Migrant worker acculturation in China

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Migrant worker acculturation in China夽 Yongxia Gui a,b , John W. Berry c , Yong Zheng a,b,∗ a b c

Center for Studies of Education and Psychology of Ethnic Minorities in Southwest China, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada K7L 3N6

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 May 2011 Received in revised form 23 September 2011 Accepted 19 November 2011 Keywords: Acculturation Acculturation strategies Social identity Place identity Migrant workers Satisfaction with life Self-worth

a b s t r a c t Chinese migrant workers form a substantial body of people who move to large cities from rural areas to seek employment. As they settle into the large urban cities, these internal migrants experience challenges that are similar to those of international migrants, and of members of ethnic groups who engage in the process of acculturation. Many see this flow as a problem, one that needs to be understood through research using evidence based on concepts and methods used in international acculturation research. In the present study, we examine the Urban Identity of 787 migrants, using the Migrant Workers’ Urban Identity Questionnaire developed by Gui (2010). This instrument distinguishes two aspects of urban identity: social identity and place identity. In addition, 328 of these respondents were tested with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larson, & Griffin, 1985) and the Global Self-Worth Scale (Huang & Yang, 1998). Findings show that the acculturation strategies model based on international immigrants’ identity can apply to the seasonal migrant workers’ identity. With respect to their acculturation strategies: (1) different operationalisations of the second dimension in the two dimension model lead to a different classification of acculturation strategies; the ‘deeper’ the psychological phenomena the less migrant workers want to engage the national society; (2) different acculturation strategies were favored in social identity and place identity domains; (3) data from the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Global Self-Worth Scale shows, by and large, that integration is the best acculturation strategy (and the marginalization the worst) for achieving wellbeing in both social identity and in place identity. This corresponds to findings and conclusions of much of the previous research on acculturation based on international migration. Crown Copyright © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction International migration has become a topic of considerable interest to psychologists and other social and behavioural scientists (Carr, 2010). At the same time, internal migration (mainly from rural areas to cities within countries) has become a world-wide phenomenon, and is particularly evident in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In many cases, this internal migration has psychological and cultural features that parallel the features of acculturation that are characteristic of international migration (Berry, 2010).

夽 This research is supported by the MOE Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Universities (06JJD720013), and the Humanities and Social Sciences Fund of Chongqing Education Commission (08jwsk267), China. We thank Colette Sabatier for helpful comments on a draft of this paper. ∗ Corresponding author at: Center for Studies of Education and Psychology of Ethnic Minorities in Southwest China, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China. Tel.: +86 136 6763 6167. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Zheng). 0147-1767/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.11.007

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

599

This research examines the acculturation of migrant workers in China. China is the most populous nation in the world (total population is 1.4 billion at the end of 2010; NBSC, 2011), and has a very high economic growth rate, requiring massive numbers of urban workers. These two facts come together to create a very large internal migration of workers from rural areas to the large industrial cities. The object of this research is to understand some psychological and cultural characteristics of these migrant workers as unique groups with Chinese characteristics. The specific focus is on their acculturation strategies, and the relationship between these strategies and their wellbeing.

1.1. Migrant workers in China To achieve the dream of being a developed nation, early in the new-born People’s Republic of China, the Communist Party of the China Central Committee proposed an industrial strategy to make heavy industry the core of the national economy. The funds necessary for industrial development were to be obtained through agricultural accumulation; the government sought to utilize bulk exports of agricultural products to obtain foreign exchange in order to buy the necessary technology and industrial equipment (Su, 2008). A system of Household Registration came into being to help the government implement control of the urban population so as to implement the important principle of “agriculture serves industry and sacrifice rural areas for urban areas’ growth”. Chinese society has been relatively stable since China adopted the reform and opening-up policy in late 1978; however, the urban economy developed rapidly, while the rural economy fell far behind. It is against this social and political background that the rural population had been moving into the urban areas. Prior to the 1980s, the rural–urban population movement was kept low because of the requirements of the established planned economic system and of the strict household registration system. Since then, with the loosening (but not the elimination) of the household registration system, large numbers of the rural population have moved into the urban areas. There were many other reasons for this migration: push factors were the low income level, and the emergence of surplus labor force in the rural areas; pull factors were the higher urban living standards and better overall life prospects in the cities (Hu & Wu, 2004). Accompanying this population flow, a new concept and term emerged – that of the Migrant Worker. According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China, the total number of migrant workers reached 225.42 million persons in 2008, including 140 million migrant workers who work outside their hometowns (NBSC, 2009). Large numbers of migrant workers who came into cities to work in non-agricultural production were not permitted to settle down in the place where they worked because of the household registration system; consequently there is a unique seasonal movement of migrant workers in China. On the basis of a comprehensive review of existing definitions of the migrant worker (Liu, 2005; Tan, 2003), migrant workers were defined as people whose household registration was in rural area, without a higher education degree, and who stayed in the urban area for some time (a minimum of six months according to the National Bureau of Statistics of China) to make a living. Sun (personal communication) depicted the migrant workers as being of four kinds. The first kind are migrant workers who live in the city for a long time, have quite a stable economic foundation and social status and have made a successful adaptation in the city culture; they could be called the quasi-city resident migrant workers. The second kind of migrant workers are mostly the individual proprietors of a shop; they have stable but limited living standard. The third kind are employee migrant workers; most of their jobs need very hard work and the pay is low. The fourth kind are some migrant workers who are always idle for reasons such as their own limited skill or knowledge. The second and third kinds of migrant workers are the main focus of this investigation. There are many research studies concerning problems encountered by the migrant worker; we can classify these under three topics. First, because of the fluidity of migrant workers, there are no powerful organizations such as trade unions to safeguard the migrant workers’ rights; compared to full-time workers they always receive lower wages as temporary workers and do not have medical insurance or pensions. In addition, the limited legal awareness of the peasantry leads to the migrant workers’ difficulty in recovering their payment or being compensated when they are hurt in an industrial accident. This mainly happens among the third kind of migrant workers who work temporarily in the building industry or in some small manufacturing enterprises (Liu, 2010; Fang, 2009). Second, as many cities deny migrant children access to public schools, they have to be left behind without parental care; these have been called ‘leftover children’. Alternatively, if the children do come to the city, they have to go to private school which usually has poor education quality because of lack of money. As a result, the migrant workers’ children draw much attention in the field of education (Chen, Wang & Qu, 2010; Miu, 2008; Tang, 2009). Third is the more psychological group of issues and problems, which are the main focus of this study. The acculturation of migrant workers, including their identity, becomes complicated because of the seasonal moving for some, and because of the long term working and living in the city far from their hometown for others. Although migrant workers can make money from their farm products and non-agricultural work, there is still a sharp gap between the urban and the rural economic status. According to the National Economic and Social Development report from National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC, 2011), during the period from 2006 to 2010, the rural income rose from 3587 Yuan to 5919 Yuan; but, during the same period, the urban income rose from 11759 Yuan to 19109 Yuan. Thus there remains a much higher income (around three times) for urban dwellers.

