Coursehero >> Texas >> Texas Tech >> ETD 04022008

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, homework solutions, papers, exam answer keys and textbook solutions.

of Outcomes Assimilation and Discrimination: The Case of Hispanics in America at the Dawn of the 21st century by Emily P. Estrada, B.A. A Thesis In SOCIOLOGY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved Dr. Yung-Mei Tsai Chair Dr. Charles R. Chandler Fred Hartmeister Dean of the Graduate School May 2008 Copyright 2008, Emily P. Estrada Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My time in the Sociology graduate department at Texas Tech has proven to be one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences, both personally and academically, of my life. I would first like to thank Dr. Yung-mei Tsai whose guidance and support as my thesis chair, graduate advisor, and mentor has made me a better researcher and student. Dr. Tsai has spent what seems like an endless amount of time working hard to develop my sociological perspective and to give me a solid foundation to proceed with my studies. I would also like to thank Dr. Charles R. Chandler for taking time out of his retirement to help with my thesis and for providing vast amounts of insight. Dr. Julie Harms Cannon has also been a great source of support and one of dearest friends I have made at Texas Tech. I am also very grateful to my husband David for his patience, compassion, and love throughout my time at Texas Tech. Without his encouragement and emotional support I would not be where I am at today. Mackinzee and Kaytee, my sisters and best friends, have also played an integral role in my studies at Texas Tech; I thank them for always listening to my ramblings and for being genuinely interested in my studies. Lastly, I thank my parents. My mother has been a wonderful role model of a strong, confident, and outspoken woman. She has influenced every aspect of my life, but her teachings are evident especially in academia. My father has also had a great influence on my life, showing me at an early age that my perspective ii Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 on anything from life to politics was just as valuable as anyone else s, including his own. iii Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ...ii Abstract ..vi List of Tables ...vii List of Figures .viii I: Introduction .1 II: Theoretical Framework and Review of Literature.... ...5 Discrimination 5 Theory of Assimilation 16 III: Methodology ..37 Data Source 37 Independent Variables Cultural Measures of Assimilation .38 Independent Variables Structural Measures of Assimilation ..40 Independent Variables Identificational Measures of Assimilation .41 Dependent Variables Perceptions and Experiences of Intergroup and__ Intragroup Discrimination 42 Hypotheses 43 IV: Analyses and Findings 53 Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics ..53 Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination Regressions .. .58 Experiences of Intergroup Discrimination Regressions .. 61 Perceptions of Intragroup Discrimination Regressions .. .63 iv Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 V: Conclusion and Discussion .84 References ..90 v Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 ABSTRACT Using the National Survey of Latinos (2002), this thesis examines how various types and outcomes of assimilation impact perceptions and experiences of intergroup and intragroup discrimination for Hispanic-Americans. In regards to intergroup discrimination (occurring between ethnic groups) two outcomes of assimilation are examined -- the consensus and ethnic conflict outcomes. Under the consensus, or Anglo-conformity, hypotheses, it is predicted that greater cultural, structural, and identificational assimilation will decrease perceptions and experiences of intergroup discrimination. The ethnic conflict outcome predicts that greater cultural, structural, and identificational assimilation will increase awareness about disadvantages based on ethnicity and race and, therefore, increase perceptions and experiences of intergroup discrimination. In regards to intragroup discrimination (within the Hispanic-American community) it is predicted that greater levels of assimilation by some individuals will create hierarchies which will be the basis of discrimination. Large support was found for the consensus hypotheses supporting the idea that, for some cultural, structural, and identificational measures of assimilation, having attitudes and behaviors that are more parallel to mainstream society decreases perceptions and experiences of discrimination. The ethnic conflict outcome of assimilation was supported less. Analysis of intragroup discrimination yielded results that were opposite of the intragroup discrimination hypothesis. vi Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 LIST OF TABLES 1. Descriptive Information for Variables Used in Analyses of Assimilation______ Measures on Inter and Intragroup Discrimination .. ... ..49 2. Beta Weights of Various Assimilation Factors Against Perceptions of_______ Intergroup Discrimination Against Hispanic-Americans . ... .81 3. Beta Weights of Various Assimilation Factors Against Experiences of_______ Intergroup Discrimination Against Hispanic-Americans .82 4. Beta Weights of Various Assimilation Factors Against Perceptions of_______ Intragroup Discrimination Against Hispanic-Americans .83 vii Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Trust in Washington Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics ...66 2. Amount of Immigrants living in U.S. Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics ... 67 3. Amount of Legal Immigrants living in U.S. Comparison between Hispanics___ and Non-Hispanics ... 68 4. Illegal Immigrants on Economy Comparison between Hispanics and________ Non-Hispanics .. . 69 5. Husband Should Have Final Say Comparison between Hispanics and______ Non-Hispanics ... 70 6. Children Should Live at Home Until Marry Comparison between Hispanics___ and Non-Hispanics ... 71 7. Relatives over Friends Comparison between Hispanics and_______________ Non-Hispanics ...72 8. Education Comparison between Hispanic-Americans and________________ Non-Hispanics . ..73 9. Credit Card Owner Comparison between Hispanics and_________________ Non-Hispanics .. .74 10. Home Owner Comparison between Hispanics and _____________________ Non-Hispanics ...75 11. Bank Account Owner Comparison between Hispanics and_______________ Non-Hispanics .. .76 viii Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 12. Problems Paying Rent Comparison between Hispanics and______________ Non-Hispanics . ..77 13. Laid Off at Work Comparison between Hispanics and __________________ Non-Hispanics . ..78 14. Able to Save for Future Comparison between Hispanic-Americans and_____ Non-Hispanics . .. 79 15. Voted in US Election Comparison between Hispanics and ______________ Non-Hispanic . ..80 ix Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Race relations can be seen in many areas of life including the current political scene with immigration being a key issue and also with the recent celebratory use of racial slurs bringing discussions of race to American homes. An inevitable twist in these discussions often turns on how immigrants and minority ethnic groups interact within dominant American society with many outcomes given to explain this. Although social scientists have studied the topics of discrimination and assimilation for many years (Carvajal 2004; Roberts, Swanson and Murphy 2004; Ryan, Gee, and Laflamme 2006; Cardarelli, Cardarelli, and Chiapa 2007; Smith and Furuseth 2006; Alba and Nee 2005; Smith and Elliott 2002; Blewett, Darven, and Rodin 2005; South, Crowder, and Chavez 2005; Lutz 2006) , they have rarely been examined in conjunction with one another or from the minority perspective. This thesis tries to examine how various measures of assimilation impact experiences and perceptions of intergroup and intragroup discrimination for Hispanic-Americans. Assimilation is a term used to describe the interaction between the minority ethnic group culture and dominant culture. The process of assimilation has been studied for many years, with Gordon (1964) providing insight into its complexities. He notes three types of assimilation: Anglo-conformity, cultural 1 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 pluralism, and the melting pot theory. Anglo-conformity occurs when the minority ethnic group accepts and conforms to Anglo-centric social institutions (Gordon 1964). Gordon explains that assimilation through cultural pluralism occurs when minority ethnic groups retain their cultural identity, usually seen as subgroups within society. The melting pot theory, although described but criticized by Gordon, explains that the minority ethnic groups culture and the dominant culture merge, including biologically, forming a new culture to which all have contributed. Another outcome of assimilation, not provided by Gordon, is ethnic conflict. This theory suggests that as minority ethnic groups interact with American mainstream culture they become more aware and knowledgeable of the injustices facing them. Therefore, there is an increased awareness of intergroup discrimination (Portes, Parker, and Cobas 1980; Nielsen 1985; Hechter 1974, 1978). Gordon identifies various stages of assimilation and the indicators that can be seen in these stages will be discussed in more detail below. The Hispanic community will be the focus of this thesis because of their unique history of discrimination in the US and their distinct assimilation experience. The term Hispanic-American is used to describe people who claim Latin, Central, or South American heritage. Although there are subgroups within the Hispanic-American community, typically based on country of origin, this research treats the group as a whole but accounts for specific country of origin in the analyses. As mentioned, the purpose of this research is to examine discriminatory practices as experienced and perceived by Hispanic-Americans. 2 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 The first type of discrimination examined is that of the dominant group against Hispanic Americans. For reasons that will be detailed in the theoretical framework, it is proposed that having more of an Anglo-conformist or consensual experience of assimilation will decrease this type of discrimination, the consensus hypotheses. Under the ethnic conflict outcome, greater contact with American society makes a minority individual more aware of the disadvantages they face, therefore increasing the amount of discrimination they perceive and experience. The second type of discrimination under examination measures perceptions of discrimination within the Hispanic-American community, referred to as intragroup discrimination. This type of discrimination explains that as there are varying opinions within the Hispanic-American community about the degree to which consensus assimilation into American mainstream culture should occur, those who are more assimilated are predicted to perceive more discrimination within the Hispanic-American community. Adding to the need for this research is the Hispanic-American contribution to the total population of America which has been on the rise for many years. This month (February 2008), the Pew Research Center released information indicating that by 2050, Whites in America will no longer be a true majority (comprising 47% of the population) with major shifts in the population attributed to an increased number of Hispanic immigrants and their offspring (Pew Research Center 2008). They explain that in 2050, 29% of the population will be Hispanic-Americans compared to 14% in 2005 (Pew Research Center 2008). The Statistical Abstract of the United States indicates that in 2005, over 42 3 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 million Hispanics live in the United States, up 20.9% since 2000 (US Census Bureau 2005). Furthermore, also in 2005, immigrants from Latin American countries, including Mexico and South America, comprise 52.43% of the total immigrant population (US Census Bureau 2005). These large numbers will arguably make an impact on, or be impacted by, American mainstream culture and tolerance towards Hispanic-Americans. What outcome of assimilation by this fastest growing minority group might reduce their experiences and perception of discriminatory practices by the dominant group? Whether or not assimilation will reduce their discriminatory perceptions and experiences, there will be tremendous policy implications. I hope to shed light on both of these important issues in intergroup and intragroup relations, particularly from the Hispanic-American population perspective. In a broader context, I hope findings from this study will contribute to the understanding of the growing worldwide problems of interracial and intraracial conflicts, resulting from increasing transnational flows of people under the condition of accelerated globalization. 4 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 CHAPTER II THEORTICAL FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE Discrimination While discrimination can be seen in almost any modern society, it has a unique history in the United States due in part to slavery and the aftermaths of it (DuBois 1920; Blalock 1967). Also adding to experiences and perceptions of discrimination is the special blend of many races in America, with people tracing their origins to various parts of the world including Africa, Europe, Asia, and Central/South America (DuBois 1920; Blalock 1967). Theories of Intergroup Discrimination Theories regarding race relations and one of its negative byproducts, discrimination, have long existed. While some, such as Blalock (1967), describe intergroup discrimination in a more general way, others, such as DuBois (1920) describe conditions between specific groups. Even though DuBois (1920) speaks about the extreme discrimination experienced by African-Americans in the early 20th century, key terms and concepts he develops help explain discrimination against Hispanic-Americans today. Blalock s (1967) description as to why discrimination occurs between ethnic groups is largely based on the balance between goals and means. He 5 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 explains that economic discrimination is most likely to occur when there are a limited number of means to obtain goals within society, especially when discrimination is found to help obtain these goals. The dominant group tends to view their right to these goals as legitimate, whereas other groups claim to these rights is illegitimate. Based on these distinctions, discrimination against minority groups can occur. Furthermore, Blalock contends that individuals within the dominant group that are not able to achieve their goals by ways other than discrimination have more incentive to discriminate, even if discrimination runs counter to social norms such as American creed . However, if this inability to achieve goals in ways other than discrimination occurs for an extended period of time, there may be a push to legitimize discrimination by those from the dominant group. In this case, Blalock explains that it is preferable to control the subordinate party by getting it to accept the dominance relationship as legitimate, rather than to attempt to control it by force . (206). This is especially true when there is a chance of overt rebellion and the legitimization of discrimination can ease feelings of guilt or hypocrisy. Blalock (1967) also discusses why various ethnic groups might experience discrimination differently. Deviating from dominant social norms is one way in which discrimination against a particular minority ethnic group might increase. This is particularly true when the deviation increases visibility for the minority, is a frustration for those in the dominant group, and the deviance can be used to justify aggression toward the group. This visibility increases discrimination because it reinforces ideas of differentness between dominant and minority 6 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 ethnic groups. Furthermore, he suggests that minority groups that are based on race (i.e. skin color) rather than ethnicity will experience more discrimination from the dominant group. While the category Hispanic-American is one of ethnicity, the variations of skin color within this group and, overall, from the dominant group might indicate why this group experiences discrimination. As mentioned, DuBois (1920) also investigates race relations in America. He begins by