuman, & Neuman, 2015). Indeed, these findings suggest that immigration policies as well as restrictions and regulations associated with immigration policies might affect selection of immigrants into host societies and their health. 2.3. Immigration and Health in European Countries The body of research on health disparities between immigrants and the native-born population in European societies has also grown in recent years. The findings reported by studies in various European societies, however, are neither uniform nor conclusive and at times even contradictory (e.g., Boulogne, Jougla, Breem, Kunst, & Rey, 2012; Darmon & Khlat, 2001; Guendelman et al., 1990; Razum & Rohrmann, 2002). In some European countries, immigrants were found to be healthier than the nativeborn but in others the native-born were found to be healthier than immigrants. More specifically, in France, for example, researchers detected the healthy immigrant effect (e.g., Boulogne et al., 2012; Darmon & Khlat, 2001; Guendelman et al., 1990) while observing lower mortality rates and a higher life expectancy among groups of foreign-born as compared to the native-born population. In Germany, a longitudinal study by Elkeles and Seifert (1996) revealed that the foreign-born population reported lower rates of chronic illness and long-term health problems than the working-age German population. Likewise, Razum and Rohrmann (2002) and Razum et al. (1998) reported a lower mortality risk and better health among immigrants of Mediterranean origins and among Turks as compared to native-born Germans. However, Ronellenfitsch and Razum (2004), who relied on health satisfaction as an indicator of health, found that young immigrants from Eastern Europe, despite their initial health advantage (compared to older immigrants and native-born Germans), have a high risk of deteriorating health (despite the improvement in socioeconomic status over the years). The results observed in Austria (Sardadvar, 2015) indicate that the health of immigrants from Turkey and Yugoslavia (and to a lesser extent from new member states of the EU or other parts of the world) is poorer than the health of native-born Austrians even after controlling for differences in socioeconomic status. There are several plausible explanations as to why the findings for European countries may differ from the findings for the United States or from other traditional immigrant societies such as Canada and Australia. First, the healthcare system in the United States is much more expensive and less accessible than the health systems of most West European countries (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2016). Consequently, the average health of Europeans is considerably higher than the average health of US-Americans (Maskileyson, 2014; Semyonov, LewinEpstein, & Maskileyson, 2013), and immigrants to European countries are less likely to be concerned with Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 306 The reported health of SG does not differ significantly from that reported by TG in all countries, with the exception of Germany. For this country, the negative and significant coefficient for second generation (in all equations) implies that, other things being equal, selfreported health of SG (those born and raised in Germany) is substantially lower than the self-reported health of TG. Apparently, when taking sociodemographic differences between sub-populations into consideration, the health reported by immigrants is significantly lower than the health reported by comparable natives. Consistent with previous studies, the data show that health tends to decline with age and to rise with education and to be higher among married persons and lower among the unemployed and among those who are not economically active. Interestingly, the effect of gender on health is not consistent across countries. Whereas in Germany males are less likely to report good health, in France and in Austria males report better health than females, and in the Netherlands there are no health differences between the genders. The GNI of immigrant’s country of origin was introduced into model 3 as an indicator of economic conditions to which immigrants were exposed when growing up. It was included in the equation as an interaction term to estimate the impact of country of origin on health disparities between FG and the native-born population (both SG and TG). In Austria, GNI does not exert any net effect on health disparities. In the Netherlands, immigrants’ health is likely to increase (or health disparities to decrease) with GNI of country of origin, but in Germany and France, health of FG (as compared to native-born) tends to decrease with GNI of country of origin (as evidenced by the negative coefficients). The differential effects of GNI of country of origin on health disparities between immigrants and native-born might be attributed to qualitative differences between countries that are not captured by GNI, especially differential compositions of the immigrant populations across countries (e.g., Russians and Turks in Germany, North Africans in France, Surinamese in the Netherlands, and Balkans and Turks in Austria). The differential effects of GNI across countries could also reflect variations in in country healthcare systems. To provide further verification of the country-specific findings, we conducted an additional analysis with all four countries pooled into one data set. The pooled data analysis (results displayed in Table 3) corroborates the findings obtained in the country-specific analysis. The data suggest, rather clearly, that across the four countries, FG immigrants are less likely to report good health than TG natives. This is clearly evident by the negative coefficient for FG (b =−0.349). The data also show that reported good health among sons and daughters of immigrants (SG) is lower than TG even after taking sociodemographic differences (as indicated by the negative coefficient b for SG) into consideration. The data further reveal that health of all residents tends to rise with economic conditions of the host country. The positive and significant effect of GNI of the host country (b =0.006 in models 3 and 4) indicates that, other things being equal, health of all residents (both natives and immigrants) tends to rise with economic resources of the host country (which might be an indicator of quality of healthcare services and facilities). 5. Discussion and Conclusion We embarked on this research in order to examine whether the positive healthy immigrant effect that has been repeatedly observed in the American context (as well as in traditional immigrant societies such as Canada and Australia) prevails in the context of Western European countries. Specifically, we were interested in determining if immigrants to Western Europe are healthier than the comparable native-born populations or, in other words, if they are positively selected on the basis of health. We focused in our study on subjective rather than objective health. Analysis of data from four West European countries (i.e., Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Austria) unequivocally revealed that in all countries the subjective health reported by FG immigrants is significantly lower than the subjective health of the comparable native-born populations. Indeed, this finding contradicts the pattern observed in the United States and is an antithesis to the healthy immigrant effect hypothesis. The multivariate analysis further reveals, in three of the four countries, that the health of sons and daughters of immigrants (i.e., SG who were born and raised in Europe) is better than the health of the comparable FG immigrants. However, health of the SG is still not as good as that of comparable TG native-born (those natives those natives with very distant or no immigration background). In other words, the subjective health of the offspring of immigrants is higher than that of their parents but still lower than TG natives. Apparently, West European host societies are likely to provide conditions that support attainment of good health for all residents (including the immigrant population but especially that of the native-born populations). The impact of economic resources of the country on health is manifested through the positive impact of GNI of the host country on health of all residents (both immigrants and natives). This finding is consistent with a large number of studies that repeatedly observed that health of the population tends to increase with country’s economic resources (Semyonov et al., 2013; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2008). That is, rich countries are more likely to provide their populations with health services, medical facilities, and advanced treatment that improve the health of the population. Curiously, whereas economic conditions in the host country affect the health of all persons residing in the country, whether immigrants or native-born, the economic conditions in an immigrant’s country of origin (as captured by GNI of country of origin) do not exert any Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 313 Table 3. Ordered regression predicting good general subjective health status, pooled model (dependent variable is selfperceived health, 1–3, 3 =‘very good health’). VARIABLES (1) (1a) (2) (2a) (3) (4) Generation a: First generation ( =1) −0.349** −0.419** −0.235** −0.310** −0.226** −0.227** (0.039) (0.039) (0.040) (0.040) (0.040) (0.040) Second generation ( =1) −0.156** −0.124** −0.133** −0.107* −0.118** −0.118** (0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.046) (0.046) (0.046) Age −0.055** −0.050** −0.044** −0.039** −0.043** −0.043** (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) Male b(=1) − − 0.121** 0.129** 0.120** 0.120** − − (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) Education c: Lower education ( =1) − − −0.284** −0.320** −0.276** −0.275** − − (0.030) (0.032) (0.030) (0.030) Academic education ( =1) − − 0.234** 0.292** 0.234** 0.234** − − (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) Labor force status d: Unemployed ( =1) − − −0.393** −0.289∗∗ −0.388** −0.387** − − (0.057) (0.058) (0.057) (0.057) Professionals, technicians, − − 0.609** 0.521** 0.610** 0.609** and managers ( =1) − − (0.038) (0.039) (0.038) (0.038) Clerks ( =1) − − 0.378** 0.422** 0.375** 0.375** − − (0.038) (0.039) (0.038) (0.038) Blue collar ( =1) − − 0.290** 0.302** 0.299** 0.298** − − (0.041) (0.041) (0.041) (0.041) Household size − − 0.028** 0.018 0.030** 0.031** − − (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) Married e(=1) − − 0.096** 0.137** 0.092** 0.092** − − (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) Lives in urban area f(=1) − − 0.032 0.010 0.047* 0.048* − − (0.023) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) GNI rank: country of destination − − − − 0.006** 0.006** − − − − (0.002) (0.002) GNI rank: country of birth − − − − − 0.001 (centered) * Generation 1 − − − − − (0.001) Country of destination g: France ( =1) −0.104** −0.157** − − − (0.030) − (0.032) − − Netherlands ( =1) −0.331** −0.353** − − − (0.031) − (0.034) − − Austria ( =1) −0.813** −0.829** − − − (0.040) − (0.041) − − Constant h: Bad Health −3.987** −3.548** −3.038** −2.594** −1.901** −1.884** (0.048) (0.053) (0.080) (0.083) (0.375) (0.375) Good Health −1.579** −1.109** −0.554** −0.081 0.583 0.600 (0.041) (0.048) (0.078) (0.082) (0.374) (0.375) Observations (non-weighted) 27,818 27,672 27,818 27,672 27,672 27,672 Pseudo R-squared 0.0972 0.131 0.103 0.137 0.132 0.132 Notes: Standard errors in parentheses; ** p<0.01, * p<0.05; two-tailed test; cases are weighted according to country-specific population weight; comparison categories: aThird generation and above =0; bFemale =0; cMiddle education =0; dNot in the labor force =0; eNot married =0; fLives in rural area =0; gGermany =0; hVery good health =3. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 314 systematic impact on the size of the health disparities between immigrants and natives. In the Netherlands, immigrants’ subjective health tends to increase with GNI of country of origin but the health of immigrants from advanced economies to France and Germany tends to be lower. Yet in Austria, the GNI of country of origin has no impact on health of immigrants. This is probably due to differential selection systems that operate in the sorting process of immigrants from a specific country of origin into a specific country of destination. Indeed, the selection process is influenced by the unique conditions associated with both country of origin and country of destination. Furthermore, the insignificant effect of the GNI of the country of origin on the subjective health of FG immigrants may also be attributed to the fact that most immigrants originated from poor countries, where better GNI values do not necessarily correspond in a systematic way with better health services. In addition, many of FG immigrants have lived for quite a long period of time in the countries of destination, and the current GNI of country of origin may not necessarily correspond with the GNI level at the time they had immigrated. Indeed, it is possible that in addition to ‘healthy immigrants,’ some immigrants are attracted to the good and accessible healthcare system in Western Europe, while some may arrive as refugees and asylum seekers. Therefore, not only differences in patterns of positive health selection but also patterns of negative migration or return migration (i.e., salmon-bias effect) may differ considerably between the United States and West European countries. In sum, the findings reported here reveal that the patterns of health disparities between immigrants and native-born in the four West European countries differ dramatically from those observed in the United States. Contrary to theoretical expectations (as derived from the healthy immigrant thesis), in all four countries immigrants are not healthier than the native-born populations. In fact, other things being equal, immigrants report lower subjective health than the native-born population in all four European countries. The difference can be attributed, first and foremost, to differences in immigrants’ admission policies and differences in healthcare policies between the United States and Western Europe. The United States (and other traditional immigrant societies such as Canada and Australia) utilizes health status as one of the major criteria for (legal) admission of immigrants to the country (much more so than in Western Europe). In addition, in the United States, healthcare services are much more expensive and less accessible than the care facilities in most West European countries. Therefore, health considerations and health criteria play a much greater role in positive self-selection and in admission of immigrants into the United States than in Europe. The accessible health services in Europe may also result in healthier domestic populations (considerably healthier than the American population; Maskileyson, 2014). As a result, whereas an average immigrant in Europe is not healthier than the comparable average native-born European, the average immigrant to the United States is healthier than the average native-born American. It is possible, of course, that health disparities between immigrants and native-born Europeans would further increase due to the recent influx of refugees to Europe and the associated change in the composition of the foreign-born population; a possibility with implications that should be taken into consideration not only in future studies but also by policy makers. Although this research has succeeded in achieving its aims, several limitations need to be borne in mind when interpreting our findings. First, whereas subjective health measures are good predictors of life expectancy and correlate with objective health measures, it remains to be answered whether and to what extent findings in these countries remain similar when objective health measures are used. Second, it is unclear whether the observed differences in self-perceived health within and across countries reflect true differences or whether they merely reflect cultural bias in the measures (Snowden, 2003). Indeed, most measures of health assessment have been initially developed and tested on samples comprised largely of culturally homogeneous groups (e.g., European-American populations with native English-speaking abilities). Consequently, subjective health questions translated into various languages may not be understood in the same way when applied to different cultures (Teresi, 2006). Specifically, measurement nonequivalence might lead to biased conclusions about similarities and differences in health measures of different groups within and across countries. Several recent studies demonstrated that evidence of the cultural equivalence of health-related measures is sparse (Grol-Prokopczyk, Verdes-Tennant, McEniry, & Ispány, 2015; Hardy, Acciai, & Reyes, 2014). Although subjective measures may generate a problem of comparability across countries (see Davidov, Meuleman, Cieciuch, Schmidt, & Billiet, 2014), using three broad categories of subjective health as done in the current study was likely to reduce this problem. In addition, since we have only a single measured indicator of health, we could not test its comparability across groups and countries. Third, the reason for migration can be another factor that has a differential impact of immigrants’ health. Several studies confirm that forced migrants represent a disadvantaged group, not only in comparison to the native-born population, but also in comparison to other economic and noneconomic immigrants (Hugo, Abbasi-Shavazi, & Kraly, 2017). Indeed, refugees tend to have less command of the local language, less educational experience, less access to family support, and poorer mental and physical health (Hugo et al., 2017). Unfortunately, individuallevel indicators on refugee status were not available in the present data to examine the issue. Nevertheless, it should be noted that only about 1% of the FG and SG immigrants in the sample under study were from countries Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 315 with highly oppressive regimes (e.g., former Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan). In future research we would like to see the further examination of the reason for migration and the impact of refugee status on health. Likewise, we do hope that future investigations would benefit from the use of longitudinal and panel data analysis, and of multiple measures of subjective and objective health, in studying health disparities between nativeborn and immigrants in a comparable way. Despite the limitations of the data, however, the findings of the present research do underscore the importance of the host country and its unique context in the study of health disparities between immigrants and the native-born population across countries. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Professor Yitchak Haberfeld and Professor Peter Schmidt for their useful comments and suggestions and Lisa Trierweiler for the English proofreading of the manuscript. Conflict of Interests The authors declare no conflict of interests. References Abraído-Lanza, A. F., Dohrenwend, B. P., Ng-Mak, D. S., & Turner, J. B. (1999). The Latino mortality paradox: A test of the “salmon bias” and healthy migrant hypotheses. American Journal of Public Health,89(10), 1543–1548. Acevedo-Garcia, D., Bates, L. M., Osypuk, T. L., & McArdle, N. (2010). The effect of immigrant generation and duration on self-rated health among US adults 2003–2007. Social Science and Medicine, 71(6), 1161–1172. Akresh, I. R., & Frank, R. (2008). Health selection among new immigrants. American Journal of Public Health, 98(11), 2058–2064. Arenas, E., Goldman, N., Pebley, A. R., & Teruel, G. (2015). Return migration to Mexico: Does health matter? Demography,52(6), 1853–1868. Biddle, N., Kennedy, S., & McDonald, J. T. (2007). Health assimilation patterns amongst Australian immigrants. Economic Record,83(260), 16–30. Boulogne, R., Jougla, E., Breem, Y., Kunst, A. E., & Rey, G. (2012). Mortality differences between the foreign-born and locally-born population in France (2004–2007). Social Science and Medicine,74(8), 1213–1223. CDC. (2014) Technical instructions for panel physicians. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugee health/exams/ti/panel/technical-instructions-panelphysicians.html Constant, A. F., García-Muñoz, T., Neuman, S., & Neuman, T. (2015). A “healthy immigrant effect” or a “sick immigrant effect”? Selection and policies matter (IZA Discussion Paper No. 9338). Bonn: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA). Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp9338.pdf Cunningham, S. A., Ruben, J. D., & Narayan, K. V. (2008). Health of foreign-born people in the United States: A review. Health and Place,14(4), 623–635. Darmon, N., & Khlat, M. (2001). An overview of the health status of migrants in France, in relation to their dietary practices. Public Health Nutrition,4(02), 163–172. Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in crossnational research. Annual Review of Sociology,40, 55–75. Eikemo, T. A., Bambra, C., Joyce, K., & Dahl, E. (2008). Welfare state regimes and income-related health inequalities: A comparison of 23 European countries. The European Journal of Public Health,18(6), 593–599. Elkeles, T., & Seifert, W. (1996). Immigrants and health: Unemployment and health-risks of labour migrants in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1984–1992. Social Science and Medicine,43(7), 1035–1047. Ferraro, K. F., & Farmer, M. M. (1999). Utility of health data from social surveys: Is there a gold standard for measuring morbidity? American Sociological Review, 64(2), 303–315. Fokkema, T., Kveder, A., Hiekel, N., Emery, T., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2016). Generations & Gender Programme wave 1 data collection: An overview and assessment of sampling and fieldwork methods, weighting procedures, and cross-sectional representativeness. Demographic Research,34, 499–524. Frisbie, W. P., Cho, Y., & Hummer, R. A. (2001). Immigration and the health of Asian and Pacific Islander adults in the United States. American Journal of Epidemiology,153(4), 372–80. GGS. (n.d.). Generations & Gender Programme: A social science infrastructure for research on family dynamics and relationships. GGS. Retrieved from http:// www.ggp-i.org Goldman, N., Pebley, A. R., Creighton, M. J., Teruel, G. M., Rubalcava, L. N., & Chung, C. (2014). The consequences of migration to the United States for shortterm changes in the health of Mexican immigrants. Demography,51(4), 1159–1173. Grol-Prokopczyk, H., Verdes-Tennant, E., McEniry, M., & Ispány, M. (2015). Promises and pitfalls of anchoring vignettes in health survey research. Demography, 52(5), 1703–1728. Guendelman, S., & Abrams, B. (1995). Dietary intake among Mexican-American women: Generational differences and a comparison with white non-Hispanic women. American Journal of Public Health,85(1), 20–25. Guendelman, S., Gould, J. B., Hudes, M., & Eskenazi, B. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 316 (1990). Generational differences in perinatal health among the Mexican American population: Findings from HHANES 1982–1984. American Journal of Public Health,80, 61–65. Hardy, M. A., Acciai, F., & Reyes, A. M. (2014). How health conditions translate into self-ratings: A comparative study of older adults across Europe. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,55(3), 320–341. Hugo, G., Abbasi-Shavazi, M. J., & Kraly, E. P. (Eds.). (2017). Demography of refugee and forced migration (Vol. 13). Cham: Springer. Jasso, G., Massey, D. S., Rosenzweig, M. R., & Smith, J. P. (2004). Immigrant health: Selectivity and acculturation. In N. B. Anderson, R. A. Bulatao, & B. Cohen (Eds.), Critical perspectives on racial and ethnic differences in health in late life (pp. 227–266). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Kennedy, S., McDonald, J. T., & Biddle, N. (2006). The healthy immigrant effect and immigrant selection: Evidence from four countries. Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers, 2006(164). Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/ p/mcm/sedapp/164.html Kennedy, S., Kidd, M. P., McDonald, J. T., & Biddle, N. (2015). The healthy immigrant effect: Patterns and evidence from four countries. Journal of International Migration and Integration,16(2), 317–332. Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., & Rosen, R. C. (1999). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and predictors. JAMA,281(6), 537–544. Lu, Y., & Qin, L. (2014). Healthy migrant and salmon bias hypotheses: A study of health and internal migration in China. Social Science & Medicine,102, 41–48. Martinez, J. N., Aguayo-Tellez, E., & Rangel-Gonzalez, E. (2015). Explaining the Mexican-American health paradox using selectivity effects. International Migration Review,49(4), 878–906. Maskileyson, D. (2014). Healthcare system and the wealth–health gradient: A comparative study of older populations in six countries. Social Science and Medicine,119, 18–26. McDonald, J. T., & Kennedy, S. (2004). Insights into the ‘healthy immigrant effect’: Health status and health service use of immigrants to Canada. Social Science and Medicine,59(8), 1613–1627. Mehta, N. K., & Elo, I. T. (2012). Migrant selection and the health of US immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Demography,49(2), 425–447. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Statistics database: Health statistics— Health Expenditure. OECD Stat. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?%20DatasetCode =HEALTH_STAT Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). International migration outlook 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing. Østbye, T., Krause, K. M., Norton, M. C., Tschanz, J., Sanders, L., Hayden, K., . . . Cache County Investigators. (2006). Ten dimensions of health and their relationships with overall self-reported health and survival in a predominately religiously active elderly population: The cache county memory study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society,54(2), 199–209. Palloni, A., & Arias, E. (2004). Paradox lost: Explaining the Hispanic adult mortality advantage. Demography, 41(3), 385–415. Razum, O., & Rohrmann, S. (2002). The healthy migrant mortality effect: Role of selection and late entry bias. Atherosclerosis,64(2), 82–88. Razum, O., Zeeb, H., Akgün, H. S., & Yilmaz, S. (1998). Low overall mortality of Turkish residents in Germany persists and extends into a second generation: Merely a healthy migrant effect? Tropical Medicine and International Health,3(4), 297–303. Riosmena, F., Wong, R., & Palloni, A. (2013). Migration selection, protection, and acculturation in health: A binational perspective on older adults. Demography, 50(3), 1039–1064. Ronellenfitsch, U., & Razum, O. (2004). Deteriorating health satisfaction among immigrants from Eastern Europe to Germany. International Journal for Equity in Health,3(4). Retrieved from https://equityhealthj. biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1475-92763-4 Sardadvar, S. (2015). How migrant status affects health beyond socioeconomic status: Evidence from Austria. International. Migration Review,49(4), 843–877. Semyonov, M., Lewin-Epstein, N., & Maskileyson, D. (2013). Where wealth matters more for health: The wealth–health gradient in 16 countries. Social Science and Medicine,81, 10–17. Singh, G. K., & Siahpush, M. (2002). Ethnic-immigrant differentials in health behaviors, morbidity, and causespecific mortality in the United States: An analysis of two national data bases. Human Biology,1, 83–109. Snowden, L. R. (2003). Bias in mental health assessment and intervention: Theory and evidence. American Journal of Public Health,93(2), 239–243. Teresi, J. A. (2006). Overview of quantitative measurement methods: Equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Medical Care,44(11), S39-S49. Turra, C. M., & Elo, I. T. (2008). The impact of salmon bias on the Hispanic mortality advantage: New evidence from social security data. Population Research and Policy Review,27(5), 515–530. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. United Nations. (2005). Generations & Gender Programme: Survey instruments. Geneva and New York, NY: UN. Wallace, M., & Kulu, H. (2014). Low immigrant mortality in England and Wales: A data artefact? Social Science & Medicine,120, 100–109. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2008). Income inequality Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 317 and socioeconomic gradients in mortality. American Journal of Public Health,98(4), 699–704. Williams, S. R., Pham-Kanter, G., & Leitsch, S. A. (2009). Measures of chronic conditions and diseases associated with aging in the national social life, health, and aging project. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(1), 67–75. World Bank Group. (Ed.). (2014). World development indicators database, 2014. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. About the Authors Dina Maskileyson is Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology at the University of Cologne. Her research interests lie in the areas of immigration, health, and labor market and wealth inequality. Her recent publications focus on immigrants’ labor market integration as well as health trajectories of immigrants after the arrival to the host country. Moshe Semyonov is Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Labor Studies at Tel Aviv University and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Semyonov’s research interests lie in the areas of comparative stratification and inequality and causes and consequences of global migration. His recent publications deal with inequality in a comparative perspective, integration of immigrants in the labor market and attitudes toward immigrants across space and time. Eldad Davidov is Professor at the Institute for Sociology and Social Psychology at the University of Cologne, Germany, and the Department of Sociology at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, and codirector of the University of Zurich Research Priority Program “Social Networks.” He was president of the European Survey Research Association (ESRA) between 2015 and 2017. His research interests are applications of structural equation modeling to survey data, especially in cross-cultural and longitudinal research. Applications include human values, national identity, and attitudes toward immigrants and other minorities. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 318 Annex Table A1. Measurement and response categories of variables. Responses Range Variable Measurement Min Max General health status Fair, bad, very bad =1; Good =2; Very good =3 1 3 Generation First generation =1; Second generation =1; 0 1 Third generation and above =0 Gender Male =1; Female =0 0 1 Age of respondent In years 26 82 Education Lower education =1; Academic education =1; 0 1 Middle education =0 Labor force status Unemployed =1; Professionals, technicians, 0 1 and managers =1; Clerks =1; Blue collar occupations =1; Not in the labor force =0 Household size including Number of persons 1 13 respondent Marital status Married =1; Not married =0 0 1 Area of living Lives in urban area =1; Lives in rural area =0 0 1 Gross national income per capita, In rank points, higher value indicates higher rank 1 200 PPP, ranking of country of birth (World Bank Group, 2014) Gross national income per capita, In rank points, higher value indicates higher rank 172 186 PPP, ranking of country of destination (World Bank Group, 2014) Reference World Bank Group. (Ed.). (2014). World development indicators database, 2014. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 304–319 319 Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 320–331 DOI: 10.17645/si.v7i4.2429 Article Contacts between Natives and Migrants in Germany: Perceptions of the Native Population since 1980 and an Examination of the Contact Hypotheses Bryan Bohrer 1,*, Maria-Therese Friehs 2, Peter Schmidt 3and Stefan Weick 1 1GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, 68159 Mannheim, Germany; E-Mails: bry[email protected]g (B.B.), stefan.[email protected]g (S.W.) 2Institute of Psychology, Osnabrück University, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany; E-Mail: mariatherese.