600

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

1.2. Migrant workers’ urban identity Fromm was one of the first scholars to show the importance of “identity” to wellbeing (Lin, Yang, & Huang, 2003). Erikson (1968) developed the concept of “ego identity” and defined it as a developmental structure that referred to four distinct characteristics of persons: their consciousness of their own position in the society; their unconscious pursuits of their own personality continuity; their own comprehensive non-verbal operation; and to their inner integrating with some group ideal characteristics (Loevinger, 1976). According to Erikson’s definition, identity has two different levels: personal identity and group identity. Group identity involves many aspects, mainly including people’s belongingness to a social group (such as ethnic identity, national identity and racial identity). A few years later, scholars in the field of environmental psychology (Proshansky, 1978; Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983) proposed another form of identity: “place identity”. This form of identity can be supplementary to the concept of social identity. The countryside and city are different in many ways. First, the industrial city has high buildings, colorful products, convenient transportation system and well-developed infrastructure; in contrast, in the countryside people live in their own courtyard dwellings and the transportation was not so developed. Second, the market economy is very well-developed in the city, while a subsistence peasant economy predominates in the countryside. Third, people living in the city with a large population usually have extensive social contacts with all kinds of people and they are relatively independent. In contrast, in the countryside people live in a settlement with familiar neighbors; they tend to value family relationships and have close geographical relationships; and traditional ethical rules still have a powerful impact on their daily lives. Finally, while the city countenances diversity, openness, and novelty, people living in the countryside are usually relatively conservative, so that new things and attitudes are not always accepted easily (Zhu, 2003). In all these ways, the country and the city represent two different “cultures”. As a result, the migrant workers stepping into the city begin a process of acculturation and adaptation. Experiencing these different cultural contexts raises the issues of social and place identity. These two identities together can be conceived of as one’s “urban identity”. In summary, in this study, we examine two forms of urban identity: social and place identity. We consider urban identity to be the outcome of the migrant workers trying to become familiar with the new urban environment and struggling to find a sense of engagement with and belonging to the city. 1.3. Models of acculturation and identity Social identity is meaningful in situations in which two or more social groups are in contact over a period of time. Identity may be thought of as an aspect of acculturation, in which the concern is with individuals and the focus is on how they relate to their own group as a group within the larger society (Phinney, 1990). Two distinct models have guided thinking about acculturation and identity: a linear, bipolar model; and a twodimensional model (Berry, 1980; Phinney, 1990; Van Oudenhoven, Ward, & Masgoret, 2006). In the linear/bi-polar model, acculturation and identity are conceptualized along a continuum from strong ethnic ties at one extreme to strong ties with the larger society at the other. The assumption underlying this model is that a strengthening of one identity requires a weakening of the other. In contrast, the two-dimensional model emphasizes that both the relationship with the heritage or ethnic culture and the relationship with the new or dominant culture should be considered separately and that these two relationships may be independent. According to this view, ethnic group members can have both strong or weak identifications with their own and the dominant cultures. This model suggests that there are not only the two acculturative extremes of assimilating into the dominant society or remaining separate from it, but there are at least four possible ways of dealing with how members of ethnic groups can relate to others in a diverse society (Berry, 1980). A strong identification with both groups is indicative of integration; identification with neither group defines marginality. An exclusive identification with the dominant culture indicates assimilation, whereas exclusive identification with the ethnic group indicates separation. One approach to the assessment of acculturation attitudes is to measure attitudes on the two dimensions (towards heritage culture, and to the larger society), and then to split them at some point (median, mean, or scalar midpoint); those high or low on the two dimensions are classified into one of the four resulting acculturation categories (e.g., Donà & Berry, 1994; Sabatier & Berry, 1996, 2008; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). This is the approach used in this study. The original conceptualization of Berry (1980) was to assess preferences on the two dimensions of heritage culture maintenance and contact with the larger national society. Liebkind (2001) noted that these two dimensions have come to be operationalised in different ways by different researchers, especially the second dimension about the national aspect. These include: identification with the larger society (e.g., Hutnik, 1986, 1991); adoption of the national culture (e.g., Donà & Berry, 1994; Nguyen, Messé, & Stollak, 1999; Sayegh & Lasry, 1993); or adapting to the larger society (e.g. Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2006). In spite of these differences, in general the common issue underlying the second dimensions is how to engage the larger society in some form. Berry and Sabatier (2011) employed the two-dimensional model, making variations in both of the first and the second dimensions. They found that these variations in operationalising the two dimensions do lead to variations in how participants are categorized in the four acculturation attitude quadrants. Many research studies have found that those who seek integration (with links to both the heritage culture and to the larger society) usually have better psychological and sociocultural adaptation (Berry, 1997; Berry & Sam, 1997; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). This generalisation was supported by Berry and Sabatier (2011) even when the acculturation strategies were calculated using variations in operationalising the two dimensions. In a meta-analysis, Nguyen and Benet-Martinez

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

601

(2011) have arrived at the same conclusion: that being involved in both cultures (integration) serves to promote better wellbeing (psychological and sociocultural adaptation), while being involved in neither culture or being confused about one’s situation (marginalization) undermine both forms of adaptation. In this study, we use factor analysis of the urban identity questionnaire (including social identity and place identity) to examine two issues. First is to discover whether classification into acculturation strategies using these different forms of identity yields the four ways of acculturating. And, second, if so, are these strategies related to the wellbeing and adaptation of rural to urban migrants?