describing the way in which African-Americans are devalued based purely on their skin color, creating conflict within. One identity is formed based on the true self and includes the motivations and aspirations an individual might hope to attain. The other consciousness DuBois speaks of revolves around the ideas and actions that society has towards African-Americans which are often in direct contrast with their actual characteristics. As DuBois points out, these identities can be in conflict with one another, creating an environment in which the individual might become confused, tormented, or discriminated against. Unfortunately, the same conflict of identities can sometimes be experienced by Hispanic-Americans as will be discussed below (Anzald a 1999). DuBois also speaks about boundaries that are constructed between white people and people of color, showing that these boundaries work to uphold stereotypical attitudes so that hostility and separation between the two groups is perpetuated, constructing an ever-present color line of differentness (DuBois 1920: 22). According to DuBois, the lines that separate the groups become so ingrained that those within a group are not able to see individuals in another group as fellow humans but rather as Others . He explains that, the majority of 7 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 unthinking people seems to assume that most human beings are not human and have no right to human treatment or human opportunity. All this goes to prove that human beings are ignorant of each other . By categorizing another group of people as other, discriminating against them becomes easier. Collins (2000), a feminist sociologist, also comments on these categories. She explains that the category of Other is a major binary term, with this label necessary in order for objectification to occur. She goes further to point out that hierarchies, concerning everything from beauty to wealth, are based on this oppositional us versus them way of thinking. Within these hierarchies, Others are not given value (Collins 2000: 70). Theories of Intragroup Discrimination While the majority of information on discrimination focuses on intergroup discrimination, others have noted the tensions and hostilities that exist within minority ethnic groups (Oboler 2006; Moraga 2000). The boundaries that can also be found within the Hispanic-American community have been studied by Oboler (2006). She points out how the process of leaving one s culture behind creates a torn identity within individuals (Oboler 2006). One source of this torn identity is the pressure from those in the Hispanic-American community to maintain traditional cultural rituals and behaviors. This pressure can sometimes take the form of discrimination within the Hispanic-American community against individuals seen as too American (Oboler 2006). An example can be seen when 8 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Hispanic-Americans do not speak Spanish which often elicits negative sanctions from their Hispanic-American community. Moraga (2000) speaks about division among people, focusing especially on the Latino population. She is a feminist writer who uses many different forms of delivery, such as poem, prose, and narratives, to express both her Anglo and Mexican-American identity. She often writes from a place that is personal, through her sexuality, gender, and racial points of view and explores all of these things in her work Loving in the War Years: lo que nunca paso por sus labios. Outsiderhood is a term Moraga uses that describes the way many Latina women feel when they do not fully identify with either American or Mexican culture. Through the narratives of her life, she explains that while this conflict can begin at an early age, other types of oppression can also be encountered. She explains that In this country lesbianism is a poverty as is being brown, as is being a woman, as is being just plain poor. The danger is in ranking the oppressions. The danger lies in failing to acknowledge the specificity of the oppression (Moraga 2000: 44). She goes further to suggest that a trap lies when those that are oppressed capitalize on the little privilege they are able to obtain through the demise of the fellow oppressed, creating divisions of discrimination within the minority ethnic group. Researchers have also commented on experiences of intragroup racism. Brondolo et al. (2005) found that among Blacks, 28% reported that other Blacks gave them the most difficulty. Among Latinos, 15% reported that other Latinos 9 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 gave them the most difficulty (349). Furthermore, Rosenbloom and Way (2004) also found perceptions of discrimination within ethnic communities when examining an urban high school. The perceptions of discrimination within ethnic communities were often attributed to differences in the amount of time a particular individual or group has spent in the US. As an example, they cite tensions between Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, who came to America later than Puerto Ricans did. Hispanic-Americans and Intergroup Discrimination As presented in previous research, discriminatory acts are committed against Hispanic-Americans. To better understand how assimilation can affect experiences and perceptions of inter-group discrimination towards HispanicAmericans, Oboler (2006) defines the boundaries between this minority ethnic group and American mainstream culture. To do this, she begins by exploring the term citizenship, which is most often linked to the legal status a person has. To go beyond this definition, she uses the term cultural citizenship , described as the occurrence of minority groups not only having legal status, but also experiencing feelings of behavioral and cultural belonging and acceptance by the dominant group of society (Oboler 2006). Oboler goes further to explain that it is necessary for Hispanic-Americans to control their outward Latino cultural behaviors to become full citizen. An example of how cultural traits might be controlled includes minimizing celebration for certain cultural celebrations, such as Cinco de Mayo, a major holiday in Mexico. She explains that there must be 10 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 an incorporation of American values and culture into Hispanic-American identities before they can achieve this dual citizenship status. If incorporation of American mainstream culture does not happen, the individual can be discriminated against and marginalized based on the outsider s status. An example of cultural citizenship is found in the admission process subscribed to by many American universities. Oboler explains that while foreign born or minority ethnic students are only admitted contingent on their legal citizenship status, they are also evaluated based on their potential for fitting in and desire to be a part of the academic community. Another aspect of citizenship that Oboler describes is its dualistic nature, explaining that the structural dynamics that have generated US racial formations have, semiotically, been interpreted in terms of origins and belonging. Thus, the defining polarity of race-marking has been: white is to non-white as unmarked/belonging is marked/not belonging (172). Anzald a (1999) also addresses how the identity of Hispanic-Americans can become strained, with images in Mexican culture often not corresponding to those found within American society. The idea that society s ideas of HispanicAmericans do not necessarily match their own is related to DuBois (1920) double consciousness as described above. Anzald a explains that marginalization can occur when images that are found in American culture are not only contradictory to those found in Mexican culture, but detrimental to their minority ethnic culture (Anzald a 1999). An example of this is the way bullfighting is viewed, which is seen as an outdated, barbaric activity by American society but as an honorable sport within the Hispanic-American community. She 11 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 also points out how hard it can be to ignore or refute these negative images, especially for those who were born within the United States. Therefore, the attachment to Hispanic-American culture might not be as great in these individuals as compared to those that are closer to their country of origin (Anzald a 1999: 42). Moraga (2000) also adds to the discussion of intergroup discrimination and Hispanic-Americans, addressing the topic of immigration, explaining throughout the book what her third generation Mexican-American immigrant status has meant. She explains that unlike those that are considered White, Mexicans don t forget. Anything. We remember our land daily in the same smells, same seasons, same skies, same sierras, same street signs San Francisco Alameda El Presidio the Spanish sounds slip and slide away. It is a colonial language, but of an Indian people. And the measure of our Americanism (in U.S. terms), the testimony to our acculturation to U.S. culture, is our eventual forgetting (162) When examining the issue of immigration, she points to the hypocrisy that exists concerning America s immigration policy. She explains that the hypocrisy is found when America s immigration policy bans or encourages certain groups of people from coming to this country, based on both political and economic benefits provided by both, and yet was founded by people who were not invited. She also explains that individuals who are not against immigration and recognize the sacrifice many Mexican-American immigrants have made to support the U.S. economy, rarely mention ways to ease this level of sacrifice. Moraga then points to how the government has ensured that this group of people stays within certain 12 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 class boundaries, with the Spanish language and anything it relates to, such as bilingual education, becoming a sacrifice in the American political landscape. The importance of belonging, or not belonging, becomes clear in the stereotypes that involve Hispanic-Americans. Of course, not all of stereotypes about Hispanic-Americans are held by all non-Hispanics. To think this would be discriminatory in itself; however, for individuals that choose to discriminate, these stereotypes are common in their justification of doing so. Justification of discrimination is an important aspect of ethnic group relations, as described by Blalock (1967) above. The anthology Latinos in the New South: Transformations of Place, edited by Smith and Furuseth (2006), provides information on these stereotypes. As pointed out in this work, many of the stereotypes used in discrimination against Hispanic-Americans contain an implied challenge to the dominant culture and social milieu that represents southern community and place (Smith & Furuseth 2006). An example of this challenge to mainstream culture is the perception that Hispanic immigration is equal to illegal immigration, while in fact, a majority of Hispanics in America are documented and living here legally. Other myths and stereotypes of HispanicAmericans are explored, most dealing with perceived lack of contribution or threat by this group to American society. One such stereotype is that this group largely lacks employment, enabling them to receive benefits from the government, while they also neglect to pay taxes; however, these stereotypes do not hold true when examining the actual numbers related to Hispanic-Americans (Smith & Furuseth 2006: Chapter 2). Another stereotype concerning Hispanic13 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Americans is that they do not want to learn English. Once again, this stereotype is largely untrue, with many Hispanic-Americans seeing English as a way to become successful in America (Smith & Furuseth 2006: Chapter 2). As the number of Hispanic-Americans has dramatically increased in the past few decades (US Census Bureau), many researchers have focused on the extent to which discrimination occurs against Hispanic-Americans. The workplace is one environment in which discrimination might occur. Many have researched these occurrences, with Carvajal (2004) finding that HispanicAmerican engineering firms in the South Florida market projected smaller profits compared to their non-Hispanic white counterparts. Furthermore, Roberts et al. (2004) have found that minority ethnic groups, especially African and HispanicAmericans, report increased perceptions of discrimination at work. Furthermore, those that report more perceptions of discrimination at work also had worse mental health outcomes than those that do not. Others have also noted the impact of perceived discrimination on the physical and mental well-being of Hispanic-Americans, noting that it can have profound negative effects on morbidity (Ryan et al. 2006). Discrimination can often impact children as well. One researcher found that African- and Hispanic- American adolescents are more likely to report discrimination from adults (i.e. teachers, police officers, store clerks) than do Asian-Americans and non-Hispanic white adolescents. It is also important to note that even when controlling for education and income, researchers have 14 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 found that Hispanic-Americans report more discrimination than their nonHispanic-American white peers (Cardarelli et al. 2007). Another major trend within literature regarding discrimination against Mexican-Americans is that geographical setting makes an impact. Regional location is shown to have an effect on discrimination against Hispanic populations, with Southerners more likely to have negative views towards this group than people in other regions in the United States (Wilson 1996). Wilson (1996) also found that age impacts discrimination perpetration, with individuals in the pre-WW II era experiencing more than those in the post-WW II era. He explains this to be the case because of increased ethnic interaction between people fighting and serving in the war overseas, creating an increased tolerance in the generation fighting in WW II which they passed on (at increasing levels) to later generations. Another interesting aspect of discrimination against minority ethnic groups was found by Winant (2006) who examined the recent policy changes made after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the New York City World Trade Centers. He found that discrimination has become even more prevalent in the laws of America, with things such as racial profiling and paranoia about immigration codified. The media is another institution in which discrimination can be studied. Esses, Dovidio, and Hodson (2002) explain that an increased portrayal of minority ethnic groups as threats on news programming is shown to correspond to negative views about racial issues. Padin (2005) also makes claims regarding prejudicial views towards Mexican-Americans and the media, 15 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 indicating that no significant improvement in race relations could be found over a 13 year sample of newspaper stories on Hispanic populations. He goes further to explain the specific attributes given to the Hispanic population in the negative stories, with 80% of the coverage in these stories focusing on ethnic conflict, welfare, education deficiencies, and delinquency. Theory of Assimilation Assimilation has had a rather long history in the social sciences, with most embracing it in the early 20th century and then later criticizing it as, at best, an ideology and at worst, xenophobic. As others have pointed out, it is true that for some researchers, assimilation has taken on an extremely Anglo-conformist undertone (Alba 1995; Kazal 1995). However, assimilation can also be viewed as a process that broadly describes interaction between dominant ethnic groups and minority ethnic groups and the compromises both groups must make for peaceful coexistence (Alba 1995). Of course, Anglo-conformity, or consensus, is a possible outcome of assimilation, but not the only one. Other outcomes of assimilation have been popular such as melting pot and cultural pluralism. Furthermore, the extent to which any outcome can be seen might vary. To better understand assimilation, its definitions, stages, and outcomes will be discussed. 