[email protected] 3Institute for Political Science, Justus Liebig University Gießen, 35394 Gießen, Germany; E-Mail: peter[email protected] * Corresponding author Submitted: 26 August 2019 | Accepted: 29 November 2019 | Published: 27 December 2019 Abstract For decades, migration to Germany has been a relevant social phenomenon resulting in an increasing share of foreigners and Germans with migration background in the German populace. Additionally, since 2015, Germany has experienced a substantial increase in the immigration of people seeking refuge and asylum from civil war, economic and environmental catastrophes, and other adverse living conditions. These developments can be assumed to have led to an increase in intergroup contact between Germans and foreigners. We investigate this phenomenon in a multifaceted fashion by combining a social indicator and monitoring approach using repeated cross-sections over time with a new panel approach using a short-time panel to study causal relations. As a first step, we descriptively analyze the development of intergroup contact experiences of the German population with foreigners in various areas of life using data from the ALLBUS survey collected over 36 years between 1980 and 2016. Specifically, we detail the diverging contact experiences of participants with and without migration background as well as participants in the former Eastern and Western part of Germany. In a second step, based on Allport’s intergroup contact theory that contact with outgroup members may improve attitudes towards these outgroups and other related findings, we examine the longitudinal processes between positive intergroup contact with foreigners and attitudes towards foreigners using four waves of the GESIS Panel collected over approximately one and a half years. We apply special rigor to these analyses by differentiating stable differences in intergroup contact experiences and attitudes between participants from within-person processes and discussing the implications of this differentiation. Keywords ALLBUS; foreigners; Germany; intergroup contact theory; migrant background; migration Issue This article is part of the issue “Immigration from the Migrants’ Perspective” edited by Alice Ramos (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal), Eldad Davidov (University of Cologne, Germany/University of Zurich, Switzerland), Peter Schmidt (University of Giessen, Germany), Marta Vilar Rosales (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal) and Dina Maskileyson (University of Cologne, Germany). © 2019 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction Migration has been a constant topic of importance in the Federal Republic of Germany. With the onset of the 1950s, the influx of members of the German minority in other countries migrating back to Germany predominantly from Central and Eastern European countries began. This influx was comprised of descendants of emiSocial Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 320–331 320 grated Germans that had preserved the German culture and language after the Second World War and had dealt with hindrances and displacement. From 1950 to 2017, more than 4.5 million of these ethnic Germans migrated back to Germany, the majority doing so between 1985 and 2004 (Göttsche, 2018). Since 1955, immigrants labelled as guest workers came to Western Germany in increasing numbers and from different countries (Alba, Schmidt, & Wasmer, 2003). For a long time, the official position of German governments had been that these guest workers would not stay in Germany permanently, as Germany was not regarded as an immigration country. Finally, in 2000, the law was changed and children born from non-German citizens became German by birth, but they had to decide at the age of 21 whether they wanted to hold the German citizenship or to hold the citizenship of the country of origin of their parents. Due to the turbulent nature of countries with civil war, difficult economic situations, and vitriolic political circumstances, the number of displaced individuals heading to Europe in seek of refuge and asylum has risen dramatically since 2015. With millions of refugees having sought refuge in countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia, and Jordan (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2016)—and with no clear consensus being found among EU countries as to how to distribute the refugees fairly throughout Europe— the German government decided on a short-term strategy to deal with this crisis by opening their borders in 2015. According to the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees; 2019a), as a consequence, well over a million refugees came to Germany in the following years after this landmark decision, mostly being greeted with a positive reception from the German populace. However, political parties such as the Alternative for Germany and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria came forward with warnings that such an influx of refugees threatened the safety of the Western lifestyle, particularly due to the increase in Muslims. This stance was furthered due to incidents such as the string of sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve 2015–2016 in Cologne and terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic State terrorists disguised as refugees. To make matters more complex, the integration of migrants in Germany has been a persistent societal challenge (Alba et al., 2003; Coenders & Scheepers, 2008; Heath et al., 2019), being characterized through legal frameworks, the social climate (Green, Visintin, & Sarrasin, 2018; Hadler & Flesken, 2018), and the experience of the majority population with migrants and vice versa (Kühnel & Leibold, 2000). However, one should not forget the role individual factors (e.g., demographic characteristics, prejudice, authoritarianism, social networks, racism) play in this process as well (Pfenning, 2019; Schmidt & Weick, 2017; Sola, 2018). Nonetheless, integration remains a process that happens largely through the interactions of members of different groups, or the simple fact that Germans get into contact with migrants. Examining the effect of intergroup contact on attitudes towards the outgroup, as well as attitudes on contact, has a long tradition in the social sciences; however, the study into this could be improved with modern methodologies and a focus on how individuals with migrant backgrounds experience intergroup contact (if at all) with said groups. Consequently, this article seeks to expand upon past research, which had used only cross-sectional data or shorttime panels with small samples, by first examining where persons with German citizenship with varying migrant backgrounds might experience intergroup contact with foreigners living in Germany, and by examining how much contact these individuals have had over a time period of 20 years with migrants in various areas of life. Furthermore, this article will also shed light on the dispositions of the German majority towards foreigners as a minority group and the perception of intergroup contact between them. For this analysis, time-series data from 1980–2016 exists that allows for the examination of long-term social change. Additionally, we will use large-scale short-time panel data to examine the interrelations of intergroup contact experiences and outgroup attitudes. This investigation will be advanced through the use of a newly proposed random-intercept-cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM; Hamaker, Kuiper, & Grasman, 2015), which allows for examining both the within-person effects and the between-person effects of intergroup contact and attitudes. Furthermore, it grants the opportunity for a comparison with the conventional CLPM to find differences between the models and their results. In the following section, we first give a short overview of the theoretical state of the art and empirical research in this area. Then, in Study 1 (Section 3), we use data from the German General Social Survey (ALLBUS) from 1980 to 2016 to examine the major differentiations between East and West Germany, the German and immigrant population, time points, and domains of contacts (GESIS, 2019a). Subsequently, we present the methods and the design of Study 2 (Section 4) employing data from the GESIS Panel and the comparison of classical autoregressive cross-lagged models with the newly proposed randomintercept CLPM differentiating between—and within— person effects. Finally, we summarize the results and present some conclusions. 2. Theory and Empirical Research According to the contact hypothesis, association with individuals from other social groups tends to improve positions on, and respect for, said groups (Williams, 1947). Since its inception, the meaning of this hypothesis has been clarified by a number of works; in particular, Allport (1954) postulates that prejudice, when not deeply ingrained in the character structure, could be decreased through positive contacts between majority and minority groups. This hypothesis has been extensively supported by authors such as Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 320–331 321 through meta-analysis; however, previous studies have also found that positive attitudes can facilitate positive experiences (Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008; Wagner, Schmidt, & Kauff, 2019). As an extension of these hypotheses, the prejudice hypothesis holds that individuals with strong prejudice towards other groups attempt to avoid contact with said minority groups (Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011). Such an outcome, however, does not account for extreme cases of prejudice that potentially lead to aggressive actions against minorities and migrants. As previous research has found, individuals with strong prejudices experience contact with minorities and migrants as negative and are therefore prone to perceive further experiences as negative in turn (Schmidt, Weick, & Gloris, 2019). With this focus on prejudice and contact, understanding the opinion of majority groups on minorities being present in their society becomes paramount. As previously studied in Germany, the perception of Germans towards the threat of migrants and minorities affecting culture and economy is particularly important when considering the evaluations that members of the majority group give foreigners (Schmidt & Weick, 2017). This is furthered by the majority’s considerations of how Germany should handle the influx of specific immigrant groups (Schmidt & Weick, 2017). However, this focus examines the majority’s contact with foreigners residing in Germany, but does not consider the intricacies of contacts with said foreigners among individuals with migrant backgrounds themselves. Since efforts have been made in previous research to examine the differences between Eastern and Western Germany with focus being placed on contact with migrants (see Jäckle & König, 2018; Wagner, van Dick, Pettigrew, & Christ, 2003), this article will examine this as well to include an extensive picture of migrant contact throughout Germany. 3. Study 1 3.1. Data and Methods In our first study examining the descriptive statistics of the German population, data from the ALLBUS was used (GESIS, 2019a). ALLBUS is a repeated cross-sectional survey that is generally performed every two years (Koch & Wasmer, 2004). For the purposes of this study, cumulative data from 1980–2016 was used to focus on questions regarding personal contact with specific migrant groups among those with both no migrant background and those that either were born outside of Germany or have direct relatives (e.g., parents or grandparents) that migrated to Germany. Comparisons of East and West Germany were also made. 3.2. Variables In order to examine the experiences of respondents, questions were taken from the ALLBUS data that asked respondents about their personal contact with foreigners living in Germany, specifically with regard to which area of life these contacts occurred (family, workplace, neighborhood, and circle of friends/acquaintances). The questions asked “Do you have any personal contact with foreigners living in Germany? Specifically…” with the follow-up being “…in your own family or close family circle?,” “…at work?,” “…in your neighborhood?,” and “…among your other friends and acquaintances?” respectively. Further questions regarding the country of origin of the respondent, their parents, and their grandparents were used to create specific migrant background cohorts. Due to the “country of origin” questions having first been asked in 1996 and only every ten years thereafter, only the data from 1996, 2006, and 2016 was used when analyzing them. For the analysis of East and West differences, data was used starting from 1980 for West Germany and 1994 for East Germany. The composition