2. Review of migrant workers research in China According to a survey of the migrant workers’ self identity, 40% of migrant workers think themselves as farmers, 20% think themselves as half-city resident, 37% could not tell and only 2% think that they are city residents (Zhu, 2002). Because migrant workers appear to be lost in the dual structure of the urban and rural economy, migrant workers have sometimes been called marginal people in the city. Chinese sociologists have done a great deal of research into this special phenomenon. Mi (2004) examined the migrant workers’ belongingness and claimed that they had a strong regional belongingness to the city environment and weak group belongingness to the city residents. Wang (2001) pointed out that the migrant workers who started migrating for work in the 1990s (which he named “the neo-generation migrant workers”) were more active than older migrant workers in trying to integrate into the city life; however, they were not as successful as they wished. Zhu (2002) proposed that the migrant workers’ adaptation to city life can be divided into three levels: economic adaptation, social adaptation and psychological adaptation. Tan (2003) has claimed that the migrant workers could only make an adaptation for their basic survival, but not any real psychological adaptation. With respect to psychological adaptation, Guo and Chu (2004) carried out an in-depth analysis of the social distance between the migrant workers and the urban residents; the results showed that along with the receding of the seasonal flow to the cities, the new generation’s social distance to the city residents was widening because they deliberately chose to be isolated. Overall, we may conclude that migrant workers yearned for the city because of its economic advantages; however, they were not able to identify with the city because of the various setbacks they encountered in the city. Hence, they isolated themselves while in the city. While there are many sociological research studies, very few psychologists have probed this phenomenon. However, one psychological study that examined migrant workers found that migrant workers experienced poor mental health (Jiang, Zhang, & Wang, 2007). In addition, Xia (2008) examined the migrant workers’ social identity. He designed a Rural Migrant Workers Social Identity Questionnaire based on Tajfel (1981) three-component social identity theory: Awareness of Membership dimension (assessed with items like “I’m already a city resident” and “I’m not a farmer any more”); Emotional Investment dimension (with items like “I’m proud of being a farmer”); and Sense of Evaluating (with items like “construction in the city cannot proceed without migrant workers”).

3. Procedure: measures and samples 3.1. Migrant Workers’ Urban Identity Questionnaire Gui (2010) designed a Migrant Workers’ Urban Identity Questionnaire, which was composed of two sub-questionnaires: Social Identity and Place Identity. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item on a 5-point scale consisting of “strongly disagree” (score = 0), “disagree” (score = 1), “difficult to tell” (score = 2), “agree” (score = 3), “strongly agree” (score = 4). The study was carried out in three phases, involving a total of 818 migrant workers. In a first phase, 31 workers in Chongqing were interviewed to understand their general views about the city; 36 items (19 items for social identity and 17 items for place identity) were developed based on these responses. In the second phase, we recruited 29 college students from different provinces to bring 1000 questionnaires home to administer to migrant workers during the summer vacation in 2009. Each student was assigned 30–50 cases and they were promised 2 Yuan for each qualified questionnaire. They were told to pick respondents at random, but give consideration to the sample’s diversity. Many students reported that they were unable to finish their assignment, resulting in a sample of only 647 migrant workers. After weeding out the questionnaires (based on lie detection items, or with too many items left unanswered) 459 qualified questionnaires were obtained. This represents an overall effective rate was 70.1%. The data of these 459 migrant workers were used to conduct exploratory factor analysis; the results of this exploratory factor analysis yielded 7 dimensions. These seven dimension scores will be used in later analyses to allocate participants to the four acculturation strategies: integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization. In a third phase, 23 college students were recruited to administer another 565 questionnaires in the same way half a year later. Each student was asked to get up to 30 cases. To improve the effective rate students were promised 4 Yuan for each qualified questionnaire. We obtained data from 470 migrant workers, and 328 of them were qualified questionnaires; the effective rate was 69.7%. Data from these 328 migrant workers were used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis. These participants also completed two wellbeing scales (Satisfaction with Life, and Global Self-Worth).

602

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

Table 1 Sample profile.

Career Manual worker Technical worker Individual business operator Homemaking, catering, service industry Education None Primary school Junior high school Senior high school Income <500¥ 500–1000¥ 1000–2000¥ 2000–3000¥

Frequency

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

160 199 90 181

20.3 25.3 11.4 23.0

Others Missing Total

150 7 787

19.1 .9 100.0

18 111 320 165

2.3 14.1 40.7 21.0

Technical school Junior college education Missing Total

73 95 5 787

9.3 12.1 0.6 100.0

31 241 334 124

3.9 30.6 42.4 15.8

>3000 Missing Total

51 6 787

6.5 0.8 100.0

3.2. Satisfaction with Life Scale The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a measure of life satisfaction developed by Diener and colleagues (Diener et al., 1985), which is one element in the more general construct of subjective well being. The SWLS consists of 5-items and is responded to on five point scale consistent with the Migrant Workers’ Urban Identity Questionnaire for convenience. A sample item is “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”. The Cronbach’s a coefficient for SWLS in this research is 0.732. 3.3. Global Self-Worth Scale Similar to the SWLS, the Global Self-Worth scale developed by Huang and Yang (1998) is one element in the more general construct of self-worth, which consists of 6 items, and is responded to on a five point scale, too. A sample item is “I know I have a promising future.” The Cronbach’s a coefficient for GSWS in this research is 0.727. 4. Analysis Data analyzed in this article are from all participants in the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, totalling 787 migrant workers. These respondents were 40.7% female, 54.1% male and 5% missing; they were aged between 16 and 64 years (M = 31.6, SD = 10.5). Details of the samples are presented in Table 1. Data analysis employed SPSS and AMOS software to conduct exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability testing. To allocate participants into the four acculturation strategies, we split the respondents into two using the scalar midpoint (2 in this research) on each dimension, and placed those who are high on both factors into the integration group, those low on both into marginalization, and those high/low into the assimilation or separation groups. ANOVA was used to examine the differences between means of the migrant workers’ life satisfaction and Self-Worth scores across the different acculturation strategies. 5. Results 5.1. Migrant Workers’ Urban Identity Questionnaire Table 2 shows the results of the exploratory factor analysis of the Migrant Workers’ Urban Social Identity Questionnaire. Four factors were found with 17 items (2 of the 19 original items were dropped for non-loading). The first factor is Positive Recognition of the City (5 items, Cronbach’s alpha 0.69). The second factor is Orientation to Learn about the City (5 items, alpha 0.59). The fourth factor is Urban Integration (3 items, alpha 0.56). These three dimensions are in conformance with expectations. But the negative items from the intended Urban Integration items did not cluster with that factor. Instead, they formed a negative dimension (4 items, alpha 0.62) which we named Rural Social Identity; it has a reverse direction to the other three dimensions. The factor structures obtained in exploratory factor analysis were further tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) which was carried out using AMOS 18.0. The unstandardized and standardized regression weights of the items are given in Table 2. And according to Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008), we picked fit indices including the chi-square statistic, its degrees of freedom and p value, the RMSEA and its associated confidence interval, the SRMR, the CFI and one parsimony fit index (PGFI in this research) to illustrate whether the model is acceptable. However, there is a reasonable rule of thumb to examine the RMSEA for the null model; if the RMSEA for the null model is less than 0.158, an incremental measure of fit