16 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Foundations of Assimilation One of the earliest and most influential definitions of assimilation is that of Park and Burgess (1924). They define assimilation as a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in common cultural life (735). With an early emphasis on interpenetration and fusion and on the ways in which groups are both alike and different, these ideas of assimilation do not seem to require complete conformity to Anglo standards. Furthermore, Park, and Burgess (1924) describe assimilation as the perfect ending to interaction, implying that once assimilation is complete (see Gordon s discussion of stages below), conflict will be minimized between ethnic groups and society will be free of discrimination. Stemming from the definition above, Park and Burgess (1924) base much of their discussion on assimilation in the oppositional ways ethnic groups relate to one another: traits they have in common, and ones they do not. Once again, there is no concern as to which group might influence the other s culture more. They also elaborate further on the types of traits that influence ethnic group interaction, indicating that material traits pass between ethnic groups easier when compared to others that are more cultural, such as language. While most of Park and Burgess discussion of assimilation is placed in neutral terms, they also address how assimilation has been equated to Americanization. Park s various statements on assimilation are sometimes 17 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 conflicting, and in one instance he did write as if complete absorption of the minority might be inevitable; but the main thrust of their arguments seem to have been toward a kind of fusion, with minorities retaining ethnic distinctiveness. Gordon (1964) adds to the above definition of assimilation, while also focusing on the idea that assimilation is not complete until, and unless, discriminatory practices toward the minority group have subsided. However, until the process of assimilation is complete (the exact stages are discussed below), Gordon points out that while minority groups may feel a kinship with the dominant culture and their sentiments, boundaries between the groups in terms of social participation are likely to occur. To help explain the process of assimilation, Gordon speaks about the term integration. He points to Bernard (1956) who felt that integration, in which minority groups and the dominant culture impact each other, has occurred within the US. Bernard explains that it [integration] recognizes the right of groups and individuals to be different so long as the differences do not lead to domination or disunity . Many researchers use immigrants and minority ethnic groups from the early 20th century as an acid test for assimilation (Gordon 1964; Alba 1995; Park and Burgess 1924; Perlmanns and Waldinger 1997). Many have shown that in terms of socioeconomic status, residential segregation, language, and self-identification, these European immigrants went through a period of discrimination and then became accepted into the dominant group (Alba 1995; Perlmann and Waldinger 1997). This is often taken as proof that assimilation occurs (Alba 1995; Perlmann and Waldinger 1997). 18 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 However, many theorists feel that the experiences of recent minority groups differ from those of the past. The concept of segmented assimilation, developed by Portes and Zhou (1993) explains that not all groups are able to assimilate into middle class status, which is an underlying tone in prior explanations of assimilation. They explain that depending on individuals and family factors and the historical conditions in which the interaction between dominant and minority groups occur, downward mobility is a possibility. Zhou (1997) also points out that there are three pathways immigrants might experience: 1) upward mobility with the acceptance of dominant values, 2) downward mobility, and 3) upward mobility while preserving minority ethnic cultures. It is also pointed out that in regards to assimilation, class has a major impact. Class is important because it determines the type of neighborhoods in which children live, the quality of schools which they attend, and the group of peers with which they associate (987). Stages of Assimilation For clarity of empirical testing, the stages of assimilation as described by Gordon are heavily relied on in this research. For a group to assimilate completely, it must pass through these stages in a specific order. However, a group may not assimilate at all, or it may proceed only through a limited number of stages. The first stage is acculturation, defined as a change of cultural patterns to those of host society . Ethnic minorities may acculturate, or partially 19 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 acculturate, without assimilating further. In fact, writing at the peak of the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties, Gordon observed that massive acculturation without structural intermingling at primary group levels has been the dominant motif in the American experience . (114). A somewhat different assessment might be in order today. In discussing acculturation, Gordon distinguishes between extrinsic and intrinsic cultural traits. Extrinsic traits are those which are relatively superficial, such as fashions in dress, manners, oddities in pronouncing and inflecting English, etc. Intrinsic culture traits are those which are essential and vital ingredients of the group s cultural heritage, and derive exactly from that heritage . Strongly held beliefs are examples of intrinsic culture traits. The second stage, which may or may not be reached by any particular group, is structural assimilation, described as large- scale entry into cliques, clubs, and institutions of host society, on primary group level . Once structural assimilation has occurred, the remaining stages inevitably follow according to Gordon. Note that while Gordon specified primary group assimilation as characteristic of this stage, later writers have amended this to include large-scale entry into institutions of the host society at the secondary group level (Alba and Nee 2005). Thus entry into economic, political, military, and other larger institutions also come under the heading of structural assimilation. The third level of assimilation includes large-scale intermarriage (amalgamation). Amalgamation focuses on the biological aspect of assimilation 20 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 through the children produced in marriage. It is explained that such modifications [intermarriage] eliminate the characteristics of foreign origin, and enable them all to fit smoothly into the typical structure and functioning of the new cultural unit . Identificational assimilation, or a sense of peoplehood based exclusively on the host society is the fourth stage of assimilation. Individuals who have progressed through the identificational stage of assimilation identify themselves as American more so than an individual that has not progressed through this stage. However, it is important to note that individuals within the group may not incorporate the host society s sense of identity, but may still participate in other stages such as structural and cultural. The other levels include attitude receptional, meaning, specifically, absence of prejudice; behavioral receptional, or absence of discrimination; and civic assimilation, described as absence of value and power conflict . This absence of discrimination phase occurs because the minority individuals identify with the dominant group and the dominant group, in turn, receives them. Once again, non-English European-Americans are often used as the examples of this as they went through a period of discrimination and categorization of other but now participate fully in American society and are seen as a part of mainstream society. 21 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Anglo-conformist, Consensus Outcome of Assimilation As was mentioned, one outcome of assimilation is Anglo-conformity or consensus (Gordon 1964; Portes et al. 1980; Aguirre, Saenz, and Hwang 1989). The broad explanation as to how this outcome relates to discrimination is that as minority ethnic groups begin to parallel American mainstream culture in terms of cultural, structural, and identificational behavior, boundaries of differentness or Otherness erode and discrimination is less likely to occur (Gordon 1964; Aguirre et al. 1989). Gordon (1964) points out that in the United States, most social institutions and values are based on Anglo-Saxon values and ideals. The preservation of these Anglo-Saxon institutions and values is thought to be the Anglo-conformity type of assimilation. A major example of this is the use of the English language, with other languages virtually absent from American mainstream culture. Anyone who is not part of the core group can potentially experience discriminatory actions against him or feel the need to minimize certain behavior if consensus conformity pressure is asserted by the core group. Gordon proposes that Anglo-conformity has been the predominant assimilation policy throughout United States history. Founding fathers, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, warned about the newly arriving immigrants impacting the United States, politically and culturally. However, while the topic of limiting the impact of immigrants on American culture continued, policies toward allowing immigration fluctuated, typically depending on the 22 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 economic need at the time. Although minority ethnic groups within America are impacted by Angloconformity assimilation, children within these groups are especially affected. Gordon points to how children of immigrants might feel pressure to maintain weak ties to their minority culture and identify more with American mainstream culture. While this transfer of identification may create tension within minority ethnic groups, it allows members of minority ethnic groups to enter into structural assimilation. Most structures are based on Anglo ideals, and appreciating these ideals makes acceptance into them easier. Rumbaut (1997) speaks about how for certain immigrants, the consensus outcome of assimilation begins before arrival to America. He explains that in fact, many immigrants (and for that matter nonimmigrants) these days already Americanized to varying degrees in the countries of origin before they even set out for the United States, a reflection of the global reach and widespread diffusion of American consumption patterns, lifestyles, and popular culture (501). He also asserts that not all Anglo-conformity influences are positive for immigrants, such as the trends that indicate alcohol consumption and psychological distress increases with duration in America. Both Aguirre et al. (1989) and Portes et al. (1980) explore how a conformist approach to assimilation might impact discrimination for HispanicAmericans. Portes et al. (1980) found only minimal support for the conformist assimilation model, with Cuban immigrants indicating that as their knowledge of English and U.S. society increased, so did their perceptions of discrimination. 23 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 However, Aguirre et al. (1989) found strong support for the assimilation hypothesis with all of the following variables decreasing perceptions of discrimination for various generations: greater competence in English; weakening of Mexican culture; greater education; greater income; increased interaction with Anglos; a greater number of non-Mexican coworkers; and greater occupational prestige. Both articles pit alternate hypotheses against each other, with Anglo-conformist view opposed by an ethnic conflict hypothesis which is described below. Ethnic Conflict Outcome of Assimilation The theory of ethnic conflict supports the idea that as minority ethnic groups interact and participate in mainstream culture, they become more aware of their disadvantaged status and therefore perceive and experience more discrimination (Nielsen 1985; Hechter 1978) The ethnic conflict outcome of assimilation is used as the basis for the other set of hypotheses in this thesis. Hechter (1978) provides insight into ethnic conflict outcome of assimilation, starting with the idea that there are hierarchies of the various racial and ethnic groups. He explains that the ethnic groups that are at the lower end of the hierarchy tend to begin to associate their lower status with their ethnicity or race. This awareness of the link between their lower status and ethnicity creates an awareness of the disadvantages they face, with this newfound awareness leading them to perceive and experience more discrimination. Nielsen (1985) 24 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 describes Hechter s (1974) views on how variations of ethnic solidarity occur, explaining that when greater economic stratification can be seen between various ethnic groups, greater solidarity will arise. As mentioned above, both Portes et al. (1980) and Aguirre et al. (1989) tested the Anglo-conformist outcome of assimilation and the ethnic conflict outcome. To further clarify how ethnic conflict theory applies to assimilation and discrimination, Aguirre et al. (1989) expands on Glazer and Moynihan s (1970) work with the following: This approach argues that greater familiarity with dominant culture and greater socioeconomic success allow immigrants to gain an accurate and realistic understanding of inequality and the practice of discrimination in U.S. society as they compete with members of the dominant group. Its prediction is that the greater the level of cultural preparedness and the higher the relative socioeconomic standing of immigrants in the US, the greater the perceptions and experiences of discrimination and the more critical their overall assessment of the host society (595). As mentioned, the above definition is an elaboration of Glazer and Moynihan s (1970) work. They were among the first researchers to explore how interethnic conflict might further create tension between minority and dominant ethnic groups, rather than minimize differences and create harmony as the Angloconformist outcome of assimilation suggests. Instead, they explain that many ethnic groups were not blending in to the Anglo-dominated mainstream but were maintaining their ethnic identities and communities even though they had undergone change under the conditions that existed in American society. These continued ethnic ties are attributed to many things, among them the fact that 25 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 dominant society in America had not yet accepted them as well as that their ethnic communities provided a great source of support both socially and economically. Overall, the Portes et al. (1980) article found moderate support for the ethnic conflict theory with knowledge of English, information about US society and, in particular, modernity show[ing] the most consistent significant relationships with perception variables (211). Aguirre et al. (1989), however, found no support for the ethnic conflict theory and largely supported the above mentioned consensus outcome of assimilation. Also, it should be noted that Aguirre et al. s (1989) methodology might have proved more solid findings, as it relied on survey methods to a large sample while Portes et al. (1980) relied on interviews with Cuban and Mexican migrants at the time of their arrival and three years later. However, the obvious contradictions between these two articles and the large amount of time that has lapsed since this research is one reason why these are the two outcomes of assimilation of focus in this thesis. Other Outcomes of Assimilation There are other outcomes of assimilation that have received theoretical consideration. While these outcomes are not tested in this thesis, they are important to the discussion of assimilation. The melting pot outcome of assimilation has been commented on by many (Gordon1964; Glazer and Moynihan 1970). As the name suggests, this theory explains that cultures of the 26 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 minority ethnic groups and the dominant group impact one another, or melt into each other, to create a unified culture with all incorporated. While this theory is commonly held by Americans, Gordon explains that it is too optimistic and does not reflect the real experiences of those with minority ethnic groups. His critique is that the amount of influence by the minority ethnic groups and the dominant group on the melted culture is not accounted for. He asserts that if the minority ethnic group contributes to the mainstream culture, it is definitely not to the same degree that the dominant