of the German population with regard to its immigration status can only be restrictedly captured with the available surveys, even though such surveys allow for a meaningful look into contact between Germans and migrants. The ALLBUS data consistently asked respondents whether or not they held a German citizenship. Other nationalities are sadly not represented well enough in the data to allow for separate analysis. Having said this, there are three ALLBUS surveys— namely those aforementioned surveys from 1996, 2006, and 2016—that included country of origin questions for the respondent, their parents, and their grandparents. With these questions it is then possible to analyze how the number of individuals with migration backgrounds has changed over this 20-year timespan and, in particular, how contact frequencies between Germans without migrant backgrounds and foreigners have developed as well. 3.3. Results Table 1 highlights the proportion of respondents in the ALLBUS data with migrant backgrounds, whether being migrants themselves or being the children/grandchildren of migrants. Interestingly, the percentage of respondents with no migrant background, while higher for those with a German citizenship, decreased slowly between 1996 and 2006, but starkly dropped heading into the next decade (62.1% to 55.3% for all respondents and 66.8% to 58.8% for German citizens between 2006 and 2016). This decrease was accompanied with a moderate drop in those with a migrant background themselves; however, this was also complemented with an increase in those with either parental or grandparental migrant backgrounds. In other words, roughly 45% of all respondents had some level of migrant background in 2016, while the same was true for only 41.2% of those with German citizenship. In both cases, the amount of individuals with some level of migrant background has increased by approximately 10% over the two decades. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 320–331 322 ogy,62, 583–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.093008.100356 Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality,78(6), 1861–1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x GESIS. (2019a). German general social survey (ALLBUS)— Cumulation 1980–2016 (Study No. ZA4588). Mannheim: GESIS. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13291 GESIS. (2019b). GESIS Panel—Standard edition (Study No. ZA5665). Mannheim: GESIS. https://doi.org/ 10.4232/1.13377 Göttsche, F. (2018). Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund [Population with migration background]. In Statistisches Bundesamt & Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (Eds.), Datenreport 2018: Ein Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Data report 2018: A social report for the Federal Republic of Germany] (pp. 28–42). Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica,37(3), 424–438. Green, E. G., Visintin, E. P., & Sarrasin, O. (2018). From ethnic group boundary demarcation to deprovincialization: The interplay of immigrant presence and ideological climate. International Journal of Comparative Sociology,59(5/6), 383–402. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0020715218801422 Hadler, M., & Flesken, A. (2018). Political rhetoric and attitudes toward nationhood: A time-comparative and cross-national analysis of 39 countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology,59(5/6), 362–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715218810331 Hamaker, E., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods,20(1), 102–116. Heath, A., Davidov, E., Ford, R., Green, E. G. T., Ramos, A., & Schmidt, P. (2019). Contested terrain: Explaining divergent patterns of public opinion towards immigration within Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1369183X.2019.1550145 Jäckle, S., & König, P. D. (2018). Threatening events and anti-refugee violence: An empirical analysis in the wake of the refugee crisis during the years 2015 and 2016 in Germany. European Sociological Review, 34(6), 728–743. Koch, A., & Wasmer, M. (2004). Der ALLBUS als Instrument zur Untersuchung sozialen Wandels: Eine Zwischenbilanz nach zwanzig Jahren [The ALLBUS as an instrument for the investigation of social change: An interim evaluation after 20 Years]. In R. Schmitt-Beck, M. Wasmer, & A. Koch (Eds.), Sozialer und politischer Wandel in Deutschland [Social and political change in Germany] (pp. 13–42). Wiesbaden: Springer. Kühnel, S., & Leibold, J. (2000). Die anderen und wir: Das Verhältnis zwischen Deutschen und Ausländern aus der Sicht der in Deutschland lebenden Ausländer [The others and us: The relation between Germans and foreigners from the perspective of immigrants living in Germany]. In R. Alba, P. Schmidt, & M. Wasmer (Eds.), Deutsche und Ausländer: Freunde, Fremde oder Feinde? Empirische Befunde und theoretische Erklärungen [Germans and foreigners: Friends, strangers, or enemies? Empirical findings and theoretical explanations] (pp. 111–146). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Kühnel, S., & Mays, A. (2018). Probleme von Cross-lagged Panelmodellen zur Analyse gegenseitiger Beeinflussung von Einstellung und Verhalten [Problems of cross-lagged panel models with the analysis of mutual interference from attitudes and behavior]. In J. Mayerl, T. Krause, A. Wahl, & M. Wuketich (Eds.), Einstellungen und Verhalten in der empirischen Sozialforschung: Analytische Konzepte, Anwendungen und Analyseverfahren [Attitudes and behavior in empirical social research: Analytical concepts, applications, and analytical methods] (pp. 359–386). Heidelberg: Springer. Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology,45(2), 152–168. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2079 Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Mallett, T. K., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,94(2), 265–277. Masselink, M., van Roekel, E., Hankin, B. L., Keijsers, L., Lodder, G. M. A., Vanhalst, J., . . . Oldehinkel, A. J. (2018). The longitudinal association between self-esteem and depressive symptoms in adolescents: Separating between-person effects from within-person effects. European Journal of Personality,32(6), 653-671. https://doi.org/10.1002/per. 2179 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). Interpersonal relations and group processes: A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90(5), 751–783. Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,35(3), 271–280. Pfenning, U. (2019). Soziale Netzwerke: Zur NichtKarriere eines sozialrelevanten Konstrukts [Social networks: The non-career of a socially relevant construct]. In J. Mayerl, T. Krause, A. Wahl, & M. Wuketch (Eds.), Einstellungen und Verhalten in der empirischen Sozialforschung: Analytische Konzepte, Anwendungen und Analyseverfahren [Attitudes and behavior in empirical social research: Analytical concepts, applications, and analytical methods] (pp. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 320–331 329 207–235). Wiesbaden: Springer. Schmidt, P., & Weick, S. (2017). Kontakte und die Wahrnehmung von Bedrohungen sind besonders wichtig für die Einschätzung von Migranten: Einstellungen der deutschen Bevölkerung zu Zuwandern von 1980 bis 2016 [Contacts and the perception of threats are particularly important for the evaluation of migrants: Positions of the German population towards immigrants from 1980–2016]. Informationsdienst Soziale Indikatoren,57, 1–7. Schmidt, P., Weick, S., & Gloris, D. (2019). Wann wirken Kontakte zwischen Migranten und Mehrheitsgesellschaft? [When do contacts between migrants and the majority of society have an effect?]. Informationsdienst Soziale Indikatoren,61, 24–29. Sola, A. (2018). The 2015 refugee crisis in Germany: Concerns about immigration and populism (Paper 966). Berlin: DIW SOEP. Retrieved from https:// www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_ 01.c.583437.de/diw_sp0966.pdf Statistisches Bundesamt. (2019). Migration und Integration: Ausländische Bevölkerung nach Bundesländern und Jahren [Migration and integration: Foreign population by state and year]. Statistisches Bundesamt. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/ DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/ Migration-Integration/Tabellen/auslaendischebevoelkerung-bundeslaender-jahre.html United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2016). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2015. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/ statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcr-globaltrends-2015.html Wagner, U., van Dick, R., Pettigrew, T. F., & Christ, O. (2003). Ethnic prejudice in East and West Germany: The explanatory power of intergroup contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,6(1), 22–36. Wagner, U., Schmidt, P., & Kauff, M. (2019). Attitudes towards ethnic minority groups. In GESIS (Ed.), GESIS panel study description (pp. 111-116). Mannheim: GESIS. Retrieved from https://dbk.gesis. org/dbksearch/download.asp?db=E&id=52782 Williams, R. M., Jr. (1947). Reduction of intergroup tensions. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council. About the Authors Bryan Bohrer is the Editorial Assistant for the Historical Social Research Journal and a Doctoral Researcher at GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. His research interests include immigration studies, intergroup contact, political sociology, religious fundamentalism, and the sociology of religion. He plans to write his dissertation on the dimension of truth belief within religious fundamentalism and its relation to political voting behavior and authoritarianism in Europe. Maria-Therese Friehs is pursuing her PhD on the topic of intergroup contact at Osnabrück University. Herein, she focuses on aspects of the measurement of intergroup contact as well as on the identification of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal intergroup contact data. Her main research interests include the study of intergroup relations, with a focus on intergroup contact and stereotypes, and advanced data analysis. Peter Schmidt is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Political Science and the Centre for Environment and Development (ZEU) at the University of Giessen. His main topics are applications of generalized latent variable models including structural equation models, reasoned action and rational choice models, values and explanation of national identity, and prejudice against minorities. Stefan Weick studied Sociology at the University of Mannheim (Germany) and received his PhD from the University of Gießen. He is Senior Researcher at GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. His research topics are quality of life research, income inequality, consumption, poverty, and migration studies. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 320–331 330 Annex Model Specifications of the Baseline CLPM • Latent constructs of positive intergroup contact and attitudes were modelled for all four waves separately using the two indicators described in Table 4 of the main text. For factor identification, factor loadings of the first items were fixed to 1. • Two indicator-specific factors (one for positive intergroup contact, one for attitudes) were introduced for the items with the freely-estimated factor-loading in order to model the methods-specific variance created by the repeated application of the same items. These indicator-specific factors loaded only on the second item per construct in all four waves with a factor loading fixed to 1. These factors were not allowed to covary with the substantial construct factors or with each other. Table A1. Model fit indices of the (RI-)CLPM reported in 4.2. Model AIC 𝜒2df p RMSEA CFI SRMR Δ𝜒2 MLR df p GESIS Panel, Subsample “Refugees” Baseline CLPM 18630.201 135.412 86 .0005 .029 .989 .037 / / / Metric MI 18621.471 139.224 92 .0011 .028 .989 .039 3.357 6 .763 Stability Stationarity 18632.851 155.794 96 .0001 .030 .987 .051 14.380 4 .006 RI-CLPM 18561.923 78.837 89 .7711 .000 1.000 .035 37.354 3 <.001 Notes: The MLR 𝜒2— difference test accounts for the impact of uniand multivariate non-normality. The comparisons of the 𝜒2— difference test were as followed: Metric MI model vs. Baseline CLPM, Stability Stationarity vs. Baseline CLPM, and RI-CLPM vs. Metric MI model. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 320–331 331 Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 332–342 DOI: 10.17645/si.v7i4.2265 Article Nostalgic, Converted, or Cosmopolitan: Typology of Young Spanish Migrants Rubén Rodríguez-Puertas * and Alexandra Ainz Department of Geography, History and Humanities, University of Almería, 04120 La Cañada, Spain; E-Mails: [email protected] (R.R.-P.), [email protected] (A.A.) * Corresponding author Submitted: 10 June 2019 | Accepted: 4 September 2019 | Published: 27 December 2019 Abstract The high unemployment rate that is affecting Spain in recent years, along with the consolidation of labour market insecurity, have generated great changes in social behaviour, with a prominent tendency for young people to leave the country. With the aim of understanding, from the point of view of these new migrants, how their migration processes and sociocultural integration in their host countries are, this article follows the procedures of the Grounded Theory to analyse the discourses obtained through a discussion group and 41 in-depth interviews with young Spanish migrants while they were living abroad, during the period 2010–2015. The strength of this research lies in its construction of an empirical model consisting of three procedural categories: nostalgic adaptation, converted adaptation and cosmopolitan adaptation. These categories allow us to explain how the perception of young people about their home and host societies changes, as well as how their sociocultural adaptation to the new context is affected by the conducts and behaviours inherent to said perception. Keywords adaptation; migration processes; sociocultural integration; Spanish emigration; young migrants Issue This article is part of the issue “Immigration from the Migrants’ Perspective” edited by Alice Ramos (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal), Eldad Davidov (University of Cologne, Germany/University of Zurich, Switzerland), Peter Schmidt (University of Giessen, Germany), Marta Vilar Rosales (Institute of Social Sciences, Portugal) and Dina Maskileyson (University of Cologne, Germany). © 2019 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction The great, global, economic crisis that arose in the sphere of international finance in 2008 has damaged several spheres of the young Spaniards’ social reality (mainly their working environment), thus aggravating even more their already delicate conditions and pushing them to a situation of chronic insecurity and unemployment. This decline in social conditions and quality of life for young people has greatly transformed their social patterns, especially with the emergence of a migration trend affecting mostly those with a higher level of education (Domínguez-Mujica, Díaz-Hernández, & ParreñoCastellano, 2016). This trend is reflected in recent years in the sharp increase in Spanish youth (16–34 years old) emigration, which reached significant numbers during the period 2010–2015 (see Figure 1). As reflected in Figure 1, this dramatic context pushed thousands of young people to emigrate seeking to overcome the unstable environment to which they were doomed in Spain, where they adapted their vital projects to insecure jobs and ways of life, unable to achieve a consolidated professional identity which allowed them to pursue their own life projects (Bessant, Farthing, & Watts, 2017; Standing, 2013). This way, during the most critical years of the economic recession, this new Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 332–342 332 0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Figure 1. Spanish youth (16–34 years old) emigration during the period 2005–2017. Compiled by the authors based on data from the Residential Variation Statistics of the National Statistics Institute of Spain (INE, 2017). Spanish emigration—also known as neo-Hispanic migration (Domingo, Sabater, & Ortega, 2014)—was consolidated and reached very high figures. Although this migration trend decreased a bit from 2015 on, said decrease was more apparent than real and the trend reached again high figures in 2017, as shown in the graph. However, unlike what occurred in the past, current Spanish migration is mainly composed of young people with higher education (Santos, 2013). This could be explained by the obsolete Spanish productive framework, with its excessive emphasis on sectors such as tourism and construction, meagre investment in research, development, innovation and cutting-edge technology, ineffective industry positioning, and a large increase in job insecurity—which was already critical in past decades but right now is largely normalised as an inherent component of the Spanish labour market (Pochmann, 2011). Thus, all these dramatic aspects affecting young people have become essential explanatory factors in the new Spanish emigration. One of the aspects of young migration is the effect that it causes in their protagonists’ identity and perception. This way, given the growing interdependence and how easy it is to communicate in global society, these ‘new migrants’ participate in a plurality of social spaces: they are in contact, via Internet, with family, friends, fellow compatriot migrants, young people from other countries, natives from the host country, etc. All of that affects their perceptions, fears and hopes, since there is a confrontation between their previous social experience and the new reality they face in the multiple contexts they access after emigrating. This makes them develop various adaptation processes which are constructed, deconstructed or reconstructed depending on their interaction with their new social spaces and the new obstacles they face. These processes are very recent, hence the need for new explanatory models allowing to recognise and explain them, which is the primary goal of this research. 2. Theoretical Framework In order to explain how coming into contact with the host society transforms the perception and behaviour of young migrants, we followed the principles of the bidimensional models of acculturation, especially Berry’s (1997) model. This model explains the acculturation process based on (1) whether the immigrants consider to be of value maintaining their cultural heritage in the new society, and (2) whether they consider the new cultural patterns so important as to adopt them. Thus, the positive or negative answer to those two independent dimensions gives four possible acculturation strategies: integration (maintain and adopt), assimilation (not maintaining but adopting), separation (maintaining but not adopting) and marginalisation (neither maintaining nor adopting). Besides, it is also worth mentioning the Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM; Navas & Rojas, 2010; Rania, Rebora, Migliorini, & Navas, 2019; Zarsa & Sobrino, 2007), which improves the scope of Berry’s by considering that: (1) the acculturation process affects both the immigrants and the natives of the host society; (2) it depends on the country of origin; (3) it is influenced by psychosocial and sociodemographic variables; (4) it presents a real and an ideal plane of acculturation; and, most important of all, (5) there is no one single acculturation strategy, but they depend on the various domains in which the interaction takes place (family relationships, religious beliefs and customs, work relationships, etc.), so different options can be preferred and adopted at the same time. Besides the aforementioned acculturation models, another extremely relevant concept for explaining the changes that young migrants’ identities and perceptions undergo during their migration processes is that of transnational social spaces (Pries, 1998). Thus, based on this concept, the understanding of the migration process as a phenomenon leading migrants to a complete assimSocial Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 332–342 333 ilation and/or acculturation, is overcome. Said concept highlights that the migrants develop their perceptions in open, heterogeneous, hybrid spaces in which individual and group identities are composed of several segments such as local identity, ethnic identity, national identity, or cosmopolitan identity (Pries, 1998, p. 118). 3. Methodology 3.1. Participants With the aim of understanding migration processes and the adaptation of young Spaniards that emigrated during the period 2010–2015, we carried out 41 in-depth interviews to young Spanish migrants whose ages ranged from 18 to 35. They all had university degrees and arrived their host countries during the period above mentioned (see Tables 1 and 2). Moreover, we established a discussion group. This way, we aimed at establishing a significant profile of young, qualified Spaniards living abroad, focusing more on the possession of a degree than on the job carried out, so we would not exclude such important profiles as the ones of the people that have lost social and financial status. 3.2. Procedure The program Skype was used for the first 31 interviews, since the interviewees were living outside Spain (in Uzbekistan, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, etc.). These interviews were recorded using Call Graph and transcribed word by word for later analysis. The 10 latter interviews (along with the discussion group) were done in person at the Alberto Hurtado University of Chile, in a room accommodated for that purpose, during a research stay carried out between March and June 2016. We made contact with the participants through some platforms for young emigrated Spaniards, such as Marea Granate. We used as well the so-called snowball sampling approach, in which we asked the interviewees to help us identifying other possible participants with characteristics which could be relevant for our research (Noy, 2008; Valles, 2003). 