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

603

Table 2 Item content and factor structure of Urban Social Identity Scale. Item

Rotated factor loadinga I

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Eigenvalue Explained variance Cumulative variance

Compared to the peasants, the city residents are more stylish. Most city residents are open-minded while the rural population is conservative. I willingly learn from the city residents. City residents are rich, and they live a better life. The city residents have a mind of wide scope. The city residents talk more gently. I wish I could become as the same as the city residents. It’s just like I am being praised when people praise the city residents here. I will introduce the city residents’ advantages here to people elsewhere. I am careful to behave like a city resident. Rural people are better than many city residents I meet. I will be a peasant forever as I came from the rural hometown. I’d rather keep my inherent peasant qualities. I’m definitely a peasant. Taking it by and large, I’m a city resident already. There is not much difference between the city residents and me. I wear the same clothes as the city residents in unoccupied hours.

II

CFA: parameter estimates UNSTD

STD

CR

.729

−.074

.054

.071

1.12

.53

6.185***

.677

−.101

−.073

.091

1.32

.66

6.811***

.670

.349

−.005

−.132

.90

.48

5.797***

.603

.163

.118

.273

1.26

.58

6.311***

.596

.345

−.007

−.010

1.00

.48

.110 .218

.594 .466

−.092 −.134

−.045 .239

1.01 0.80

.47 .39

5.751*** 5.145***

−.117

.663

−.205

.209

0.68

.33

4.544***

.057

.448

.170

.339

0.91

.50

5.977***

.131

.675

−.114

.157

1.00

.46

−.039

−.309

.449

.223

0.38

.23

3.185**

.042

−.181

.777

−.066

1.46

.74

5.228***

.045

.046

.753

−.045

0.87

.46

5.464***

−.017 .029

−.095 .309

.689 −.314

−.235 .554

1.00 1.01

.53 .54

5.987***

−.011

.065

−.011

.783

0.75

.41

5.088***

.250

.144

−.105

.623

1.00

.58

2.32 13.65 13.65

2.21 13.00 26.65

III

2.09 12.29 38.94

IV

1.77 10.40 49.34

a The bold face values indicate significant loadings of items on the factor. UNSTD = unstandardized, STD = standardized, CR = critical ration. Hereinafter inclusive. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

b

may not be that informative and “CFI should not be computed or otherwise it will obtain too small a value” (Kenny, 2011). Considering the RMSEA for the null model of social identity is 0.133, we will thus not report the CFI. The AMOS-model had a chi-square value of 270.72, p = .000; a normed chi-square value (2 /df = 270.72/113) of 2.40; a root mean square error of approximation of 0.065 with the lower value of the 90% confidence interval is 0.055 and the upper value is 0.075; a standardized root mean square residual = 0.066; a Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index of 0.67. Table 3 provides the results of the exploratory factor analysis for the Urban Place Identity Questionnaire. Three factors were found with 11 items (6 of the 17 original items were dropped for non-loading and for an imbalance between dimensions). The first factor is Positive Yearning for the City (4 items, alpha 0.63); the items included meanings of both “positive recognition” and “orientation to learn about the city”. A second factor is similar to the Rural Social Identity in the Social Identity Questionnaire; we named it Rural Place Preference (4 items, alpha 0.57). The third factor is Sense of Belonging to the City (3 items, alpha 0.54). The unstandardized and standardized regression weights of the items are given in Table 3. The AMOS-model had a chi-square value of 73.53, p = .001; a normed chi-square value (2 /df = 73.53/41) of 1.793; a root mean square error of approximation of 0.049 with the lower value of the 90% confidence interval is 0.030 and the upper value is 0.067; a standardized root mean square residual = 0.049; a Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index of 0.60; and again RMSEA for the null model of place identity is 0.140, no CFI reporting. Both p value for 2 are smaller than 0.01, but as it was always affected by the sample size, we turned to other fit indexes. According to Werner (n.d.), a root mean square residual of 0 ≤ 2 /df ≤ 2, 0 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.05 and 0 ≤ SRMR ≤ 0.05 can indicate a good model fit while 2 < 2 /df ≤ 3, 0.05 < RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and 0.05 < SRMR ≤ 0.10 indicates an acceptable model fit; according to Kenny (2011), ideally the lower value of the 90% confidence interval for RMSEA includes or is very near zero (or no worse

604

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

Table 3 Item contents and factor structure of Urban Place Identity Scale. Item

Rotated factor loadinga I

1

2 3 4 5

6 7

8

9

10 11

The development of rural area should take after the example of the city. I wish my house could be just like the city residents’ house. City means bustling and fun. Economics develop well in the city and there is fantastic architecture. I’d like to live in the rural area and go for sightseeing in the city at my leisure, rather than living in the city. I think our rural hometown is better than the city. I’d like to live in the city indefinitely, with no going back to the hometown. (R) Compared to the city, I think that the rural area is good enough to change. I will introduce the excellent city where I worked to people who are from other places. When I amble through the city I feel that I belong here. I have got native feelings for the city.

Eigenvalue Explained variance Cumulative variance

II

CFA: parameter estimatesb STD

CR

.733

.058

.127

.71

.38

4.988***

.667

−.141

.222

1.01

.58

6.596***

.572 .628

−.182 −.218

.279 .170

.96 1.00

.53 .58

6.284***

.226

.729

−.334

.89

.44

4.907***

−.324

.669

.183

.96

.53

5.345***

.130

−.606

.266

.79

.40

4.623***

−.381

.586

.249

1.00

.54

.202

.097

.545

.42

.22

2.695**

.234

−.060

.739

1.08

.53

4.519***

.165

−.249

.771

1.00

.56

2.15 19.50 19.50

1.87 17.17 36.67

III

UNSTD

1.89 16.97 53.64

Note. (R) indicates negative items, hereinafter inclusive.