cultures does. What he considers to be a more accurate experience of minority ethnic groups is the absorption of the minority ethnic group by the dominant culture, more along the lines of Anglo-conformity. He explains that our cultural assimilation has taken place not in a melting pot, but rather in a transmuting pot in which all ingredients have been transformed and assimilated to an idealized Anglo-Saxon model . By using the idea of transmuting pot , rather than melting pot , there is an emphasis on the preservation and adaptation of Anglo values by minority ethnic groups rather than a conglomeration of the dominant culture and minority ethnic group cultures. Yet another outcome of assimilation is cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralism may be minimally defined as the retention by a minority ethnic group of its original culture, along with maintenance of a community and social institutions mostly separate and different from the larger society. Individuals from a minority ethnic group that experiences cultural pluralism, rather than Anglo-conformity, might be more likely to identify themselves according to their minority ethnicity, 27 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 such as Hispanic rather than as American . Cultural pluralism is conceived of as occurring within the framework and sovereignty of the larger society however, which lends much ambiguity to the term. It is ambiguous because it implies at least some, limited assimilation, but just how much is unclear. Gordon explains that while minority ethnic groups were initially marginalized in America, some of these groups became tied to their minority identity even more, creating the desire to maintain their ethnic cultural ties. Cultural pluralism allows for the preservation of minority ethnic groups culture, primarily through ethnic enclaves . However, members of minority ethnic groups are also able to participate in dominant culture. Gordon discusses why some feel that cultural pluralism is a better outcome of assimilation than others (i.e. Angloconformity). The reasons include the fact that members minority ethnic group participation is involuntary, that Anglo conformist ideas violate the ideals of America, and that having many cultures not only enriches culture for everyone, but also drives competition. He believes that cultural pluralism has already occurred in many instances in the United States, although he argued that it is really more structural in nature than cultural. Some might suggest that the ideas of cultural pluralism can be seen in the popular multicultural movement occurring in many parts of American life. A discussion on multiculturalism, including how it is viewed by American mainstream culture, is below. Glazer (1993) addresses cultural pluralism within America. He points out that post-WW II, there was a movement towards cultural pluralism in regards to European immigrants and dominant American culture. After WW II, boundaries 28 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 between these European immigrants and native-born Americans became less prevalent. Currently, cultural pluralism is gaining strength but is instead focused on African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans. American Mainstream Culture and Multiculturalism Another aspect of assimilation that might impact the experiences of Hispanic-Americans is the way the dominant group views multiculturalism, which is supported by the same ideas as cultural pluralism. Within the United States, there has been an increased support for this movement. Kivel (1996) explores definitions and implications of multiculturalism. A major component of multiculturalism is its inclusiveness, with all ethnic groups within a society participating and seeking justice. As Kivel points out, problems can arise when there is a disagreement between ethnic groups. When this happens, in order for multiculturalism to work, a both/and way of thinking must occur. This framework assume[s] that the needs and perspectives of different parties are not necessarily conflicting (204). This type of mindset allows for multiple truths, rather than an absolute truth. Another component of multiculturalism is cultural competency. Cultural competency involves being able to communicate and work effectively, despite differences in culture. 29 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Assimilation and Hispanic-Americans The topic of assimilation and Hispanic-Americans has been discussed by both Yancey (2003) in Who is white? Latinos, Asians, and the new black/nonblack divide and Jacoby (2004) in Reinventing the Melting Pot. Yancey views Hispanic-Americans assimilation closer to the Anglo-conformity outcome as described by Gordon. Jacoby (2004), on the other hand, is oriented more along the lines of the melting pot theory. Analyzing Hispanic-Americans contact with the dominant culture, Yancey (2003) believes that they are moving through the last stage of assimilation. As Hispanics become more assimilated, and incorporate dominant cultural values into their identity, they will experience less discrimination. He further asserts that at some point, the amount of assimilation occurring within the Hispanic-American community will overcome significant cultural attachments, enabling them to be absorbed by the dominant group and receive all of the benefits associated with that status. Yancey considers the assimilation process experienced by HispanicAmericans unique in many ways. He states that a major reason for their unique experience is the close proximity of their countries of origin. Many of the other minority ethnic groups in America, such as Asian-Americans and AfricanAmericans, have oceans separating them from their ancestral cultures, making it harder for them to preserve core cultural values (Yancey 2003). He contends that close proximity is an impediment to the process of assimilation for Hispanic- 30 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Americans because they do not face the same type of geographical threat to their culture. Furthermore, globalization and increased access to communication through technology such as the Internet might make distance between HispanicAmericans and their country of origin even less important (Castells 2000). However, working as an enabler to the process of assimilation, is the large percentage of European ancestry found in individuals within the HispanicAmerican community, with many being of Spanish descent. Spanish ancestry is often attributed to Hispanic-Americans, with the importance of this European ancestry found in the way it is institutionalized; the US census does not count Hispanic-Americans as a separate racial group, but rather as a separate ethnic group. Yancey explains that the recognition of European descent in HispanicAmericans will make the transition from minority ethnic group to the dominant ethnic group easier for their community and American society. Skin color is also commonly affected by European ancestry, a feature that is often noticed both within the Hispanic-American community and by the dominant culture. GolashBoza (2006) found that Hispanic-Americans with lighter skin tones tend to find assimilation easier, and therefore, reap the rewards of it. Within the HispanicAmerican community, I have personally seen good-natured nicknames based on the skin color of a child, such as negrita (little dark girl) used frequently. Jacoby (2004) also examines the experiences of minority ethnic groups in America. As mentioned, in Reinventing the Melting Pot, she takes a more melting pot oriented view in regards to assimilation of certain minority ethnic groups. Gregory Rodriquez (2004) contributes to the discussion on assimilation 31 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 and Hispanic-Americans specifically. He suggests that individuals within the Hispanic-American community have preserved cultural traits while also impacting American mainstream culture. One reason given for why this group has impacted the country is continuous immigration to the US, especially by MexicanAmericans, making their population size extremely significant. Unlike other minority ethnic groups where there has been distinct beginning and end points of immigration, Hispanic-Americans have steadily immigrated to the United States since the mid-1900s. With this constant immigration, Hispanic-Americans can claim a third of the total population in Texas and California, as well as two-thirds in Miami and half in Los Angeles. Furthermore, intermarriage between HispanicAmericans and people outside their ethnic group is becoming more common, producing individuals that have multiple ethnic identities. Rodriguez reports that by 2050 more than 40 percent United States Hispanics will be able to claim multiple ancestries . Detailing the history of Hispanic-Americans and assimilation, Rodriguez explains that when this group first came to the US, they were forced to minimize their external cultural traits because of consensus pressure and discrimination. However, as a result of this racial hostility, instead of succumbing to Angloconformist pressure, Hispanic-Americans began to take pride in their culture, possibly due to their large numbers. This pride created an atmosphere in which Hispanic-Americans were able to form organizations and movements, for example the National Council of La Raza and the Southwest Voter Registration Project. As these groups aimed to preserve Hispanic culture, it is clear that 32 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Hispanic-Americans have not always embraced American culture. Rodriguez also points out that along with Hispanic entrance into the middle class, Hispanic culture can be seen in American mainstream culture, such as with comedian George Lopez and recent presidential nominee, governor Bill Richardson (D NM). Furthermore, although Hispanic-Americans have assimilated in certain ways such as speaking English, they often do these things in conjunction with maintaining their cultural ties, even if minimally. Rodriguez (2004) cites that while Spanish persists as a second language among many Mexican-Americans in heavily Latino regions of the country, it clearly does not slow acquisition of the nation s primary language . He explains that civic assimilation, or participation in the political system, is also at an all time high, primarily due to the debate on immigration. He also discusses the more negative aspect of assimilation into American culture by Hispanic-Americans, explaining that it is common to have the discriminatory practices held by the dominant culture (i.e. towards African-Americans) incorporated into the views of HispanicAmericans. Ultimately this piece proposes the idea that Hispanic-Americans have reinvented the melting pot theory by feeling pride for their smaller group as well as impacting American mainstream culture and feeling a sense of peoplehood with Americans (133). As Hispanic-Americans become more powerful and important to the American landscape, many researchers have explored the extent to which Hispanic-Americans have assimilated. Much research focuses on one area of life in particular in which the Hispanic population might experience prejudice, 33 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 namely employment and income. When examining income trends among racial groups, it is shown that regardless of first, second-, or third-generation immigrant status, white populations within the United States earn more overall (Smith2006; Alba and Nee 2005). Research also shows both Hispanic men and women being much less likely to be in high authority positions (Smith and Elliott 2002). Another aspect of employment for Hispanic-Americans concerns insurance. Blewett et al. (2005) identified the following variables associated with being uninsured: being male; having less than high school education; working for a small employer; working for construction or eating/drinking establishment; being unemployed; and having low incomes. South et al. (2005) studied spatial assimilation among HispanicAmericans. They found that while Hispanic-Americans are more likely to live in neighborhoods with larger Anglo populations than other minority groups, human and social capital greatly influences the extent to which this happens. Furthermore, variations within the Hispanic-American community by ancestry make an impact, with Puerto Ricans less likely to live in Anglo neighborhoods compared to Mexican-Americans. Alba et al. (1997) also found disparities between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics in terms of residential segregation, although not to the same extent as the disparities between non-Hispanic whites and African-Americans. Intermarriage is another difference between HispanicAmericans and African-Americans, with Alba (1995) finding that HispanicAmericans have spouses from other ethnic groups more often than do AfricanAmericans. 34 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Alba et al. (1997) also found that there are gaps between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanic-Americans in terms of education, although it has decreased significantly since the 1970s indicating signs of structural assimilation. Roscigno (2000) supports this idea as well and also provides research that indicates within the Hispanic-American community, parents educational attainment greatly influences a child s educational attainment. The usage of English and Spanish is another major field in the studies of assimilation of Hispanic-Americans. Lutz (2006) found that generation greatly impacts Spanish-speaking, that people in single-family households are less likely to speak Spanish, and that high income households are less likely to speak Spanish, except for Cubans where income increases this chance. MendozaDenton (1999) also comments on the usage of English for Hispanic-Americans, noting that As Latino populations move toward acquiring varieties of English, they also experience some degree of Spanish language shifting, a shift that some would argue results in attrition of the home language across the generations and eventual loss of the language (381). Other studies focus on certain behaviors of Hispanic-Americans with Welch and Sigelman (2000) finding that Puerto Ricans reported greater contact with Anglos than Mexicans or Cubans; Hispanic-Americans, in general, are more likely to have personal relationships with Anglos than African-Americans; and that a lower percentage of ethnicity in a neighborhood increases interaction with Anglos. Political participation has also increased for Hispanic-Americans 35 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 (Barreto 2005), with Nicholson, Pantoja, and Segura (2006) noting how access to correct information greatly influences participation as well as decisions. The next chapter details the research that will be done in this thesis by bringing together the theoretical considerations for assimilation and discrimination for Hispanic-Americans. The data source, independent variables, dependant variables, and hypotheses will be discussed. 36 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Data Source The data used for this research comes from the National Survey of Latinos, 2002, conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation. The survey was conducted by telephone interviews among 2,929 Latinos and 1,284 non- Latinos. The non-Latino sample includes 1,008 nonLatino white adults and 171 non-Latino black adults. While the focus of this research is on the Hispanic population, when available, descriptions will be provided for the non-Latino portion of the sample for comparison purposes. Due to the nature of the question, some were not asked to the non-Latino sample. Furthermore, the total number of Hispanics included in the main analyses is somewhat smaller than the 2,929 stated above due to missing answers. Variables tapped from this data source include those measuring various forms of assimilation (cultural, structural, and identificational), perceptions and experiences of discrimination, as well as control measures. These are described more in detail below. 