3.3. Data Analysis We analysed the data using the Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), a method that offers several procedures very useful for ordering information and developing analytic categories which reveal the most relevant patterns in the data. We used the program Atlas.Ti6 for the creation and management of several codes to which we applied the constant comparative method, which consists in searching similarities and differences between the events within the data (Carrero, Soriano, & Trinidad, 2012). This way, we established three procedural categories which, like the RAEM (Navas & Rojas, 2010) and the concept of transnational social spaces developed by Pries (1998), allowed us to explain the changes that occurred in the perception and subjectivities of those young migrants: converted adaptation (exaltation of the ‘here and now’), nostalgic adaptation (exaltation of the ‘there and then’) and cosmopolitan adaptation (in which the cultural patterns from their country of origin are mixed together with those of the new society). For more details on the explanatory power of this three-dimensional model, see Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix. 4. Results 4.1. Construction of Young Migrants’ Subjectivities The vital spaces that young migrants perceive during the process of adapting to the host society are not static, but they are defined and redefined depending on the sociocultural situations the migrants experience throughout the various stages of the migration cycle. This way, several ways of experiencing the migration processes take place, and the subjectivities are developed and modified depending on how the conflicts between the expectations the migrants cherish at the beginning and what they really experience later are resolved. Other factors are the socioeconomic status achieved, the language barrier, or how the host society sees them. In this regard, their perception ranges from emphasising the present (converted adaptation) to emphasising the past (nostalgic adaptation), with a possible representation halfway between the past they lived in and the present they are living at the moment. The latter scenario could result either in the adoption of acculturation strategies where assimilation prevails or in the use of strategies with a mix of assimilation, integration, separation and marginalisation. This is due to the emergence of several spaces linked to the migration process (communication with peer groups from their country of origin via the ICTs, connection with peer groups from their host country, relationship with the family, etc.), where the young emigrant may adopt various strategies and behaviours (and maybe reach a cosmopolitan adaptation). 4.2. Frustration and Pessimism within the Spanish Context: Emergence of Converted Subjectivities Before setting off the migration process, young people were influenced in Spain by a context of pessimism marked by unemployment, political corruption and the lack of a future. Thus, this nefarious context fostered the development of converted subjectivities among them, a phobia of their home environment, characterised by a hatred for the Spanish society, which they identify to corruption, insecurity, frustration and uncertainty. This way, they see their space of origin as a ‘no-place’ for socially or professionally developing themselves. This makes them to establish the discourse that not setting off the migration process or coming back home would be a failure, a Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 332–342 334 Table 1. Profiles of the interviewees. Gender Age Academic degree Profession Host country Months abroad Male 35 Mining Engineering Sales manager Uzbekistan 73 Female 31 Master of Pharmacy Pharmacy manager United Kingdom 49 Male 25 Civil Engineering Construction manager Switzerland 15 Female 29 Master of Art History Researcher Japan 25 Female 32 Master of Pedagogy Language teacher United Kingdom 36 Female 30 Market Research and Techniques Business analyst United Kingdom 32 Male 35 Master of Economic Sciences Country manager Uzbekistan 35 Female 26 Bachelor of Social Work Dishwasher United Kingdom 17 Male 31 Master of Pharmacy Stockman United Kingdom 25 Female 31 Master of Laws Cook Finland 35 Male 32 Bachelor of Business Sciences Travel agent Hungary 14 Female 28 Master of Sociology Cake Shop saleswoman United Kingdom 60 Female 25 Master of Anthropology Cleaner Germany 27 Female 27 Architecture Architect Austria 38 Male 28 Master of Philosophy Cook Finland 19 Male 27 Master of Economic Sciences Accountant United Kingdom 37 Female 35 Building Engineering Building inspector U.S.A. 24 Male 35 PhD in Biology Researcher Bolivia 14 Female 33 Industrial Engineering Researcher Germany 19 Female 25 Bachelor of Sociology Cleaner France 21 Male 34 Master of Political Sciences Professor France 37 Female 26 Bachelor of Pedagogy Professor Germany 36 Female 33 Master of Psychology Human Resources manager United Kingdom 26 Female 29 Master of Laws Cleaner Germany 48 Female 30 Master of Psychology Researcher United Kingdom 36 Female 32 Master of Sociology Sociologist United Kingdom 49 Male 29 Architecture Professor Finland 60 Male 35 Building Engineering Construction manager United Kingdom 38 Male 27 Bachelor of Social Work Social worker Germany 27 Male 35 Industrial Engineering Project engineer Germany 50 Male 31 Building Engineering Architect U.S.A. 38 Female 30 Master of Geology Hydrogeologist Chile 49 Male 29 Architecture Project technician Chile 27 Male 31 Bachelor of Social Work Social worker Chile 25 Female 29 Master of Psychology Researcher Chile 12 Female 32 Master of Sociology Social worker Chile 14 Male 27 Master of Economic Sciences Entrepreneur Chile 35 Female 29 Master of Geology Geologist Chile 40 Female 29 Master of Pedagogy Professor Chile 16 Male 30 Master of Sociology Researcher Chile 14 Male 31 Architecture Project manager Chile 22 Table 2. Profiles of the participants in the discussion group. Gender Age Academic degree Profession Host country Months abroad Female 25 Master of Laws Social assistance worker Chile 14 Female 34 Master of Laws Lawyer Chile 25 Male 33 Master of History Chief of social services Chile 59 Female 29 Master of Geography Social worker Chile 34 Female 32 Master of Psychology Professor Chile 31 Male 30 Architecture Construction manager Chile 42 Male 28 Architecture Professor Chile 51 Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 332–342 335 renunciation of the vital possibilities that, in their opinion, leaving the Spanish environment gives them, as explained by the emigrants themselves: I made the decision of leaving Spain because I was in a terrible psychological state, I was depressed, it was impossible for me to find a job and become independent. So, the idea of emigrating grew stronger, until I had no choice but to leave. (Graduate in Sociology, United Kingdom) The financial situation in Spain was awful for everybody, it was impossible to find a job, I realised I had no future, I was fed up, it was a very frustrating environment. (Graduate in Psychology, United Kingdom) This subjectivity of repulsion towards the country of origin is common among young people even before they are determined to emigrate, and its emergence and later consolidation is due to the insecurity environment they interact with. As a result, the search for a stable vital project and becoming independent from the family by getting a stable job become the main factors for setting off the migration process: Every Spaniard I meet has a university degree, too, and they all have emigrated for the same reasons as I did: because, back in Spain, they were unable to find a job that fulfilled some minimum requirements to make a living. All of us want that, achieving some stability in our lives. (Graduate in Business Sciences, Hungary) These migration factors are also strengthened by the expectations the migrants got in their society of origin, usually related to labour improvements such as better working conditions and higher salaries than those in Spain. Said expectations emerge in the collective imagination of young people through their interaction with other emigrants and the distorted information given by the mass media (Torres, 2014). Thus, the experience of other migrants, sometimes exaggerated as a defensive mechanism—in order to hide the loss of social status in the host country—and the insufficient information on the true conditions of migrants in their host countries shown by the media—with Germany and United Kingdom as archetypes of ‘havens’ for qualified young people—make the expectations put in the migration project to be very high: After reading the information given in some forums and watching Spanish television, I had a very good impression of Germany but, when you live here, you realise that it’s not as good as they say. People think that it’s easy to find a good job and make money fast, but it’s just crazy coming here empty-handed just because of what you hear from outside. (Industrial engineer, Germany) This way, the subjectivity acquired in the Spanish context makes young people to idealise the future even without a first-hand experience, making it a utopia and turning the present into a dystopia they must flee from. 4.3. Longing for the ‘There and Then’: From Converted to Nostalgic Subjectivities Once the arrival in the host country takes place, the reconstruction process of the migrants’ perceptions and subjectivities, as well as that of the discourses they are based on, begins. This way, a converted subjectivity may evolve to a nostalgic one as a result of young migrants coming into conflict with the new cultural and/or socio-economic circumstances they find in the host country. Thus, said circumstances, along with the more or less shocking experiences they entail, tend to make young people to perceive themselves as divided between two worlds: the original and the new one, full of obstacles and troubles. This often makes them to long for the environment of security inherent to the family and primary social ties that they lost when they left their country. This way, a nostalgic perception, in which the near past (the ‘there and then’) is emphasised as a way of protecting oneself from the adaptive stress produced by the arrival at a new society, is developed: Back in Spain, I had a very large group of friends. I miss my previous social life. Just after arriving here I was aware of all that I had left behind: friends, family….It’s hard for me to live without them. Now, in retrospect, I see all that I have lost. (Civil engineer, Switzerland) As explained by Trigo (2000), what happens here is that migrants, after experiencing the loss of the place left behind, tend to bond with the host society trying not to assimilate to it, but identifying themselves with the community of origin, which they idealise and begin to miss. This way, a profound alteration of the social and individual affinities of the young emigrants takes place, faced as they are with barriers such as social exclusion, the clash with the new culture, or not speaking the language. This usually means that, despite the distance, at the beginning of the migration process, in their minds they remain attached to their origins, which is why they try to create and reproduce, in their new environment, an immediate context similar to the one they felt forced to abandon: Here in Uzbekistan we have created a group of Spanish emigrants for doing cultural activities, having Spanish meals, watching movies, celebrating typical Spanish festivities….It truly helps us to feel at home and preserve our traditions, so that our children can know them. (Mining engineer, Uzbekistan) As shown in that speech marked by nostalgic subjectivity, the young migrant tends to identify with other emigrated Spaniards who would conform to the endogroup. Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 332–342 336 The acculturation strategy is not to adopt the customs of the majority, host society, but to look for protection in that endogroup, in which they try to preserve Spanish traditions (they opt for the ‘separation’ acculturation strategy). According to Entrena-Durán (2012), it is a process within the symbolic-cultural dimension, in which young migrants tend to reproduce, in a new environment, the customs typical of the Spanish way of life, thus taking place a re-territorialisation of said customs. One of the reasons that favour the development of these nostalgic subjectivities involving refuge among fellow emigrated Spaniards would be social marginalisation by the natives of the new society, which is frequently due to difficulties learning the new language: I have felt rejected for being an immigrant, for example when I wanted to present a complaint in a shop. When they notice you speak in a different dialect, there’s always the one that says, ‘more and more Spaniards keep coming here, more foreigners, this is no longer what it used to be.’ These situations make you think about a lot of things. (Graduated in Anthropology, Germany) These obstacles are frequent at the beginning of the migration process and during the first stage of the adaptation to the new society, where the majority culture, through continuous contact, both directly and indirectly, causes changes in the original cultural patterns of young migrants (at the same time that the migrants influence the natives), thus setting off different acculturation strategies. The clash with these initial barriers will be essential in the reconstruction of the young emigrants’ perceptions and, likewise, will condition the possible return to Spain. 4.4. Reinforcement of Nostalgic Subjectivities and Its Effect on the Possibility of Returning Home All emigrants ‘reinvent’ themselves throughout the migration cycle depending on the circumstances surrounding their arrival, on the conflict between what they expected before leaving Spain and the context they actually found in their host countries, as well as on how they perceive said new context. This adaptation process is essential for the development of previous subjectivities and the possibility of returning home. There is a range of contextual factors affecting young migrants’ perceptions and subjectivities that, unless they are overcome during the adaptation stage, may result in the development of a great exaltation of the past (nostalgic adaptation) and going back to Spain. Some factors worth mentioning are: getting an under-qualified job, thus suffering a decrease in social status; not succeeding in learning the language; problems adapting to the climatic conditions in the host country; or perceiving discrimination by the host society. Working for a long period in an under-qualified, underpaid job means that the decision to emigrate has led to a degradation of status. This causes an internal grief derived from the conflict between the hopes they cherished before leaving Spain and what the migrant actually experiences in the host country, which in turn tends to increase nostalgic subjectivity and, therefore, the idealisation of the ‘there and then’ as a defensive mechanism against the frustration caused by the new environment. Likewise, the language barrier, as we have previously discussed, is a great obstacle for social insertion due to the exclusion it causes. The process of adapting to the new society implies appropriate language skills, which help reducing the inclination towards nostalgic subjectivity and exaltation of the past, that is to say, it helps avoiding the tendency to construct a safe environment with primary links with an endogroup consisting basically of other emigrated Spaniards. Conversely, not overcoming the language barrier often entails a consolidation of nostalgic behaviours and discourses (nostalgic adaptation). Another aspect hindering proper adaptation is climate, an element which is primarily noted by those that have emigrated to cold, cloudy environments such as Finland. Such climate may affect those migrants’ emotional and psychological state, given that they come from the sunny environment of Spain: Winter here is long and hard, and lots of people get depressed. Winter normally lasts for eight months of near absolute darkness; you may not see the sun for weeks, which is very hard; it affects you psychologically so much. (Graduate in Laws, Finland) Finally, another of the main elements affecting the subjectivity of young emigrants (along with the quality of the work found and how it affects social status), is the image that the host country has of Spain. Thus, if that image is negative, it causes young migrants to have difficulties when it comes to perceiving and presenting themselves in the new environment (Goffman, 1959). The sum of these factors may lead to an extreme nostalgic subjectivity, which may in turn favour returning home, since this discourse mythicises the previous life in Spain, thus idealizing the possible return. 4.5. Maladjustment to the Society of Origin: Idealisation of the ‘Here and Now’ or Mutation to Cosmopolitan Subjectivity The process of acceptance, confrontation and overcoming the obstacles typical of the first stages implied that the young people we interviewed experienced a maladjustment to their society of origin more easily. This entails an alteration in the cultural referents nurturing the subjectivity itself, which is restructured and relocated in the new migratory space. This process may reach its maximum level after the migrant has experienced a long stage (6 to 7 years) in the host country. This stage may lead to a high degree of disconnection with Spanish way of life and cultural patterns so much so that, when emiSocial Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 332–342 337 grants return occasionally, they use to feel confused and out of place: When I have returned to Spain, I have felt strange in my own country, as an immigrant, you know? I had a strange feeling and was all the time saying things like ‘ow, I want to go home, people here speak so loud, why do I have to hear what my neighbours say?’ I felt very German, you know? (Graduate in Anthropology, Germany) In this process, something we have called ‘cosmopolitan adaptation’ in the present article, may develop. This is characterised by presenting a subjectivity that is formed not only by the origin-host belonging dichotomy, but also by the diverse spaces in which the emigrants’ relational everyday life takes place (relationship with family and friends living in Spain via Internet, with other migrants, with compatriots, with natives of the host country, etc.). In this case, we would be before what the RAEM (Navas & Rojas, 2010) explains as the use of different acculturation strategies depending on the space in which the interaction takes place. This causes that, sometimes, migrants don’t perceive themselves as belonging to just one place, but to multiple spaces: When you live in countries like United Kingdom, for example, all the friends you make over the years are from many other countries, with a lot of cultural variety, and you end up adapting to almost everyone. Then you influence those people and they influence you; your identity ends up becoming something global and cosmopolitan. (Graduate in Pedagogy, United Kingdom) This way, a new subjectivity emerges, characterised by a deterritorialisation not only geographical, but also mental, and by the shaping of a new referential imaginary. According to that imaginary, the migrants see themselves as somewhat that simultaneously forms part of two realities: that of their country of origin and that of the new life scenario of the host country, which is perceived as more open and cosmopolitan, in that it has many different social spaces with which it is possible to identify (Appadurai, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999). This causes, with some frequency, a sense of perplexity and what may be considered an identity crisis: Sometimes you wonder where you really are from, and you realise that you are neither from one place nor another, and also that you don’t know where you will be tomorrow. (Graduate in Philosophy, Finland) This extract of an interview shows a sense of loss of roots, of not being linked in identity or culture to any specific place, of not having a definite space-time coordinate. This favours a situation very apt for the development of a sense of normative disorientation and/or a lack of solid behavioural references. However, when this feeling is successfully overcome, cosmopolitan behaviours and subjectivities are more reinforced. Another aspect of the migrant’s subjectivity is ‘short-term living,’ something that is undoubtedly closely related to the fact that the migrant has abandoned the more or less stable and predictable daily social environment configured by his family and friends, as well as with the aforementioned feeling of lack of solid references that said abandonment has intensified: Nowadays there is no long-term future, I have learned to think in the short term. I will never know if I’m going to be here for two years, five years, ten years….I do not know. What I do know is that I don’t want to stay in London my whole life, I know that for sure. (Graduate in Sociology, United Kingdom) One cannot affirm that a long stage in the host country inevitably leads to this ‘migrant subjectivity,’ since certain aspects may favour a strategy of adaptation to the host society through an idealisation of the present, thus generating a more converse perception (phobia towards the origins). This may happen in those—generally scarce—cases in which, after having emigrated, there is a significant improvement in socioeconomic status, which means that some of the migrants affected by said improvement tend to set themselves apart from their situation of origin or that of their Spanish compatriots, upon noticing the worse socio-economic position of many of the latter in the host society: I’ve been here so long and I’m so British, I do not like to get along with Spaniards; they’re lazy, they’re content to be here washing dishes; that way it’s hard to get where I have managed to be. (Graduate in Pharmacy, United Kingdom) In this discourse an attitude similar to that of the ‘syndrome of the new rich’ (Veredas, 1999) is observed. That is, in those cases in which the emigrants achieve in the host country a social status in line with their level of education, a transformation in their system of values and their self-perception may occur, so that they may end up highlighting the qualities of the new social class to which they belong after their job advancement. However, something both the converse subjectivity and what we have called cosmopolitan subjectivity share is that they have been configured after a long period living in the host society, which has favoured a process of maladjustment to the Spanish culture and has eliminated almost all possibility of return from the discourses constructed by migrants presenting one of those identities: There is a limit; the Spaniard who has consecutively spent more than six or seven years abroad, six years in a row, six or seven, for that Spaniard it’s already difficult, that one Spaniard stays there; that’s what Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 332–342 338