than 0.05) and the upper value is not very large (i.e., less than .08); according to Garson (2011), PGFI > 0.60 indicates good parsimonious fit. Accordingly, the fit for the place identity model is good, and the fit is not as ideal but still acceptable for social identity model. As can be seen in Tables 2 and 3, first, the emergence of the dimension of Rural Social Identity and Rural Place Preference is the first evidence to show that migrant workers’ identity does not follow in a unilinear/bi-polar way, from rurality to urbanity. The migrant workers’ rural identity and urban identity do not eliminate or replace each other, but are independent from each other. Second, the structures of the social identity and place identity questionnaires are also slightly different, which also supports their relative independence. 5.2. Acculturation strategies based on the two dimensions The intercorrelations among these factors are shown in Table 4. These indicate that the direction and significance of the items within the two scales (except for one factor: factor 3 in social identity) all conform to expectations. Moreover, the correlations between dimensions in the two scales follow the same expected arrangement. This pattern provides a basis for allocating participants into acculturation strategies. As seen above, there are four dimensions on social identity: three are positive factors (Positive Recognition of the City, Orientation to Learn about the City, and Urban Integration); and one is a negative factor (Rural Social Identity). For place identity, there are two positive factors (Positive Yearning for the City and Sense of Belonging to the City) and one negative factor (Rural Place Preference). Respondents who obtain higher scores in Rural Social Identity and Rural Place Preference factors have a stronger relationship with the rural population and environment. Those who obtain higher scores on the three positive dimensions in social identity, and the two positive dimensions in place identity have a stronger orientation towards the city. The correlations between the four dimensions of social identity, the three dimensions of place identity, and two psychological wellbeing scales are presented in Table 4. To allocate participants to the four acculturation strategies, we could cross any of these factors. Berry and Sabatier (2011) made a number of crosses using different operationalisations of the two dimensions. In this study we decided to use the two negative dimensions (Rural Social Identity and Rural Place Preference) in the questionnaire to represent the migrant workers’ rural orientation. We examined them separately, and then combined them to form a single indicator of “rural identity”. We then use the positive dimensions to represent the migrant workers’ orientation to the city as the second dimension. Again we examined them separately, and then combined them to form a single indicator of “urban identity”. Following the procedure of Berry and Sabatier (2011), we split the respondents into two using the scalar midpoint (2 in this research), and placed

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

605

Table 4 Pearson Correlation coefficients of 7 dimensions of social identity and place identity and two psychological wellbeing scales. Correlations Social identity

Place identity

Psychological wellbeing

1

1. Positive recognition of the city 2.Orientation to learn about the city 3. Rural social identity (negative) 4. Urban integration 5. Positive Yearning for the City 6. Rural place preference (negative) 7. Sense of belonging to the city 8. Satisfaction with life 9. Self-Worth

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

.372***

1

.037

−.217***

1

.217***

.436***

−.197***

.566***

.491***

−.040

−.276***

−.329***

.408***

−.132***

−.359***

.275***

.545***

−.232***

.540***

.396***

.135*

.038

.200***

.192***

.073

.169**

−.131* .189***

1 .259***

1 1

−.215***

−.022 .084

1

.177***

.182***

.060

.265***

1 .205***

1

Note. Correlations concerning psychological wellbeing are based on a sample size of 328; otherwise on the sample size of 787.

those who are high on both positive and negative factors into the integration group. Those low on both were classified into marginalization, and those high/low into the assimilation or separation groups. Because urban identity was composed of two forms of identity (social identity and place identity), it is possible to find out whether different acculturation strategies are adopted in these two different aspects of urban identity. When using the scalar mid-point with scales that have only a few items, many participants fall exactly on this mid-point. As shown in Table 5, the proportion that falls exactly on 2 ranges between 4.3% and 15.0% across the various scales; to discard these would result in a serious loss of information. Moreover, the majority of respondents fell in the upper category (2.2–4.0) except Rural Place Preference. So we decided to allocate the participants whose scores are exactly 2 to the higher (agreement) category in Rural Place Preference and allocate them to the lower (disagreement) category in other dimension. When the Rural Social Identity and Rural Place Preference are combined together, scores of 2 were allocated to the higher category. Table 6 presents the percentage and number of participants in each acculturation strategy. The upper line for each dimension is for the whole sample (n = 787), while the lower line is for the smaller sample (n = 328) that was used for confirmatory factor analyses and with the two measures of wellbeing. In the social identity questionnaire (part 1 of Table 6), when Rural Social Identity was crossed with the urban dimensions, the preference for assimilation and integration are higher and the preference for marginalization and separation are lower, when crossed with Positive Recognition of the City than when crossed with Orientation to Learn About the City (assimilation, F(1) = 13.65, p < 0.01; integration, F(1) = 76.93, p < 0.01; marginalization, F(1) = 26.4, p < 0.01; separation, F(1) = 123.15, p < 0.01) or with Urban Integration (assimilation, F(1) = 15.84, p < 0.01; integration, F(1) = 79.12, p < 0.01; marginalization, F(1) = 29.72, p < 0.01; separation, F(1) = 124.03, p < 0.01). In the place identity questionnaire (part 2 of Table 6), there is large difference in acculturation strategies between Rural Place Preference crossed with Positive Yearning for the City and Rural Place Preference crossed with Sense of Belonging to the City (assimilation, F(1) = 65.70, p < 0.01; integration, F(1) = 51.63, p < 0.01; marginalization, F(1) = 118.87, p < 0.01; separation, F(1) = 69.23, p < 0.01). Table 5 Means, medians and frequencies on acculturation dimensions: total sample (N = 787). Factors

Social identity Positive recognition of the city Orientation to learn about the city Rural social identity Urban integration Place identity Positive yearning for the city Rural place preference Sense of belonging to the city

M

Md

SD

Min

Max

Frequencies 0–1.8

2

N

%

N

%

N

%

2.2–4

2.87b 2.16d 2.34c 2.26c

3.00 2.20 2.50 2.33

0.73 0.70 0.86 0.86

0.40 0 0 0

4 4 4 4

88 273 217 262

11.2 34.7 27.6 33.3

34 87 79 104

4.3 11.1 10.0 13.2

665 427 491 421

84.5 54.3 62.4 53.5

2.97a 1.70e 2.14d

3.00 1.75 2.00

0.74 0.80 0.84

0.25 0 0

4 4 4

68 461 282

8.6 58.6 35.8

50 96 118

6.4 12.2 15.0

669 230 387

85.0 29.2 49.2

Note. Means with superscript (a–e) in the same column are homogeneous values according to paired-t test (p < .05).

606

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

Table 6 Percentage and number of participants in each strategy according to the classification procedure.