37 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Independent Variables Cultural Measures of Assimilation The independent variables representing measures of assimilation are divided into three categories based largely on Gordon s formulation. These include cultural measures, structural measures, and identificational measures. While exact coding is described below, generally speaking, measures were coded so that greater assimilation in terms of identification with American mainstream corresponded with greater values. Due to the large number of these variables, whenever it was deemed appropriate, and when meaningful results were found, factor scores were used; otherwise the individual variables were employed. The first cultural measure of assimilation has to do with linguistic preference, with four variables used to produce one factor measuring the respondent s total linguistic preference. The first variable indicates the respondent s preference for the interview, with English coded as 1 and Spanish as 0 (see Table 1 for more detailed information). Two other variables ask about the respondent s choice of language at home and watching news with the responses to these questions being only Spanish , coded as 0, more Spanish than English as 1, equal as 2, more English than Spanish as 3, and only English as 4. Another question included asks whether the respondent can have a conversation in Spanish, with the responses of not at all , coded as 3, just a little as 2, pretty well as 1 and very well as 0. The second measure of cultural assimilation is political satisfaction. This 38 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 measure was also produced by using multiple variables in a factor analysis. As shown in Table 1, the measures of political satisfaction are based on the question concerning trust in Washington with the responses of just about always , coded as 3, most of the time as 2, some of the time as 1, and never as 0; and whether politicians working for Hispanics, with yes coded as 1 and no as 0. These questions are coded so that more satisfaction indicates higher assimilation. The third measure of cultural assimilation used in this research examines views towards immigration, another indicator of cultural assimilation. Once again, this measure was produced using a factor analysis. The following questions were used in the factor analysis: (1) Do you think there are too many [coded as 2], too few [as 0], or about the right amounts of immigrants living in the US today [coded as 1]; (2) Some people think the United States should allow more Latin Americans to come and work in this country legally, [coded as 0], some people think the US should allow the same number as it does now [as 1]; and others think it should reduce the number who come and work in this country legally [as 2]; and (3) Some people say undocumented or illegal immigrants help the economy by providing low-cost labor , coded as 0, Others say they hurt the economy by driving wages down , coded as 1. The fourth measure of cultural assimilation concerns views toward the family, another measure of cultural assimilation. Questions used for this variable include whether a respondent agrees/disagrees with the following questions: In general the husband should have the final say in family matters; It is better for 39 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 children to live in their parents' home until they get married; and Relatives are more important than friends . Strongly agree is coded as 0, somewhat agree as 1, somewhat disagree as 2, and strongly disagree as 3. This measure was also produced using a factor analysis. These questions were subjected to a factor analysis which yielded one factor indicating the respondent s total views towards the family. Independent Variables Structural Measures of Assimilation The first measure of structural assimilation has to do with educational achievement. This variable is coded as: no schooling, 0, high school incomplete, 1, high school complete, 2, GED, 3, business school, 4, some college, 5, college graduate, 6, and post-graduate school, 7. The next measure of structural assimilation concerns economic advancement. As with the other measures, a factor analysis was used. However, this factor analysis yielded two distinct factors. The following questions are used to tap the first type of economic measure, economic achievement: Do you happen to have any credit cards, or not? , Do you own the place where you live or do you pay rent? , and Do you have an account with a bank or not , with yes coded as 1, and no as 0. The second economic measures indicates economic situation. Questions asks whether or not the respondent has had problems paying rent or been laid off , whether the respondent has been able to save money for the future , and whether the respondent has been laid off with 40 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 yes coded as 1, and no as 0. The third measure of structural assimilation taps political participation. Two questions are used, asking if the respondent is registered to vote in the US or has ever voted in an US election . The response and coding are yes as 1 and no as 0. . Once again, a factor analysis was used producing one measure of political participation. Independent Variables Identificational Measures of Assimilation The first measure of identificational assimilation is in terms of selfidentification. Two variables were combined in order to classify the response of self-identification as American only coded as 3, Hispanic-American coded as 2, and Hispanic only coded as 1. The second, and last, measure of identificational assimilation examines attitudes towards American mainstream and asks about the perceived rating of America in comparison to the respondent s country of origin. The situations include helping the poor , the moral values of society , and the strength of family ties . The responses were as follows: better in US , coded as 2, same as 1, or better in ancestral country as 0. As Gordon explains, once assimilation is complete, those in the minority group identify with the dominant culture and their values (Gordon 1964). 41 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 Dependent Variables Perceptions and Experiences of Intergroup and Intragroup Discrimination In order to research discrimination in the most detailed way possible, both perceptions and actual experiences of discrimination, as reported by the respondent are included in the analysis. Overall, greater perceptions and experiences of discrimination were coded with greater values. Perceptions of discrimination are measured with a composite indicator including three questions. All begin with the statement In general, do you think discrimination against Hispanics is a major problem, minor problem, or not a problem in schools , the workplace , and preventing Hispanics in general from succeeding in America ? The responses were coded as follows: major problem as 2, minor problem as 1, and no problem as 0. After coding, the questions were then combined to create one measure for perceptions of discrimination (Table 1). Experiences of discrimination are also measured by combining several variables. The first questions asks During the last 5 years, have you experienced discrimination because of your racial or ethnic background, or not? with yes coded as 1 and no coded as 0. The next question used for the experience of discrimination measure asks Has there ever been a time when you have not been hired or promoted for a job because of your race or ethnic background, or has this not happened to you? , with once again, yes coded as 42 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 1 and no as 0. Another series of questions begin with In your day-to-day life, how often do any of the following things happen to you because of your racial or ethnic background? The survey then lists several situations including You are treated with less respect than other people , You receive poorer service than other people at restaurants or stores , and You are called names or insulted . The responses and corresponding coding to these questions are: very often as 3, fairly often as 2, once in a while as 1, and never as 0. As the values of the responses for the questions do not correspond, each variable was standardized and the sum of the s-scores is used to measure the overall experience. The last dependant variable examines perceptions of intragroup discrimination. The question asks if the respondent thinks that Hispanics discrimination against Hispanics is a major problem coded as 2, minor problem coded as 1, or no problem coded as 0. Unfortunately, this is the only question designed to measure intragroup discrimination. Because of this, conclusions made regarding perceptions of intragroup discrimination should be considered exploratory. Hypotheses As mentioned before, the focus of this research is on the Anglo-conformity or consensus outcome of assimilation and the ethnic conflict outcome of assimilation. The hypotheses are divided based on these outcomes as well as 43 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 the different types of discrimination under examination (perceptions of intergroup, experiences of intergroup, and perceptions of intragroup). The first set of hypotheses concerns the Anglo-conformity or consensus outcome of assimilation and perceptions of discrimination. The first hypothesis (H 1.1) in this thesis is that reports of greater cultural assimilation, in terms of preferring English, having greater political satisfaction, having more progressive views towards the family, and having more negative views towards immigration, decreases perceptions of intergroup discrimination about the workplace, school, and Hispanics succeeding in America. The next hypothesis (H 1.2) is similar, stating that reports of greater structural assimilation, in terms of having more education, more political participation, greater economic attainment, and a better economic situation, decreases perceptions of intergroup discrimination about the workplace, school, and Hispanics succeeding in America. The last hypothesis (H 1.3) in this set is that reports of greater identificational assimilation, in terms of identifying as American and viewing America as better than their ancestry country in terms of treatment of the poor, morals, and the family, decreases perceptions of intergroup discrimination about the workplace, school, and Hispanics succeeding in America. The second set of hypotheses is based on the consensus outcome of assimilation and experiences of intergroup discrimination. They are very similar to those above, but have experiences of discrimination (rather than perceptions) 44 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 as the dependent variable. The first hypothesis (H 2.1) in this set is that reports of greater cultural assimilation, in terms of preferring English, having greater political satisfaction, having more progressive views towards the family, and having more negative views towards immigration, decreases experiences of intergroup discrimination generally as well as in the workplace, being treated with less respect, receiving poor service, and being called names. The next hypothesis (H 2.2) is similar, stating that reports of greater structural assimilation, in terms of having more education, more political participation, greater economic attainment, and a better economic situation, decreases experiences of intergroup discrimination generally as well as in the workplace, being treated with less respect, receiving poor service, and being called names. The last hypothesis (H 2.3) in this set is that reports of greater identificational assimilation, in terms of identifying as American and viewing America as better than their ancestry country in terms of treatment of the poor, morals, and the family, decreases experiences of intergroup discrimination generally as well as in the workplace, being treated with less respect, receiving poor service, and being called names. The next two sets of hypotheses are in opposition to the first two above, with the ethnic conflict theory used as the basis for their reasoning. The first hypothesis (H 3.1) is that reports of greater cultural assimilation, in terms of preferring English, having greater political satisfaction, having more progressive 45 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 views towards the family, and having more negative views towards immigration, increases perceptions of intergroup discrimination about the workplace, school, and Hispanics succeeding in America. The next hypothesis (H 3.2) is similar, stating that reports of greater structural assimilation, in terms of having more education, more political participation, greater economic attainment, and a better economic situation, increases perceptions of intergroup discrimination about the workplace, school, and Hispanics succeeding in America. The last hypothesis (H 3.3) in this set is that reports of greater identificational assimilation, in terms of identifying as American and viewing America as better than their ancestry country in terms of treatment of the poor, morals, and the family, increases perceptions of intergroup discrimination about the workplace, school, and Hispanics succeeding in America. The next set of hypotheses are similar to those in the third, however, they focus on experiences of discrimination. The first hypothesis (H 4.1) in this set is that reports of greater cultural assimilation, in terms of preferring English, having greater political satisfaction, having more progressive views towards the family, and having more negative views towards immigration, increases experiences of intergroup discrimination generally as well as in the workplace, being treated with less respect, receiving poor service, and being called names. The next hypothesis (H 4.2) is similar, stating that reports of greater structural assimilation, in terms of having more education, more political 46 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 participation, greater economic attainment, and a better economic situation, increases experiences of intergroup discrimination generally as well as in the workplace, being treated with less respect, receiving poor service, and being called names. The last hypothesis (H 4.3) in this set is that reports of greater identificational assimilation, in terms of identifying as American and viewing America as better than their ancestry country in terms of treatment of the poor, morals, and the family, increases experiences of intergroup discrimination generally as well as in the workplace, being treated with less respect, receiving poor service, and being called names. The last set of hypotheses focuses on discrimination within the HispanicAmerican community. It is generally thought that having behaviors and attitudes that are more parallel to American society might elicit hostilities from individuals that are not as similar. The first hypothesis (H 3.1) in this set is that as greater cultural assimilation is reported, in terms of linguistic preference, political satisfaction, view towards immigration, and views towards family, respondents will perceive more intragroup discrimination. The next hypothesis (H 3.2) is similar, stating that as greater structural assimilation is reported, in terms of educational attainment, economic attainment, economic status, and political participation, respondents will perceive more intragroup discrimination. 47 Texas Tech University, Emily Estrada, May 2008 The last hypothesis (H 3.3) in this set is that greater identificational assimilation, in terms of self-identification and viewing America in a positive way, will increase perceptions of intragroup discrimination. . 