Study Notes on Interaction Dynamics Between Latinx Immigrants and Receiving Communities

Article Information

  • Received: 20 May 2017

  • Revised: 20 August 2017

  • Accepted: 5 October 2017

  • DOI: 10.1002/jcop.21931

Authors

  • Sara L. Buckingham (University of Alaska Anchorage)

  • Lindsay Emery (University of Maryland Baltimore County)

  • Surbhi Godsay (University of Maryland Baltimore County)

  • Anne E. Brodsky (University of Maryland Baltimore County)

  • Jill E. Scheibler (University of Maryland Baltimore County)

Acknowledgements

  • Acknowledgement of Eva Benvenga, Maria Cara Borja, and Bethany Ritter for assistance in data analyses.

Abstract

  • Communities are fundamentally shaped by immigration.

  • The study explores the dynamics between immigrants and receiving community members in the United States, focusing on their relationships and the factors influencing intergroup attitudes and experiences.

  • Sample involved 30 first- and second-generation Latinx immigrants and 30 third-generation or more U.S.-born individuals.

  • Employs semi-structured interviews analyzed thematically.

  • Findings reveal that:

    • Positive intergroup relations fostered by intergroup contact and common identities (Allport's Contact Hypothesis, Gaertner et al.'s model).

    • Personal characteristics such as values, beliefs, visible features, and relative power affect interactions.

    • Negative perceptions rooted in media when direct contact is absent.

    • Understanding relationships between the two groups is iterative and reciprocal, emphasizing the need for mutual experiences to improve intergroup relations.

Immigration Trends

  • U.S. immigration statistics:

    • 1850: 2.2 million authorized immigrants

    • 2010: nearly 40 million foreign-born individuals

    • Trends from 4.7% of the population in 1970 to approximately 12.9% in 2010.

  • Major source change in immigrant population:

    • 1900: 84.9% from Europe; 1.3% from Latin America.

    • 2010: 12.1% from Europe; 53.1% from Latin America.

Intergroup Relations

Key Questions

  • Acceptance: When and how do newcomers become accepted community members?

  • Perception: What factors influence reactions of the receiving community towards newcomers?

  • Inclusion: How do immigrants perceive their roles in the new community?

Group Dynamics

  • Membership: Identified as seeking benefits such as security, belonging, and resources.

  • Group boundaries: Enhance in-group identity and diminish perceived differences with internal norms.

  • Prejudice: Evidence suggests natural tendencies to favor in-group members, resulting in biases against out-groups (Tajfel et al. studies).

Intergroup Anxiety

  • Defined as emotional and cognitive responses to perceived differences from out-group members, leading to withdrawal and aggression (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).

  • Connection to attitudes around immigration, indicating over one third of U.S.-born individuals harbor negative perceptions about immigrants (Pew Research Center, 2015).

Positive Intergroup Dynamics

  • Contact hypothesis by Allport (1954) suggests intergroup interactions can reduce prejudice, but conditions need to include equal status and joint goals.

  • Limited application to immigrant-receiving community dynamics, but friendships with Latinx immigrants show improved attitudes (Ellison et al., 2011).

Acculturation Models

The Concurrent Model of Acculturation (CMA)

  • Identifies levels of cultural concordance between immigrants and the receiving community, indicating how cultural identity influences integration and acceptance.

  • Framework emphasizes the concept of “symbolic threat” connected to feelings of cultural encroachment.

Methodology

Participants

  • Total of 60 individuals in the Baltimore Washington DC area, categorized into four groups:

    • 15 first-generation Latinx immigrants (1-IMs) with at least 5 years in the U.S.

    • 15 second-generation immigrants (2-IMs).

    • 30 receiving community members (RCMs): 15 with high contact (H-RCM) and 15 with low contact (L-RCM).

    • Age range: H-RCMs and L-RCMs averaged 44 years, 1-IMs and 2-IMs around 36 and 23 years, respectively.

    • Education levels varied, with RCMs showing higher educational attainment.

Procedure

  • Qualitative study approach utilized semi-structured interviews conducted in English with consent protocols to protect participant anonymity.

  • Interviews lasted 1-2 hours, conducted across various settings.

Data Analysis

  • Utilized thematic analysis through an iterative coding process, leading to focused themes and narratives relevant across participant groups.

Results

2.1 Conception of Community
1-IMs

  • Perception of U.S.: Seen as an opportunity but lack strong community identification; primarily connected to fellow immigrants.

  • Concerns of symbolic threat from RCMs, fearing cultural loss due to assimilation.

2-IMs

  • Generally positive view of community, identifying similarities with RCMs through shared experiences; sense of dual membership.

  • Viewed RCMs as privileged but lacking awareness of diverse cultures.

H-RCMs

  • Embrace diversity as a tenet of U.S. identity, with some resistance to cultural homogenization; see inter-group contact as beneficial.

L-RCMs

  • Varied definitions of community, with some negative views of RCMs and concerns over economic impact of immigrants; however, acknowledge cultural differences.

2.2 Contact and Interactions
1-IMs

  • Engagement with RCMs perceived as a survival tactic; majority noted positive changes in attitudes through direct contact.

2-IMs

  • Emphasized contact benefits for navigating U.S. culture, fostering successful relationships; noted lack of reciprocity from RCMs.

H-RCMs

  • Saw lack of interaction with IMs as a barrier to reducing prejudice; reported schools and communities fostering understanding.

L-RCMs

  • Low levels of knowledge about IMs and reluctant interaction; perceived responsibility placed on IMs to assimilate.

2.3 Shared In-group Identity
1-IMs

  • Relatedness found in shared customs and values; many identified with people of color to share discrimination experiences.

2-IMs

  • Highlighted commonalities with RCMs through education, suggesting overlap in experiences fostering community bonds.

H-RCMs

  • Noted familial and close relationships with immigrants, highlighting overlap in community values despite recognizing treatment disparities.

L-RCMs

  • Generalized a sense of sameness among their own group while perceiving cultural differences as divisive.

2.4 Personal Characteristics

  • Both groups noted that individual attributes (e.g., open-mindedness, socio-economic status, education, skin tone) significantly impacted experiences and perceptions of one another.

Knowledge Gap

  • Knowledge gained from interactions or media often influenced perceptions and treatment; lack of exposure resulted in assumptions leading to bias.

3 Discussion

Implications for Intergroup Relations

  • Understanding attitudes is a mutual process reliant on shared experiences; effective improvement strategies for inter-group dynamics are needed.

  • The necessity of addressing the media's role in shaping perceptions about immigrants and their community relationships is highlighted.

Limitations

  • Study reflects a young demographic; the English-only interviews may introduce bias; different qualitative approaches could yield richer insights.

Conclusion

  • Study contributes to our understanding of U.S. immigrant-receiving community dynamics, advocating for enhanced knowledge and experiences to foster better intergroup relations.