1. Social identity Rural social identity Positive recognition of the city Orientation to learn about the city Urban integration Urban social identity (average of the three positive dimensions) 2. Place identity Rural place preference Positive yearning for the city Sense of belonging to the city Urban place identity (average of the two positive dimensions)

Assimilation (%, n)

Integration (%, n)

Marginalization (%, n)

Separation (%, n)

N = 787 N = 328 N = 787 N = 328 N = 787 N = 328 N = 787

30.4b , 239 32.9, 108 22.2b , 175 22.6, 74 21.6b , 170 24.7, 81 28.8, 227

54.1a , 426 48.2, 158 32.0a , 252 29.0, 95 31.9a , 251 32.6, 107 47.4, 373

7.2c , 57 10.1, 33 15.4c , 121 20.4, 67 16.0c , 126 18.3, 60 8.8, 69

8.3c , 65 8.8, 29 30.4a , 239 28.0, 92 30.5a , 240 24.4, 80 15.0, 118

N = 328

31.7, 104

44.8, 147

11.3, 37

12.2, 40

N = 787 N = 328 N = 787 N = 328 N = 787

52.6, 414 46.0, 151 32.4a , 255 29.0, 95 50.1, 394

32.4, 255 34.8, 114 16.8c , 132 17.4, 57 29.6, 233

6.0, 47 6.4, 21 26.2b , 206 23.5, 77 8.5, 67

9.0, 71 12.8, 42 24.7b , 194 30.2, 99 11.8, 93

43.6, 143

33.5, 110

8.8, 29

14.0, 46

35.6, 280

43.1, 339

7.8, 61

13.6, 107

36.3, 119

41.2, 135

9.1, 30

13.4, 44

N = 328 3. Viewed as a whole Rural identity (average of the two negative dimensions) N = 787 Urban contact (average of all the five positive dimensions) N = 328

Note. Percentage with superscript (a–c) in the same line are homogeneous subsamples according to chi square 2 test (p < .05).

In addition to preferences for acculturation strategies changing with different crossing of factors within identities, there is also a difference in the most favored acculturation strategy between social identity and place identity. When Rural Social Identity or Rural Place Preference is crossed with Positive Recognition of the City in social identity and Positive Yearning for the City in place identity, integration was the most favored acculturation strategy in social identity, while assimilation was most favored in place identity; the percentage in favor of integration in social identity and that of assimilation in place identity are both higher than 50%. Results of chi square test also show that the percentage of assimilation acculturation strategy adoption in social identity is significantly lower than in place identity (F(1) = 79.88, p < 0.01), and that of integration in social identity is significantly higher than in place identity (F(1) = 75.49, p < 0.01). However, differences for marginalization and separation are not significant (marginalization, F(1) = 0.92, p > 0.05; separation, F(1) = 0.24, p > 0.05). When the two rural dimensions are crossed with Urban Integration in social identity and Sense of Belonging to the City in place identity, the differences in each acculturation strategy between two questionnaires are all significant (assimilation, F(1) = 23.26, p < 0.01; integration, F(1) = 48.71, p < 0.01; marginalization, F(1) = 24.56, p < 0.01; separation, F(1) = 6.62, 0.01 < p < 0.05). When the rural dimensions are crossed with the average combined urban identities (lower lines in parts 1 and 2 of Table 6), we can still see that migrant workers adopted integration most in social identity while for place identity assimilation was most popular while the difference between two marginalization and separation was not significant(assimilation, F(1) = 74.74, p < 0.01; integration, F(1) = 52.66, p < 0.01; marginalization, F(1) = 0.04, p > 0.05; separation, F(1) = 3.47, p > 0.05). Finally, the chi square test of the different acculturation strategies within the same questionnaire (social or place identity) shows that the lowest percentage of participants was for marginalization in all cases except one: when Rural Place Preference is crossed with Sense of Belonging to the City, the rank order is highest for marginalization, followed by assimilation, separation and integration in last place). Since the 328 migrant workers’ data will be used to do further data analysis, we report the cell distribution for these respondents separately. As can be seen, this distribution closely resembles the overall sample; hence we have not repeated the comparisons. 5.3. Relationship between Acculturation Strategy and Life satisfaction and Self-Worth A core issue in acculturation research is whether the four acculturation strategies are related to the wellbeing of acculturating individuals. The 328 respondents in this research whose data were used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis, were also administered the two wellbeing scales: Diener’s 5 items Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985; Cronbach’s a in this research is 0.73), and Huang and Yang’s 6 items Global Self-worth Scale (Huang & Yang, 1998; Cronbach’s a in this research is also 0.73). One-way ANOVA was calculated to compare the means in different acculturation strategy. The results are shown in Tables 7 and 8. For Life Satisfaction (Table 7), there are significant variations across five of the eight ANOVAs. For these five cases, migrant workers who adopted the integration strategy obtained the highest life satisfaction scores, while respondents

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

607

Table 7 Means of Satisfaction with Life scores according to the various ways of classification (N = 328). Assimilation 1. Social identity Rural social identity Positive recognition of the city Orientation to learn about the city Urban integration Urban social identity (average of the three positive dimensions) 2. Place identity Rural place preference Positive yearning for the city Sense of belonging to the city Urban place identity (average of the two positive dimensions) 3. Viewed as a whole Rural identity (average of the two negative dimensions) Urban contact (average of all the five positive dimensions)

Integration

Marginalization

Separation

8.56 4.36 9.72a 4.63 9.63a 4.07 8.89 4.22

10.00 2.76 9.04a 3.02 8.25bc 3.15 9.46 2.32

9.52 4.38 7.66b 3.82 7.48c 4.46 8.03 4.87

1.79

.148

4.29

.005

5.00

.002

8.29ab 3.33 7.68b 3.95 7.76b 3.48

9.43a 3.60 8.56b 3.92 9.02ab 3.71

4.27

.006

10.70

<.001

4.65

.003

9.23 2.92

8.86 4.27

M SD M SD M SD M SD

8.39 3.83 8.51a 4.16 9.15ab 3.97 8.52 4.01

M SD M SD M SD

7.94b 3.98 8.23b 3.86 8.03b 3.99

9.61a 4.29 11.30a 3.86 9.78a 4.26

M SD

8.28 4.04

8.98 4.25

F

p

.965

.825

.409

.481

Note. Means with superscript (a–c) in the line of Rural social identity cross with Orientation to learn about the city and cross with Urban social identity are homogeneous subsamples according to Tamhane post hoc test (p < .05) (equal variances not assumed) and in other lines according to LSDs post hoc test (p < .05) (equal variances assumed).

with a marginalization strategy received the lowest score in four of them. For the combined dimensions of social identity and place identity (part 3 of Table 7), there was no significant variation. For Self-Worth (Table 8) for social identity, all four ANOVAs are significant, with integration having the highest Self-Worth (together with assimilation and separation), and marginalization having the lowest score. For place identity, two of the three ANOVAs are significant. In all three cases, integration provides the highest Self-Worth score, and marginalization the lowest. Finally, for the combined dimensions of social identity and place identity allocation, integration also provides the highest Self-Worth score, and marginalization the lowest

Table 8 Means of Self-Worth scores according to the various ways of classification (N = 328).

