Crossroads: The Psychology of Immigration in the New Century

and mental health outcomes. Discrimination negatively
impacted stress-based responses and health behaviors and
increased unhealthy behaviors. The meta-analysis also revealed
that both recent and chronic discrimination negatively
impacted health outcomes. In a later study, Q.-L. Huynh,
Devos, and Dunbar (2012) reported that both high stress but
rare events and high frequency but less severe events increase
the perceived anxiety and reported depression associated with
the events.
Conducting research on stereotyping, prejudice, and
discrimination is often difficult. People rarely explicitly
identify racial prejudice as a motive for their own behavior
(Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlman, & Banaji, 2009) or as the
reason for their dislike of immigrants (Pérez, 2010). Rather,
a host of implicit and explicit processes work to provide a
hostile environment for immigrants. This line of research
suggests that some reactions toward immigrants are based on
implicit negative attitudes or implicit beliefs (APA, 2010c)
toward them.
For example, Pérez (2010) used an Implicit Association Test
(IAT) to test attitudes toward White versus Latino immigrant
populations. With varied samples, White participants expressed
more negative implicit attitudes toward immigrant Latinos
than toward immigrant Whites. More important, participants’
implicit prejudice predicted attitudes about immigrant
Latinos beyond political conservatism and other variables.
Thus, prejudice, not other variables, is predicting attitudes
toward immigrant Latinos. Thomsen, Green, and Sidanius
(2008) similarly showed that social-dominance orientation
and right-wing authoritarianism predict prejudice toward
immigrants, albeit in slightly different ways. Individuals high
in social-dominance orientation dislike immigrant groups if
they intend to assimilate, whereas persons high in right-wing
authoritarianism dislike immigrant groups if they do not
intend to assimilate. It can become, in essence, a catch-22.
It might be argued that some stereotypes are justifications for
an out-group bias rather than its cause. Some stereotypes are
widely held even though evidence suggests they are untrue.
For example, anti-immigrant rhetoric often focuses on the
perceived refusal of immigrant populations to learn English
(see the Introduction). Research, however, suggests that current
Chinese, Cuban, and to a lesser extent, Mexican immigrant
groups are learning English at the same rates as European
groups in prior immigration waves (Alba et al., 2002; Portes
& Hao, 1998; Wong Fillmore, 1991). Yet attitudes suggest a
greater perceived threat from the current Spanish-speaking
immigrant population, perhaps because of the sheer numbers
of individuals involved (Barker & Giles, 2004; Huddy & Sears,
1995) (see the first paragraph of the Guiding Frameworks
section for other common misperceptions about immigrants).
Even positive stereotypes can be used to reinforce prejudice
and discrimination. Often referred to as “the model
minority,” Asian immigrants are generally perceived to do
well educationally and economically (Fuligni & Witkow,
2004). However, this stereotype is overgeneralized (see
Maddux, Galinsky, Cuddy, & Polifroni, 2008). For instance,
not all Asian groups are doing uniformly well (Choi, 2008),
but this stereotype can mean that those who are struggling
get overlooked for remediation. Also, despite the positive
stereotypes, these groups are not well liked, possibly stemming
from a sense of realistic threat (Maddux et al., 2008; Zárate et
al., 2004) to the privileged position of Whites.
Thus, regardless of how highly skilled a group is, immigrants
are often negatively stereotyped, either for being poorly skilled
or for being highly skilled. In either case, stereotypes mask the
unique psychological experiences and concerns of different
immigrant communities. As there is clear evidence that there
are negative consequences to living with prejudice, this is
an issue of grave concern (see the Immigrant Populations
in Clinical Contexts section and the APA Resolution on
Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination [APA, 2006]).
Neighborhood and Community
Contexts
A final aspect of the context of reception that is important
to note for immigrant adjustment is the local community
and neighborhood context. Where immigrants settle has
profound implications for the experiences and adaptation of
immigrant youth. The few psychological studies conducted on
the phenomenon of immigrants living in ethnic enclaves or
neighborhoods with greater co-ethnic concentration suggest
that this experience may be quite different depending on
where they settle (Birman, Trickett, & Buchanan, 2005; A. M.
Miller, Birman, et al., 2009; Schnittker, 2002). While within
the larger culture there is generally a negative perception of
ethnic enclaves as “ghettos” (Walks & Bourne, 2006), living
in ethnic neighborhoods can be beneficial for immigrants.
They are more likely to retain their native culture (Birman,
Trickett, & Buchanan, 2005; A. M. Miller, Birman, et al., 2009;
Padilla, 1980), and there may be psychological benefits to
doing so (A. M. Miller, Birman, et al., 2009; Schnittker, 2002).
24 Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Immigration