48 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Table 1: Descriptive Information for Variables Used in Analyses of Assimilation Measures on Inter and Intragroup Discrimination, NSL, USA: 2002 Variables Included in Analyses Language Pref. for Interview Watching news Speaking at home Carry a conversation in Spanish Trust in Washington Political Satisfaction Coded English coded as 1; Spanish coded as 0 only English coded as 4; more English than Spanish coded as 3; Equal coded as 2; more Spanish than English coded as 1; only Spanish coded 0 Same as above not at all coded as 3; just a little coded as 2; pretty well coded as 1; very well coded 0 always coded as 3; most of the time coded as 2; some of time coded as 1; never coded as 0 Yes = 1; no = 0 too many coded as 2; right amount coded as 1; too few coded as 0 Same as above Hurt =1; help = 0 strongly disagree coded as 3; disagree somewhat coded as 2; agree somewhat coded as 1; strongly agree coded as 0 Same as above Same as above Yes=1; no=1 Same as Above own = 1; rent = 0 no = 1; yes = 0 no = 1; yes = 0 yes = 1; no = 0 Mean .428 Standard Deviation .495 N 2929 Linguistic Preference 1.965 1.551 .440 1.480 1.470 .836 2916 2927 2929 1.562 .414 1.442 .685 .247 1.188 .681 .384 .512 .65 .404 .716 .689 .333 .794 .493 .640 .735 .431 1.125 .994 .756 .500 .478 .491 .451 .459 .471 2766 2747 2745 2781 2747 2891 2891 2900 2879 2858 2868 2925 2922 2915 Politicians Help Hispanics Amount of Immigrants Views Toward Immigration Amount of legal Immigrants Illegal immigrants impact on economy Husband has final say Views Toward Family Economic Achievement Children w/parents until marriage Relatives more important than friends Have credit cards Have account with bank Own or rent home Problem paying rent Been laid off Save for future 49 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Table 1, Continued: Descriptive Information for Variables Used in Analyses of Assimilation Measures on Inter and Intragroup Discrimination, NSL, USA: 2002 Education Political Participation Respondent s Educational Attainment Registered to Vote in US Ever voted in US See Footnote* yes = 1; no = 0 Same as Above Identifies as American only =3; Identifies as American and Hispanic = 2; Identifies as Hispan only = 1 better in US coded as 2; same coded as 1; better in ancestral country coded as 0 Same as Above Same as Above Actual scale, fewer years coded with lesser values, more years coded with greater values 4th generation coded as 4; 3rd generation coded as 3; 2nd generation coded as 2; 1st generation coded as 1 Puerto Rican, Cuban, Other = 1; Mexican = 0 2.344 .761 .698 1.70 1.623 .918 .702 16.14 .576 2.053 .427 .459 .672 .637 .817 .800 12.516 .880 2909 1725 1740 2678 2825 2791 2848 1696 2889 Self Identification Treatment of the poor Attitudes towards America Moral values of society Strength of family Time Spent in US Number of Years Lived in US Respondent s Generational Level Mexican (reference group) Puerto Rican Cuban Other Respondent s Degree of Urbanization Generation Ancestry .004 .001 .988 1.383 .060 .034 .102 .648 2918 2918 2918 2929 Urbanization urban coded as 2; suburban coded as 1; rural coded as 0 50 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Table 1, Continued: Descriptive Information for Variables Used in Analyses of Assimilation Measures on Inter and Intragroup Discrimination, NSL, USA: 2002 West South Central (reference) New England Region Mid Atlantic Region East North Central Region West North Central Region South Atlantic Region East South Central Region Mountain Region Pacific Region Problem in Education Perceptions of Discrimination Against Hispanics Problem in Workplace Problem for success Personally discriminated against Personally discriminated against on the job Treated with less respect Treated with poorer service major problem coded as 2; minor problem coded as 1; no problem coded as 0 Same as Above Same as Above New England Region, Mid Atlantic Region, East North Central Region, West North Central Region, South Atlantic Region, East South Central Region, Mountain Region, Pacific Region = 1; West South Central = 0 .026 .123 .054 .017 .129 .004 .095 .329 1.182 1.221 1.282 .500 .140 .158 .328 .226 .130 .335 .059 .293 .470 .761 .754 .730 .500 .347 2929 2929 2929 2929 2929 2929 2929 2929 2797 2865 2870 915 2873 Region Yes = 1; No = 0 Experiences of Discrimination Against Hispanics Yes = 1; No = 0 very often coded as 3; fairly often coded as 2; once in a while code 1; never coded as 0 Same as Above .6601 .539 .790 .760 2911 2911 51 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Table 1, Continued: Descriptive Information for Variables Used in Analyses of Assimilation Measures on Inter and Intragroup Discrimination, NSL, USA: 2002 Perceptions of Discrimination Between Hispanics Problem in general major problem coded as 2; minor problem coded as 1; no problem coded as 0 1.311 .733 2885 *7 - post-graduate school; 6 - college graduate; 5 - some college; 4 - business school; 3 - GED; 2 - high school complete; 1- high school incomplete; 0 - no schooling 52 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 CHAPTER IV ANALYSES AND FINDINGS This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section compares the above mentioned measures of assimilation between the Hispanic-Americans and non-Hispanic portions of the sample (shown in Figures 1 through 15). The second section contains three sets of regressions with the impact of various measures of assimilation on perceptions of intergroup discrimination (Table 2), experiences of intergroup discrimination (Table 3), and perceptions of intragroup discrimination examined (Table 4). Comparisons between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics To better understand the differences, if any, between Hispanics and nonHispanics, comparisons were made between the two groups for many of the variables measuring assimilation. Unfortunately, not all questions used to form the measures of assimilation were asked of both Hispanics and non-Hispanics, especially for the identificational measures of assimilation which were not asked to non-Hispanics at all. When this occurs, the question was deleted from the comparison. 53 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Cultural Measures Comparison The questions measuring linguistic preference were not asked to the nonHispanic group for obvious reasons. However, political satisfaction was tapped with the question do you trust in Washington? showing that Hispanics responded with 4.1% as Never , 49.4% as Some of the time , 30.7% as Most of the time , and 15.8% as Always . For non-Hispanics, 5.3% responded Never , 50.8% Some of the time , 36.3% Most of the time and 7.5% Always . As can be seen in Figure 1, the differences between Hispanics and nonHispanics for this question are not great. The comparison on variables measuring views towards immigration yields interesting results. When asked the question Are there too few, too many, or just the right amount of immigrants living in the US? , 3.60% of non-Hispanics responded too few , compared to 7.9% of Hispanics giving the same response (Figure 2). However, fewer Hispanics (40.6%) feel that there is the right amount of immigrants than do non-Hispanics (50.7%). Furthermore, 51.5% of Hispanics think there are too many immigrants in American with only 45.8% of non-Hispanics thinking this. While both percentages are high, one would probably expect non-Hispanics to think that there are too many immigrants compared to Hispanics. When asked about legal immigrants specifically, 48.6% of Hispanic-Americans feel that there are too few , 34.4% feel that there is the right amount , and 17% feel that there are too many (Figure 3). For the nonHispanic portion of the sample, 19.6% feel that there are too few , 47.1% responded with the right amount , and 33.2% feel that there are too many . 54 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 The results for this question clearly correspond to the predictions one might make regarding views towards immigration and the differences between Hispanic-Americans and non-Hispanic-Americans. The last question used to measure views towards immigration yields the greatest differences between the two samples. Regarding whether or not illegal immigrants help or harm the economy, 69.9% of Hispanic-Americans think they help, while only 31.7% of nonHispanics think the same (Figure 4). Furthermore, 30.1% of Hispanics feel that illegal immigrants hurt the economy, with 63.3% of non-Hispanics indicating the same. The next measure of cultural assimilation involves views towards the family. Once again, for some questions, there are noticeable differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations. However, for one question, asking whether or not the husband should have the final say, the responses between Hispanics and non-Hispanics were less defined. For Hispanics, 17.4% indicated that they strongly agreed, 17.7% agreed somewhat, 24.8% disagreed somewhat, and 40.1% disagreed strongly (Figure 5). For non-Hispanics, 12.2% strongly agreed, 16.5% agreed somewhat, 23.2% disagreed somewhat, and 48.1% disagreed strongly. While there are differences between the groups, their responses are much more similar than they are when examining the question of whether or not children should live at home until marriage. For HispanicAmericans, 59.4% responded with agree strongly while only 20% of nonHispanics had the same answer (Figure 6). 18.4% of Hispanics agreed somewhat with the statement, compared to 25% of non-Hispanics. Furthermore, 55 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 non-Hispanics were more likely to disagree with the statement, 31.3% somewhat and 23.7% strongly than were Hispanics with 13.6% indicating some disagreement and 8.7% strongly disagreeing with the statement. The last question concerning views towards the family asks if relatives are more important than friends. Once again, great disparities between Hispanic-Americans and non-Hispanics were found. For Hispanics, 73.8% strongly agreed, 15.1% agreed somewhat, 8.1% disagreed somewhat, and 3% disagreed strongly (Figure 7). Non-Hispanics reported agreeing strongly 39.1% of the time, agreeing somewhat 29.2%, disagreeing somewhat 23.6%, and disagreeing strongly 8.2%. Structural Measures Comparison Education is the first structural measure used in this research. While there are similarities between Hispanic-Americans and non-Hispanics in terms of education, for some levels the difference is obvious. More Hispanic-Americans are less likely to graduate from high school with 13.8% having no school and 17.8% responding as having an incomplete high school education (Figure 8). However, for the non-Hispanic sample, 1.6% reported having no schooling and 5.9% responded with high school incomplete. Other differences emerge regarding higher education, with 17.9% of Hispanics having some college, 14.6% being college graduates, and 4.3% having post-graduate training. Compared to non-Hispanics, with 25.3% reporting some college, 22.8% being college 56 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 graduates, and 14.3% having post-graduate training, Hispanics fall far behind in terms of higher education. The next measures tap economic status. The first set of economic variables asks specific questions about economic attainment and shows a difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. When asked about credit card ownership, 70.1% of Hispanics report that they have one while 29.9% report not having one (Figure 9). For non-Hispanics, 93.7% reported having a credit card with 6.3% reporting that they do not have a credit card. While more nonHispanics have credit cards in general, more people in both groups have credit cards than do not. However, when respondents were asked if they owned a home, 39.3% of Hispanics said yes and 60.7% said no (Figure 10). For nonHispanics, 68.4% said yes and 31.6% reported not owning a home. Clearly, Hispanics are much less likely to be home owners than non-Hispanics. Another variable measuring economic attainment asks if the respondent has a bank account. 70.1% of Hispanic-Americans report having a bank account, compared to 93.7% of non-Hispanics (Figure 11). This leaves 29.9% of Hispanics and 6.3% of non-Hispanics without a bank account. The next set of economic measures focus more on the situation of the respondent rather than actual material gains. The first question asks if the respondent has had problems paying rent? . More Hispanics (29.4%) reported having problems than did non-Hispanics (14.1%) (Figure 12). The next question concerns whether the respondent has been laid off at work. Once again, Hispanics seem to be in the less favorable position with 31.7% indicating that 57 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 they had been laid off at work compared to only 16.7% of non-Hispanics reporting the same (Figure 13). The last economic situation question asks if the respondent has been able to save for the future. Only 36.30% of HispanicAmericans report being able to save for the future, while 51.5% of non-Hispanics indicate the same (Figure 14). The last structural measure of assimilation examines political participation. The only question that was asked to both Hispanics and non-Hispanics concerns having ever voted in an US election. While not on the same footing as nonHispanics, Hispanics experience relatively high political participation with 71.9% reporting yes and 28.1% no (Figure 15). The non-Hispanic sample shows that 86.2% have voted while 13.8% have not. Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination Regressions The various regressions used to explain perceptions of intergroup discrimination will now be discussed. To better understand the impact of various types of assimilation on perceptions of intergroup discrimination, the variables from each type of assimilation (cultural, structural, and identificational) were run independently and then all together. Table 2 shows the results of all of the regressions examining perceptions of intergroup discrimination by HispanicAmericans. The first model shows the impact of cultural assimilation variables on perception of intergroup discrimination; the second model shows the impact of structural assimilation variables on perceptions of intergroup discrimination; the 58 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 third model shows the impact of identificational measures of assimilation on perceptions of intergroup discrimination; and the fourth includes all measures of assimilation on perceptions of intergroup discrimination. Control variables are included in each model. Overall, many models supported the consensus hypothesis. The first model shows that several of the cultural measures of assimilation indicate that identifying more with American values decreases perceptions of discrimination (H 1.1). Having a preference for English (-.196*), being more politically satisfied (.151*), and having views towards immigration that are more negative (-.068*) are shown to significantly decrease perceptions of discrimination (shown in Table 2). The beta weights indicate that preferring English makes more of a negative impact on perceptions of intergroup discrimination compared to being politically satisfied, which in turn is more important than views towards immigration. The other cultural assimilation measure, views towards the family, is insignificant. The second model, testing structural measures of assimilation on perceptions of discrimination, provides support for both the consensus and ethnic conflict hypotheses. Greater educational attainment (.086*) is shown to increase perceptions of discrimination, supporting the idea that for minority ethnic groups, greater assimilation increases awareness of discrimination (H 1.2). However, having a better economic situation (-.157*) is shown to decrease perceptions of discrimination (H 3.2). Economic attainment and political participation are both insignificant to perceptions of discrimination. 59 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 The third model examining the effect of identificational assimilation on perceptions of discrimination shows overwhelming support for the consensus model (H 1.3). Self-identification as more American (-.137*) and having more positive attitudes towards American society (-.107*) both decrease perceptions of intergroup discrimination for Hispanic-Americans. The beta weights of these variables indicate that among measures of identificational assimilation, selfidentification decreases perceptions of intergroup discrimination more so than having positive attitudes towards America. The last model containing all measures of assimilation also shows more support for the consensus hypothesis. Several of the variables that supported this hypothesis in the above models continue to support it when they are combined (H 1.1, 1.2, 1.3). Once again, preferring English (-.166*), having greater political satisfaction (-.189*), having a better economic situation (-.130*), identifying as more American (-.070**), and having more positive attitudes towards American society (-.178*) all decrease perceptions of intergroup discrimination. The analysis of these variables indicates that political satisfaction decreases perceptions of intergroup discrimination the most. Additionally, the cultural measures of assimilation have a greater impact in decreasing perceptions of discrimination over structural and identificational measures. However, greater educational attainment (.087*), once again, was shown to increase perceptions of intergroup discrimination (H 3.2). When examining the individual explanations of the measures of assimilation on intergroup discrimination, variations in the cultural measures of 60 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 assimilation explain the most variation (8.7%*) in perceptions of intergroup discrimination by Hispanic-Americans. Model four, with all measures of assimilation, explains 17.3%* of the variation in perceptions of discrimination. Experiences of Intergroup Discrimination Regressions Once again, to better understand how various measures of assimilation impact experiences of intergroup discrimination for Hispanic-Americans separately and combined, four models were used. The results for the regressions examining experiences of intergroup discrimination by HispanicAmericans can be found in Table 3. The first model examines cultural measures of assimilation on experiences of discrimination. Once again, the consensus hypothesis receives more support. Having greater political satisfaction (-.175*) and holding views towards immigration that are more negative (-.069*) are shown to decrease experiences of discrimination (H 2.1). These variables also indicate that political satisfaction has a greater negative impact on experiences of intergroup discrimination compared to having negative views towards immigration. However, supporting the ethnic conflict theory (H 4.1), having views towards the family that are more progressive (.051**) is shown to increase experiences of discrimination although not at the level of significance of the other variables, nor as strongly. Having a greater preference for English was shown to be insignificant. 