1. Social identity Rural social identity Positive recognition of the city Orientation to learn about the city Urban integration Urban social identity (average of the three positive dimensions) 2. Place identity Rural place preference Positive yearning for the city Sense of belonging to the city Urban place identity (average of the two positive dimensions) 3. Viewed as a whole Rural identity (average of the two negative dimensions) Urban contact (average of all the five positive dimensions)

Assimilation

Integration

Marginalization

Separation

F

p

M SD M SD M SD M SD

16.59a 3.83 17.09a 4.09 16.91a 3.97 16.51a 4.00

16.88a 4.13 17.06a 4.03 16.81a 4.55 17.01a 4.19

13.88b 4.03 14.70b 3.60 14.67b 3.78 14.41b 3.74

16.00a 4.93 16.41a 4.49 16.65a 3.87 15.75ab 4.42

5.05

.002

5.39

.001

4.44

.005

4.35

.005

M SD M SD M SD

16.48 3.93 17.12a 3.83 16.71a 3.75

16.81 4.37 17.56a 4.16 16.66a 4.46

14.90 4.31 15.26b 3.99 14.21a 4.59

15.81 4.35 15.95b 4.40 16.24a 4.20

1.56

.198

4.87

.003

3.15

.025

M SD

16.50a 4.07

17.02a 4.16

13.83b 3.77

16.02a 4.19

5.10

.002

Note. Means with superscript (a–c) in the line of Rural place preference cross with Urban place identity are homogeneous subsamples (min. p = 0.054) according to Tamhane post hoc test (p < .05) (equal variances not assumed) and in the other lines according to LSD’s post hoc test (p < .05) (equal variances assumed).

608

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

6. Discussion The gap in wealth between rural and urban people in China and the dual structure in urban and rural life contribute to the presence of two different civic cultures; this allows us to claim that we are dealing with a process of acculturation, even when the form of migration and intergroup contact are internal to a single country. As moving to the city involves engagement in a new civic context, we consider this to be an acculturative transition. In this research, we developed two domains in which psychological acculturation can take place, based on the distinction between social identity and place identity. We tested different operationalisions of one of the dimensions within each domain to discover whether they lead to different classifications of participants into different acculturation strategies; the answer is that they do. This result is in accordance with the findings of Berry and Sabatier (2011), which showed that operationalisations using different dimensions of acculturation do lead to different categorizations of individuals’ acculturation strategies. For social identity, the dimension of ‘positive recognition of the city’ reveals higher integration and assimilation preferences than when the when the engagement is ‘learning about the city’, or actually ‘becoming part of the city’. For place identity, there is a similar phenomenon: participants have higher preferences for integration and assimilation when ‘yearning for the city’ than when ‘belonging to the city’. Thus, in keeping with the interpretation proposed by Berry and Sabatier (2011), “the ‘deeper’ the psychological phenomena. . . the less they want to engage the national society”. In the present case, the more superficial the social or place engagement with the city (by simply the ‘recognition’ of, or ‘yearning’ for the city), the more they prefer integration or assimilation. In contrast, when the engagement is more profound (by actually ‘becoming part of the city’), the less is the preference for integration or assimilation into the life of the city. An important difference in acculturation strategy preference between social identity and place identity is that integration is preferred in social identity, while assimilation is preferred in place identity. However, there are no important differences in preference for separation or marginalization between social and place identity when the rural orientation is crossed with the Positive Recognition of the City in social identity and Positive Yearning for the City in place identity or crossed with the combined positive dimension of social identity and place identity. As shown in much earlier research, migrant workers long for the modern life style in the big city, with the public facilities, the better educational resources and the more developed social security system (Chen, 2007). Other research has shown that there has been an increasingly negative meaning given to the term “migrant worker” (Wu & Ning, 2007); this is often accompanied by acts of discrimination against rural migrants. From such earlier research, we can see that urban residents, as the dominant group, opt for the segregation or exclusion strategies with respect to the migrant workers (termed acculturation expectations by Berry, 2003). It is perhaps this pushing away, or rejection by city dwellers, that has made migrant workers not give a totally positive evaluation to the city residents on one hand, and to develop a defensive rural self-promotion on the other hand. In other words, we consider that identification by these rural migrants with their rural roots is an intimate part of how they think of themselves in the new urban environment, and that this is difficult to change. However, coming to identify with the ‘good life’ of the urban environment is considered to be more easily managed. With respect to the relationship between the four acculturation strategies and psychological wellbeing, in previous research (reviewed by Berry, 1997; Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Berry et al., 2006) it is common to find that those pursuing integration have the highest adaptation scores, and those who are marginalized have the lowest; those assimilating or separating have intermediate levels. Despite the new concepts used (urban social identity and urban place identity) and despite the variations in operationalisation of these concepts in this research, integration is still generally the best acculturation strategy for people to attain high life satisfaction and self-worth whether in social identity or place identity. And consistent with previous research, marginalization has the opposite relationship. Moreover, we found that the classifications of acculturation strategies that were derived from a dimension of ‘deeper’ psychological phenomena (Urban Integration in social identity and Sense of Belonging to the City in place identity) have a stronger relationship with these two aspects of adaptation than the more superficial ones. One unusual result in this study is the rather high mean score on Satisfaction with Life for participants who were classified in the marginalization group for the cross between Rural Social Identity and Positive Recognition of the City in Table 7. Although not significant, this does raise the question of why this might be the case for Life Satisfaction, but not for Self-Worth (in Table 8). More research is required to search for a possible explanation for this pattern of findings. Overall, we conclude that dual engagement (by way of the integration strategy) serves the wellbeing of internal migrants more that the other strategies, and particularly that of marginalization. This conforms to findings in the large body of research with international migrants, and supports the emerging generalization that the integration strategy serves acculturating individuals well.

Appendix A. Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

In most ways my life is close to my ideal. The conditions of my life are excellent. I am satisfied with my life. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

609

Appendix B. Global Self-Worth Scale (Huang & Yang, 1998) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I know I have a promising future. Taking it by and large, I’m satisfied with myself. I often feel like a good for nothing bum (R). I believe that all things in their being are good for something. I am a useful person. I hate myself (R).