61 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 The next model explores the impact of structural assimilation on experiences of discrimination. These measures also support the consensus hypothesis more (H 2.2), with a better economic situation (-.218*) decreasing experiences of intergroup discrimination more than greater political participation (-.062**). However, greater educational and economic attainments were insignificant. The third model indicates that having more favorable attitudes towards American society (-.070*) also decreases experiences of intergroup discrimination, supporting the consensus hypothesis (H 2.3). However, selfidentification is not significant. The fourth model uses all measures of assimilation on intergroup discrimination. Once again, the consensus hypothesis receives more support (H 2.1, 2.2, 2.3). Just as with the other models, having greater political satisfaction (-.216*), holding more negative views towards immigration (-.083*), having a better economic situation (-.163*), being more politically involved (-.087*), and having more positive views towards American society (-.080*) all decrease experiences of discrimination. Among these variables, political satisfaction had the greatest impact, with the structural measures of assimilation generally having a greater impact on experiences of discrimination than they did perceptions of discrimination. The ethnic conflict hypothesis receives some support (H 4.1), with having a preference for English (.103*) increasing experiences of discrimination more so than progressive views towards the family (.098*). Other variables are insignificant including educational attainment, economic attainment, and self-identification. 62 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Unlike the regressions measuring perceptions of discrimination, structural measures of assimilation explained the most variation in experiences of discrimination (6.4%*) when comparing model one through three. Model four shows that all measures of assimilation explain 14.4%* of the variation in experiences of intergroup discrimination by Hispanic-Americans. Perceptions of Intragroup Discrimination Regressions The next set of regressions examine perceptions of discrimination within (intragroup) the Hispanic-American community. As with other regressions, four models are used to see the impact of the different types of assimilation separately with the results of each found in Table 4. The first model examines cultural measures of assimilation on perceptions of intragroup discrimination. The significant variables in this regression do not support the hypothesis regarding perceptions of intragroup discrimination. The significant variables suggest that a preference for English (-.223*) and being more politically satisfied (-.055*) decreases perceptions of intragroup discrimination (H 5.1). However, having a preference for English is shown to have a much stronger impact on perceptions of intragroup discrimination than does being more politically satisfied. Having more negative views towards immigration and more progressive views towards the family were insignificant. The next model examines structural assimilation and perceptions of intragroup discrimination. Once again, little support was found for the intragroup 63 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 hypothesis regarding structural measures of assimilation (H 5.2). Greater economic attainment (-.067**) and a better economic situation (-.159*) both decrease perceptions of intragroup discrimination, with economic situation having a greater impact in decreasing perceptions of intragroup discrimination. Other variables were insignificant including educational attainment and political participation. The third model indicates that identificational measures of assimilation also show a strong rejection of the hypothesis. Identifying as more American (-.101*) and having more favorable attitudes towards American society (-.042**) decrease perceptions of intragroup discrimination. The last model examines all measures of assimilation on perceptions of intragroup discrimination. Preferring English (-.194*), being more politically satisfied (-.085*), and having a better economic situation (.-121*) decrease perceptions of intragroup discrimination going against the predictions of perceptions of intragroup discrimination (H 5.3). Once again, among the measures of assimilation, preferring English has the strongest influence in decreasing perceptions of intragroup discrimination. However, many other variables were insignificant including views towards immigration, views towards the family, educational attainment, economic attainment, political participation, self-identification, and attitudes towards American society. Models one through three indicate that the measures examining cultural assimilation had the most impact on perceptions of intragroup discrimination explaining 11.7%* of the variance in intragroup discrimination. The overall 64 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 amount of explanation with all measures of assimilation is 12.2%* of the variation in perceptions of intragroup discrimination. 65 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.70% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 4.10% 0.00% Hispanic Americans Non Hispanics 49.40% 50.80% 36.30% Never Some of the Time Most of the Time 15.80% 7.50% Always 5.30% Figure 1: Trust In Washington Comparison between Hispanics and NonHispanics, NSL, 2002 66 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 60.00% 51.50% 50.00% 40.60% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American Non Hispanic 7.90% 3.60% Too Few Right Amount Too Many 50.70% 45.80% Figure 2: Amount of Immigrants living in U.S. Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, NSL, 2002 67 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American Non Hispanic 19.60% 48.60% 47.10% 34.40% 33.20% More Same Reduce 17% Figure 3: Amount of Legal Immigrants living in U.S. Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, NSL, 2002 68 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.10% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American Non Hispanic 31.70% Help Hurt 69.90% 68.30% Figure 4: Illegal Immigrants on Economy Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, NSL, 2002 69 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 60.00% 50.00% 40.10% 40.00% Agree Strong 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American Non Hispanic 24.80% 17.70% 17.40% 23.20% 16.50% 12.20% Agree Some Disagree Some Disagree Strong 48.10% Figure 5: Husband Should Have Final Say Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, NSL, 2002 70 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 31.30% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American Non Hispanic 18.40% 13.60% 8.70% 20% 25% 23.70% Agree Strong Agree Some Disagree Some Disagree Strong 59.40% Figure 6: Children Should Live at Home Until Marry Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, NSL, 2002 71 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 73.80% 39.10% 29.20% 23.60% 15.10% 8.10% 3% Hispanic American Non Hispanic 8.20% Agree Strong Agree Some Disagree Some Disagree Strong Figure 7: Relatives over Friends Comparison between Hispanics and NonHispanics, NSL, 2002 72 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 30.00% 25.40% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.90% 5.00% 0.00% Hispanic American Non Hispanic 4.00% 2.20% 4.30% 1.60% 3.50% 1.00% 25.40% 25.30% 22.80% None 17.80% 13.80% 17.90% 14.60% 14.30% High School Incomplete High School Complete GED Busi, Tech, or Voc School Some college College Graduate Post Graduate Train Figure 8: Education Comparison between Hispanic-Americans and NonHispanics, NSL, 2002 73 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.10% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic Amercan 29.90% 93.70% Yes No 6.30% Non Hispanic Figure 9: Credit Card Owner Comparison between Hispanics and NonHispanics, NSL, 2002 74 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 80.00% 70.00% 60.70% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American Non Hispanic 39.30% 31.60% Yes No 68.40% Figure 10: Home Owner Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, NSL, 2002 75 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.10% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American 29.90% 93.70% Yes No 6.30% Non Hispanic Figure 11: Bank Account Owner Comparison between Hispanics and NonHispanics, NSL, 2002 76 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic Americans Non Hispanics 29.40% 14.10% Yes No 70.60% 85.90% Figure 12: Problems Paying Rent Comparison between Hispanics and NonHispanics, NSL, 2002 77 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American 16.70% 68.30% 83.30% Yes 31.70% No Non Hispanic Figure 13: Laid Off at Work Comparison between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, NSL, 2002 78 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 70.00% 60.00% 63.80% 51.50% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American 36.20% 48.50% Yes No Non Hispanic Figure 14: Able to Save for Future Comparison between Hispanic-Americans and Non-Hispanics, NSL, 2002 79 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Hispanic American Non Hispanic 28.10% 13.80% Yes No 71.90% 86.20% Figure 15: Voted in US Election Comparison between Hispanics and NonHispanics, NSL, 2002 80 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Table 2: Beta Weights of Various Assimilation Factors Effecting Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination Against Hispanic-Americans National Survey of Latinos, 2002: USA Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Language Factor Subprocess I Cultural Assimilation Political Satisfaction Factor Views towards Immigration Factor Views towards Family Factor Educational Attainment Subprocess II - Structural Assimilation Economic Attainment Factor Economic Situation Factor Political Participation Factor Subprocess III Identificational Assimilation Self-Identification (American only, American/Hispanic, Hispanic only) Attitudes towards American Society Factor Time Spent in US Immigrant Generational Status Puerto Rican Descent Cuban Descent Other Hispanic-American Descent Degree of Urbanization Control Measures New England Region Mid Atlantic Region East North Central Region West North Central Region South Atlantic Region East South Central Region Mountain Region Pacific Region r2 N -.196* -.151* -.068* -.013 * * * * * * -.051 .040 -.002 -.022 -..023 .016 .001 .096* .006 .013 .028 .021 .034 .080* .087* 2206 * * * * .086* -.046 -.157* -.006 * * -.045 -.111* .031 -.006 -.011 -.011 .001 .104* .025 -.002 -.028 .020 .030 .055 .062* 1575 * * * * * * * * -.137* -.107* -.069** -.033 -.007 -.014 -.010 .027 -..009 .092* .020 .002 -.007 .017 .045** .065* .073* 2383 -.166* -.189* -.047 .010 .087* -.015 -.130* -.015 -.070** -.178* -.018 .055 .016 -.025 -.007 .000 -.023 .101* .007 .043 -.016 .014 .015 .067 .173* 1076 81 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Table 3: Beta Weights of Various Assimilation Factors Effecting Experiences of Intergroup Discrimination Against Hispanic-Americans National Survey of Latinos, 2002: USA Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Language Factor Subprocess I Cultural Assimilation Political Satisfaction Factor Views towards Immigration Factor Views towards Family Factor Educational Attainment Subprocess II - Structural Assimilation Economic Attainment Factor Economic Situation Factor Political Participation Factor Subprocess III Identificational Assimilation Self-Identification (American only, American/Hispanic, Hispanic only) Attitudes towards American Society Factor Time Spent in US Immigrant Generational Status Puerto Rican Descent Cuban Descent Other Hispanic-American Descent Degree of Urbanization Control Measures New England Region Mid Atlantic Region East North Central Region West North Central Region South Atlantic Region East South Central Region Mountain Region Pacific Region r2 N .054 -.175* -.069* .051** * * * * * * -.074** .051 .003 .001 .001 .024 .020 .021 .009 -.014 .008 .015 -.045 -.039 .045* 2210 * * * * .050 -.024 -.218* -.062** * * -.035 .020 .028 -.006 -.008 -.016 -.022 -.028 .004 -.046 -.067** .012 =.080* -.091* .064* 1583 * * * * * * * * -.027 -.070* -.033 .067** -.011 .003 -.003 -.011 .010 .007 .023 -.009 -.014 .016 -.039 -.035 .010 2388 .103* -.216* -.083* .098* -.004 .010 -.163* -.087* -.050 -.080* -.043 .012 .011 .007 .0018 .016 -.036 -.060 -.039 -.082* -.083* -.003* -.094 -.115* .144* 1080 82 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Table 4: Beta Weights of Various Assimilation Factors Effecting Perceptions of Intragroup Discrimination Against Hispanic-Americans National Survey of Latinos, 2002: USA Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Language Factor Subprocess I Cultural Assimilation Political Satisfaction Factor Views towards Immigration Factor Views towards Family Factor Educational Attainment Subprocess II - Structural Assimilation Economic Attainment Factor Economic Situation Factor Political Participation Factor Subprocess III Identificational Assimilation Self-Identification (American only, American/Hispanic, Hispanic only) Attitudes towards American Society Factor Time Spent in US Immigrant Generational Status Puerto Rican Descent Cuban Descent Other Hispanic-American Descent Degree of Urbanization Control Measures New England Region Mid Atlantic Region East North Central Region West North Central Region South Atlantic Region East South Central Region Mountain Region Pacific Region r2 N -.223* -.055* .019 .007 * * * * * * -.095* -.036 .003 .010 .020 .051 .018 .027 -.018 -.024 -.045 .008 .001 .048 .117* 2197 * * * * .027 -.067** -.159* .016 * * -.114* -.113* .000 -.002 .025 .026 .032 .022 -.012 -.039 -.063** -.006 -.013 -.009 .080* 1556 * * * * * * * * -.101* -.042** -.167* -.066** -.009 -.007 .029 .081* .017 .013 -.016 -.036 -.064* -.005 -.002 .012 .108* 2364 -.194* -.085* .039 .008 .049 -.055 -.121* -.012 .000 -.050 -.109* -.039 -.013 -.016 .032 .023 .033 .000 .001 -.044 -.058 -.006 -.034 -.002 .122* 1074 83 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION With a dramatic increase in the number of Hispanic-Americans over recent years, the interaction between them and other ethnic groups is of increased interest. Many have theorized about one of the negative outcomes of this interaction, discrimination. Blalock s (1967) writings on discrimination between dominant and minority ethnic groups indicate that fewer visible distinctions between groups might produce less discrimination for the minority group. However, others feel that a constant color line separates Whites and non-Whites in this country regardless of the actions of the minority (DuBois 1920). To further understand ethnic relations, the term assimilation is used to describe interaction between minority and dominant ethnic groups. Early definitions of the term define it is as an interpenetration and fusion of two cultures and emphasize compromises that must be made on both ends (Park and Burgess 1924). However, studies in assimilation went through a period that had extremely Anglo-centered tones with many assuming that minority cultures would erode and the minorities would be incorporated into mainstream society and culture. Because of this, assimilation also went through a period in which it was cast in a negative light and seen as an ideology. Since then, there has been a resurgence of interest in assimilation, with many now reverting back to the original value-free description of the interaction between minority ethnic groups. 