References Arends-Tóth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). The assessment of acculturation. In D. L. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 142–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder: Westview. Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 3. Social behaviour and applications (2nd ed., pp. 291–326). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5–34. Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chung, P. Balls-Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17–37). Washington: APA. Berry, J. W. (2010). Mobility and acculturation. In S. Carr (Ed.), The psychology of global mobility (pp. 193–210). New York: Springer. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(3), 303–332. Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 191–207. Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2011). Variations in the assessment of acculturation attitudes: Their relationships with psychological wellbeing. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 658–669. Carr, S. (Ed.). (2010). The psychology of global mobility. New York: Springer. Chen, G. (2007). On the household registration system in China: From the perspective of human right. Master thesis. School of Law, Zhengzhou University, China (in Chinese). Chen, L., Wang, X., & Qu, Z. (2010). An analysis of the growth and nutritional status of migrant children and left-at-home children. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 17(8), 48–54 (in Chinese). Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larson, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. Donà, G., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of Central American refugees. International Journal of Psychology, 29(1), 57–70. Fang, H. (2009). Research on ensuring the payment of wages for migrant workers in the building industry. Master thesis. School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, China (in Chinese). Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Garson, G. D. (2011). Structural equation modeling. North Carolina State University. Retrieved from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/ structur.htm#modelfit Gui, Y. (2010). Research on the migrant workers’ urban identity and urban attachment. Master thesis. School of Psychology, Southwest University, China (in Chinese). Guo, X., & Chu, H. (2004). From country to city: Integration and isolation—empirical research of the social distance between the migrant workers and the city residents. Jianghai Academic Journal, 47(3), 91–98 (in Chinese). Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. Hu, S., & Wu, X. (2004). Man on the brink—a social analysis to the youth migrant workers’ social integration. Youth Studies, 2, 8–11 (in Chinese). Huang, X., & Yang, X. (1998). Making a scale of self-worth for young students. Journal of Psychological Science, 21(4), 289–292 (in Chinese). Hutnik, N. (1986). Patterns of ethnic minority identification and models of social adaptation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9, 150–167. Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jiang, S., Zhang, L., & Wang, W. (2007). A survey of the migrant workers’ psychological health in Chongqing. Journal of Psychological Science, 30(1), 216–218 (in Chinese). Kenny, D. A. (2011). Measuring model fit. Professor from University of Connecticut, David A. Kenny’s Homepage. Retrieved from http://www. davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm Liebkind, K. (2001). Acculturation. In R. Brown, & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 386–406). Oxford: Blackwell. Lin, C., Yang, Z., & Huang, X. (2003). The comprehensive dictionary of psychology. Shanghai: Shanghai Educational Press. (in Chinese). Liu, B. (2010). Study on pension insurance system for migrant workers. Master thesis. School of Law, University of Science and Technology of China, China (in Chinese). Liu, F. (2005). The overview of the research on rural migrant workers in recent years. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 42(1), 021–421 (in Chinese). Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mi, Q. (2004). The migrant workers’ urban belongingness analysis. Youth Studies, 3, 25–32 (in Chinese). Miu, W. (2008). Research on the left over children’s education problem from the city central perspective. Master thesis. School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, China (in Chinese). NBSC. (2009). Statistical communiqué on labor and social security development in 2008. National Bureau of Statistics of China. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn/was40/gjtjj en detail.jsp?channelid=4920&record=6 NBSC. (2011). Statistical communiqué of the people’s republic of China on the sixth nationwide population census. National Bureau of Statistics of China (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20110428 402722232.htm. Nguyen, A. -M. D., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2011). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta analysis. Manuscript under review. Nguyen, H. H., Messé, L. A., & Stollak, G. E. (1999). Toward a more complex understanding of acculturation and adjustment: Cultural involvements and psychosocial functioning of Vietnamese youth. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(1), 5–31. NPFPC. 2011. Statistical communiqué of the people’s republic of China on the 2010 national economic and social development. National Population and Family Planning Commission of China. Retrieved from http://www.npfpc.gov.cn/cn/aidsproject/detail.aspx?articleid=110316153016220496. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 10(3), 499–514. Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 147–169.

610

Y. Gui et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 598–610

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 57–83. Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Parents’ and adolescents’ acculturation attitudes. In Paper presented at XIV conference of the International Society for Study of Behavioural Development Québec, Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (2008). The Development of scales to assess the acculturation attitudes of immigrant parents and second generation adolescents. In Paper presented at IACCP conference Bremen. Sayegh, L., & Lasry, J-C. (1993). Immigrants’ adaptation to Canada: Assimilation, acculturation and orthogonal cultural identification. Canadian Psychology, 24, 98–109. Su, H. (2008). At the time a silkworm breaking its cocoon: The status of Chinese rural areas, the peasants and the differences between the regions before and after 1978. Doctoral dissertation. School of Maxism Studies, Renmin University of China, China (in Chinese). Sun, L. (personal communication). Research on the migrant workers adaptation to the city. Doctoral dissertation. Center for Studies of Education and Psychology of Ethnic Minorities in Southwest China, Southwest University, China (in Chinese). Tan, Z. (2003). Study of peasant migrants’ adaptation to urban life in Chengdu. Master thesis. School of Public Administration, Sichuan University, China (in Chinese). Tang, Y. (2009). Research on left over children’s family education from their grandparents. Master thesis. School of Management, Mizu University in China, China (in Chinese). Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Study in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Ward, C., & Masgoret, A-M. (2006). Patterns of relations between immigrants and host societies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 637–651. Wang, C. (2001). The relationship between the neo-generation migrant workers’ social identity and the integration of city and country. Sociological Studies, 15(3), 63–76 (in Chinese). Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment and socio-cultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–343. Werner, C. (n.d.). Recommendations for model evaluation: Some rules of thumb for common goodness-of-fit criteria. Goethe University, Frankfurt. Retrieved from http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/∼cswerner/sem/sem en.htm Wu, Y., & Ning, K. (2007). The migrant workers’ predicament in the process of urbanization. Zhejiang Social Sciences, 23(4), 127–132 (in Chinese). Xia, S. (2008). Research on the migrant workers’ social identity. Master thesis. School of Psychology, Southwest University, China (in Chinese). Zhu, L. (2002). On the urban adaptability of the peasant-worker strata. Jianghai Academic Journal, 44(6), 82–88 (in Chinese). Zhu, Y. (2003). Culture analysis of the gap between the city-rural economic development in China. Probe, 18(3), 115–117 (in Chinese).