84 Gordon explains that one outcome of assimilation is Anglo-conformity or consensus. This outcome suggests that minority ethnic groups begin to conform to American mainstream behavior and their institutions. In relation to intergroup discrimination, this conformity is thought to decrease visibility of the minority ethnic group and therefore, decrease perceptions and experiences of discrimination. Another possible outcome of assimilation is ethnic conflict. The major basis of this outcome is that as minority ethnic groups assimilate, in terms of increased interaction, they become more aware of the disadvantages and hostilities targeted towards them by the dominant group. Furthermore, when presented with information on these disadvantages, there is a return to ethnic solidarity. In relation to intergroup discrimination, the ethnic conflict outcome suggests that increased awareness and entrance into American mainstream increases perceptions and experiences of discrimination. The intergroup discrimination regressions indicate that for many types of assimilation, an Anglo-conformist or consensus outcome decreases perceptions of discrimination for Hispanic-Americans. Therefore, the hypotheses regarding perceptions of discrimination and Anglo-conformity (H 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) all receive at least partial support (Table 2). This supports the idea that consensus to American mainstream decreases visibility and, therefore, reduces discrimination. However, the ethnic conflict theory was supported with greater educational attainment shown to increase perceptions of discrimination (Table 2). This indicates that H 3.2 also receives partial support, strengthening the ideas of 85 Nielsen (1985) and Hechter (1974, 1978) regarding an increased awareness of discrimination with more entrance into society. Portes et al. (1980) also found that increased education tends to increase perceptions and experiences of discrimination but Aguirre et al. (1989) found just the opposite. However, H 3.1 and 3.3 did not receive support. Regardless of which hypotheses are supported from these regressions, it is clear that cultural, structural, and identificational measures of assimilation make an important impact in regards to perceptions of intergroup discrimination as they were able to significantly explain 17.3% of variation (Table 2, Model 4). Many of the same conclusions can be made regarding experiences of intergroup discrimination. Once again, the consensus model received more support with H 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 being confirmed (Table 3). The ethnic conflict hypothesis concerning cultural assimilation (H 4.1) also receives some support, with, in model one and four, more progressive views towards the family increasing experiences of intergroup discrimination and in model four, a preference for English increasing experiences of intergroup discrimination. Once again, while more support was found for the Anglo-conformist hypotheses, these two variables indicate that having some views that are more parallel to American society increase experiences of discrimination. Cultural, structural, and identificational measures of assimilation do not explain experiences of intergroup discrimination as well as they do perceptions of intergroup discrimination. At most, the measures of assimilation were able to explain 14.4%* of the variation (Table 3, Model 4). 86 Other comparisons can be made between the perceptions and experiences of intergroup discrimination findings. The two sets of regression both indicate that political satisfaction, economic situation, and attitudes towards society decrease perceptions and experiences of intergroup discrimination (Table 2, Table 3). However, other variables were significant to either perceptions or experiences of intergroup discrimination but not both. Views towards immigration and family as well as political participation were significant in predicting experiences of discrimination, but not perceptions. Furthermore, educational attainment and self-identification were significant to perceptions of intergroup discrimination but not experiences. The lack of significance of any variable on either regression indicates that it does not make statistical contribution to explaining the types of discrimination. However, one reason why education might increase perceptions is because of the way schools often teach about past discriminatory acts against minority ethnic groups in attempts to strengthen multiculturalism and to make students more tolerant. Therefore, these teachings may increase perceptions of discrimination. Another issue that comes from the comparison between perceptions and experiences of intergroup discrimination is that having a preference for English significantly decreases perceptions of intergroup discrimination but increases experiences. This seems to be illogical because although perceptions and experiences are different in nature, they are thought of as being related. One would expect less perceptions of discrimination to correspond with less experiences of discrimination, which does not happen when comparing the 87 language factor between the two. However, upon further consideration it might be that an individual whose linguistic preference is English might be prevented from fully interacting with American mainstream society by some other means. Therefore, they may perceive less discrimination as their contact is limited. However, experiences of discrimination imply interaction with society and may become greater with linguistic preference. To test this, I examined the impact of language on perceptions and experiences of intergroup discrimination while controlling for employment outside the home, education, gender, and the number of adults under the age of 18 in the household. Controlling for these variables did not change results of the linguistic factor with all showing a decrease in perceptions of intergroup discrimination but an increase in experiences of intergroup discrimination. Another explanation for the discrepancy is that the survey questions measuring perceptions of intergroup discrimination apply to Hispanic-Americans in general, whereas questions measuring experiences of intergroup discrimination are more specific and personal. It could be that an individual experiences intergroup discrimination on a micro-level but does not feel that this is something affecting all Hispanic-Americans (macro-level). The last set of regressions, measuring intragroup discrimination, largely goes against the intragroup discrimination hypotheses (H 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3). This might be attributed to the weak measure of intragroup discrimination, with only one variable available to tap this as described above. However, it could also be true that despite what others may suggest, intragroup discrimination is not a prevalent issue within the Hispanic-American community. While our findings are 88 somewhat different than Brondolo et al. (2005) and Rosenbloom and Way s (2004). This may be because their studies were localized Brondolo et al. (2005) sampled an urban high school while Rosenbloom and Way sampled borough s from the New York City area) with this research drawing from a national sample. It is also important to note that a decrease in perceptions of intragroup discrimination due to the variables described in Chapter 4 (and found in Table 4) might be possible because of the shift of focus to multiculturalism and cultural pluralism in America. If these ideas are encouraged and flourish in America, then participating more in American life would also allow an individual to identify with their minority ethnic group if desired. In conclusion, Hispanic-Americans that are more aligned to mainstream American society, in terms of cultural, structural, and identificational measures of assimilation, perceive and experience less discrimination from the dominant group. This can be related to the idea that similarities between minority and dominant groups decrease visibility of the minority allowing them to experience more advantages offered to the dominant group. Further research in this vein might include exploring why English language preference and more progressive views towards the family are associated with greater intergroup discrimination as well as including other measures of assimilation such as social contact, intermarriage, and residential patterns. 89 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 REFERENCES Aguirre, B.E., Rogelio Saenz, and Sean-Shong Hwang. 1989. Discrimination and the Assimilation and Ethnic Competition Perspectives. Social Science Quarterly 70: 1989 1996. Alba, Richard. 1995. Assimilation s Quiet Tide. Public Interest 119: 3 18. ------ and Victor Nee. 2005. Rethinking theories of assimilation for a new era of immigration. p 35 66 in Suarez-Orosco, M.M., E. Suarez-Orosco, and D.B. Qin, New Immigration: An Interdisciplinary Reader, N.Y.: Routledge. Anzald a, Gloria. 1999. Borderlands: La Frontera. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books. Barreto, Matt A. 2005. Latino Immigrants at the Polls: Foreign-Born Voter Turnout in the 2002 Election. Political Research Quarterly 58: 79 86. Blalock, Hubert M. 1967. Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York: Wiley. Brondolo, Elizabeth, Kim P. Kelly, Vonetta Coakley, Tamar Gordon, Shola Thompson, Erik Levy, Andrea Cassells, Jonathan N. Tobin, Monica Sweeney, and Richard J. Contrada. 2005. The Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Validation of a Community Version. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35: 335 365. Cardarelli, Roberto, Kathryn Marie Cardarelli, and Ana Luz Chiapa. 2007. Brief Report: The Modifying Effects of Education and Income on Hispanics Reporting Perceived Discrimination. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 29: 401 407. Carvajal, Manuel J. 2004. Measuring Economic Discrimination of HispanicOwned Architecture and Engineering Firms in South Florida . Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 26: 79 101. Castells, Manuel. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge: Blackwell, Publishers. Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge. DuBois, WEB. 1920. Darkwater: Voices from within the Veil. New York: Schocken Brooks. Esses, V.M., J.F. Vodidio, and G. Hodson. 2002. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration in the United States and Canada in Response to the 90 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 September 11, 2001 Attack on America . Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2: 69 85. Glazer, Nathan. 1993. Is Assimilation Dead? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530: 122 136. ------ and Patrick Moynihan. 1970. Beyond the Melting Pot: the Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. Golash-Boza, Tanya. 2006. Dropping they Hyphen? Becoming Latino(a)American through Racialized Assimilation. Social Forces 85: 27 55. Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press. Hetcher, Michael. 1978. Group Formation and the Cultural Division of Labor. The American Journal of Sociology 84: 292 318. ------. 1974. The Political Economy of Ethnic Change. The American Journal of Sociology 79: 1151 1178. Jacoby, Tamar. 2004. Reinventing the Melting Pot: the new immigrants and what it means to be American. New York: Basic Books. Kazal, Russell A. 1995. Revisiting Assimilation: The Rise, Fall, and Reappraisal of a Concept in American Ethnic History. The American Historical Review 100: 437 471. Lutz, Amy. 2006. Spanish Maintenance among English-Speaking Latino Youth: The Role of Individual and Social Characteristics. Social Forces 84: 1417 1433. Mendoza-Denton, Norma. 1999. Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Anthropology of US Latinos. Annual Review of Anthropology 28: 375 395. Moraga, Cherrie. 2000. Loving in the War Years: lo que nunca pas por sus labios. Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press. Nicholson, Stephen P., Adrian Pantoja, and Gary M. Segura. 2006. Political Knowledge and Issue Voting Among the Latino Electorate. Political Research Quarterly 59: 259 271. Nielsen, Francois. 1985. Toward a Theory of ethnic Solidarity in Modern Societies. American Sociological Review 50: 133 149. Oboler, Suzanne. 2006. Latinos and Citizenship: The Dilemma of Belonging. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. 91 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 Pad n, Jos Antonio. 2005. The Normative Mulattoes: The Press, Latinos, and the Racial Climate on the Moving Immigration Frontier. Sociological Perspectives 48: 49 75. Park, Robert E. and Ernest W. Burgess. 1924. Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Perlmann, Joel and Roger Waldinger. 1997. Second Generation Decline? Children of Immigrants, Past and Present A Reconsideration. International Migration Review 31: 893 922. Pew Hispanic Center. National Survey of Latinos, 2002. [downloadable dataset]. Washington D.C.: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002. Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants among Post-1965 Immigrant Youth. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science 530: 74 96. -------, Robert Nash Parker, and Jose A. Cobas. 1980. Assimilation or Consciousness: Perceptions of US Society Among Recent American Immigrants to the United States. Social Forces 59: 200 244. Roberts, Rashaun K., Naomi G. Swanson, and Lawrence R. Murphy. 2004. Discrimination and Occupational Mental Health. Journal of Mental Health 13: 129 142. Rosenbloom, Susan Rakosi and Niobe Way. 2004. Experiences of Discrimination among African American, Asian American, and Latino Adolescents in an Urban High School. Youth and Society 35: 420 451. Roscigno, Vincent J. 2000. Family/School Inequality and AfricanAmerican/Hispanic Achievement. Social Problems 47: 266 290. Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1997. Paradoxes (And Orthodoxies) of Assimilation. Sociological Perspectives 40: 483 511. Ryan, Andrew M., Gilbert C. Gee, and David F. Laflamme. 2006. The Association between Self-Reported Discrimination, Physical Health, and Blood Pressure: Findings from African Americans, Black Immigrants, and Latino Immigrants in New Hampshire. Journal of Heath Care for the Poor and Undeserved 17: 116 132. Smith, Heather A. and Owen J. Furuseth. 2006. Latinos in the New South: Transformations of Place. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Smith, Ryan Alan and James R. Elliott. 2002. Does Ethnic Concentration Influence Employees Access to Authority? An Examination of Contemporary Urban Labor Markets. Social Forces 81: 255 279. 92 Texas Tech University, Emily P. Estrada, May 2008 South, Scott, Kyle Crowder, and Erick Chavez. 2005. Geographic Mobility and Spatial Assimilation among US Latino Immigrants. The International Migration Review 39: 577 607. United States Census Bureau. 2005. People and Households: Projections, Interim projections consistent with Census 2000, Table 1a. Projected Population of the United States, by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000 to 2050. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Welch, S. and L. Sigelman. 2000. Getting to know you? Latino-Anglo Social Contact. Social Science Quarterly 81: 67 83. Wilson, Thomas C. 1996. Cohort and Prejudice: Whites Attitudes and Toward Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Asians. The Public Opinion Quarterly 60: 253 274. Winant, Howard. 2006. Race and racism: Towards a Global Future. Ethnic and Racial Studies 29: 986 1003. Yancey, George A. 2003. Who is White? Latinos, Asians, and the new Black/nonblack divide. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Zhou, Min. 1997. Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation. International Migration Review 31: 975 1008. 93 PERMISSION TO COPY In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master s degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement. Agree (Permission is granted.) __________Emily P. Estrada____________________ Student Signature _____4/21/2008__ Date Disagree (Permission is not granted.) _______________________________________________ Student Signature _________________ Date

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents: