shinnar 2008

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2008, 148(2), xxx–xxxCopyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

Address correspondence to Rachel S. Shinnar, Department of Management, Walker Col-lege of Business, Appalachian State University, ASU Box 32089, Boone, NC 28608-2089, USA; [email protected] (e-mail).

553

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2008, 148(5), 553–575Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

Coping With Negative Social Identity: The Case of Mexican Immigrants

RACHEL S. SHINNARAppalachian State University

ABSTRACT. Social identity theory suggests that an individual’s self-concept is shaped through group identification and positive social identities are established by favorably comparing the individual’s in-group against an out-group. When unfavorable intergroup comparisons occur, individuals perceive a negative social identity. Because of the motiva-tion to maintain a positive self-concept, this perception creates a need to cope. On the basis of face-to-face interviews with Mexican immigrants, the author examined the ways in which negative social-identity perceptions triggered different coping mechanisms. The findings offer support for two coping mechanisms—individual mobility and social creativ-ity, with social creativity used more often than individual mobility.

Keywords: ethnic identity, group identification, individual mobility, Mexican immigrants, social identity theory

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) explains individual responses to intergroup social-status differences. When one’s in-group is nega-tively evaluated in comparison to an out-group, perceptions of negative social identity may form. Several researchers have examined the ways in which indi-viduals cope with negative social identity (Blanz, Mummendey, Mielke, & Klink, 1998; Breilinger & Kelly, 1994; Hirose, Taresawa, & Okuda, 2005; Jetten, Brans-combe, Schmitt, & Spears, 2001; Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999). However, these researchers based most of their studies on laboratory experiments with university students as participants. Padilla and Perez (2003) called for addi-tional research to examine how immigrants’ cognitions of in-group and out-group relations impact their attitudes toward the host society. In addition, Brown (2000) pointed out the need to investigate how members of low-status groups react to negative social identity and what coping strategy they use in a given context. The present study addressed work-life issues for Mexican immigrants in the United States and the implications for social identity. On the basis of face-to-face

interviews, this study examined whether Mexican immigrants hold perceptions of negative social identity and whether they use the coping mechanisms of indi-vidual mobility, social creativity, and social competition.

Social Identity Theory

According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), (a) people are motivated to maintain a positive self-concept; (b) the self-concept derives largely from group identification; and (c) people establish positive social identities by favorably comparing their in-group against an out-group. Having a social identity “satisfies the individuals’ simultaneous needs for inclusion and differentiation. In other words, we need to simultaneously fill the need to belong to a social group (e.g., Latino) while maintaining our distinction from another group (e.g., Jewish)” (Padilla & Perez, 2003, p. 43). The degree to which an individual’s self-concept is influenced by group membership is determined by the “value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). Group member-ship has the potential to contribute to one’s positive self-image if the group itself is favorably evaluated in comparison to other groups. Therefore, an individual will seek membership in groups that “have some contribution to make to the positive aspects of his social identity; i.e. to those aspects of it from which he derives some satisfaction” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 64). Namely, if belonging to a certain group makes individuals feel good about themselves, maintaining affiliation with that group and preserving its positive evaluation compared to other groups will be very important to them.

Social identity theory builds on the contention that self-concept is a basic human need and “individuals respond to threats to their identity in a variety of ways that enable them to maintain a positive view of themselves and their own reference group” (Phinney, Chavaria, & Tate, 1992, p. 470). Membership in one’s ethnic group—also referred to as ethnic identity—has been shown to be more salient among ethnic minorities than among their majority counterparts and to play an important role in the formation of the self-concept (Miville, Koonce, Dar-lington & Whitlock, 2000; Phinney et al., 1992; Tajfel, 1981). Thus, it becomes important for the individual to maintain a positive ethnic identity. Researchers found ethnic identity among Latino immigrants in the United States to be quite stable over time. Some researchers believe that group identity among Hispanic immigrants is a result of recent immigration (Sears, Fu, Henry, & Bui, 2003), whereas others identify experiences of discrimination as shaping and strengthen-ing social identity among immigrants and minority groups (Jetten et al., 2001; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001).

Salient group identities “lead individuals to engage in intergroup com-parisons, which can result in greater feelings of group deprivation” (Wright & Tropp, 2002, p. 209). When the comparison with an out-group results in a disadvantaged position, one has a negative social identity (Mummendey

554 The Journal of Social Psychology

et al., 1999). In addition, when treatment of the in-group is perceived to be illegitimate, group members are more likely to identify strongly with their in-group (Ellemers, 2002), which may further strengthen ethnic identity and increase the need to cope with negative social identity. Negative social identity can also form when individuals of a minority group come across and internalize negative stereotypes regarding their group. It is interesting that as U.S. tenure increases, immigrants are more likely to achieve higher levels of acculturation, which have been shown to negatively influence the evaluation of in-group members (Rogler, Cortes, & Malgady, 1991). For example, later generations of Mexican immigrants to the United States have less positive images of Mexican Americans than do foreign-born or first- generation Mexican Americans (Buriel & Vasquez, 1982; Dworkin, 1965).

Mexican Immigrants in the United States

A group’s status is established in relation to the group’s position in the politi-cal and socioeconomic structure of society (Turner & Brown, 1978). As a group in American society, Mexican immigrants are seen as holding low status (Jones, 1991), and negative stereotypes about Hispanics, in general, and Mexicans, in particular, are prevalent (Buriel & Vasquez, 1982). Stereotypes are based on the observation of social roles and structures. For example, “Whites may observe menial jobs to be performed largely by Hispanics and virtually never by members of their own group; on the basis of these observations . . . attributions are made about the characteristics of Hispanics as a group” (Brief, 1998, p. 123). Stereo-types can also be formed and perpetuated through the media’s portrayal of certain groups. In the United States, the media has contributed to a gang- and crime- oriented perception of Latinos (Cortés, 1993; Hernandez, 1995; Limón, 1992). More recently, the rise in anti-immigration sentiment (Sanchez, 1997) and exten-sive media attention on U.S. immigration policy—including illegal immigration and its implications for the labor market (Stevenson, 2004), as well as raids to round up undocumented workers such as the much publicized Wal-Mart raids in October 2003 (Zimmerman, Valbrun, Stringer, & Porter, 2003) and November 2005 (Rubinkam, 2005)—have also shaped public opinion regarding Mexican immigrants. In fact, Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans believe that many non-Hispanic Whites hold negative views of their group (Casas, Ponterotto, & Sweeney, 1987) and that Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans are being discriminated against in the United States (Brodie, Suro, Steffenson, Val-dez, & Lenvin, 2002).

These contextual conditions could create a situation in which Mexican immigrants perceive negative social identity. The unfavorable comparison of their in-group (in this case, Mexican immigrants) with the majority group (in this case, Anglos) results in the formation of a negative social identity. This comparison leads to the following proposition:

Shinnar 555

Proposition 1 (P1): Mexican immigrants perceive that they hold low social status in American society and that they are subject to stereotyping.

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) indicates that, in an effort to preserve a positive self-concept, individuals are likely to feel the need to cope with negative social identity. Using different coping mechanisms can fulfill this need.

Coping with Negative Social Identity

Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) identifies three main coping mechanisms that individuals apply when they feel that their social identity is devalued, namely, when they perceive negative social identity. These previously identified coping mechanisms are individual mobility, social creativ-ity, and social competition (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; Turner & Brown, 1978). Coping with some of the psychological stress associated with being an immigrant and a member of a minority group is important because “individuals who [show] an active coping strategy [are] better able to take charge and initiative in their lives, actualize life plans and goals, and learn from successes and failures” (Tor-res & Rollock, 2004, p. 157). Each coping strategy is discussed and linked to the present study’s propositions.

The first coping mechanism—individual mobility—involves individuals leaving or dissociating themselves from their in-group. For example, immigrants who feel their social identity is devalued by the host society could choose to dis-tance themselves from the ethnic group through acculturation and assimilation. This strategy “implies attempts, on an individual basis, to achieve upward social mobility, to pass from a lower- to a higher-status group” (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p. 19). In other words, if individuals perceive that most in-group members hold low status or menial labor-type jobs, they may strive to improve their occupa-tional standing so as to distance themselves from other coethnic peers. Research-ers suggest that when opportunities for upward mobility exist, even if they are limited, low-status group members “are still willing to choose upward mobility as an individual option” (Hirose et al., 2005, p. 13) and are less likely to pursue collective actions to counter perceived negative social identity. This finding leads to the following proposition:

P2: Mexican immigrants who perceive negative social identity will apply individual mobility by dissociating themselves from their coethnic group.

However, leaving one’s ethnic group may prove difficult, if not impossible, for individuals who are significantly different from the majority group (e.g., skin color or accentuated speech), rendering the group boundaries virtually imperme-able (Mummendey et al., 1999). Individuals from lower status groups may prefer to use individualistic strategies, such as the pursuit of individual upward mobility,


but they could find this option very difficult (Ellemers, 2002) given prevalent discrimination and limited human capital. In fact, using individualistic strategies has been a challenge for Hispanic immigrants, who are often confined to non-managerial, lower status, lower paying jobs (Kochhar, 2005; Shinnar, 2007). In such situations, alternative coping mechanisms can be used.

The second coping mechanism—social creativity—is more psychological in nature and involves altering one’s perceptions rather than taking direct action, as in individual mobility (Wright & Tropp, 2002). Social creativity includes strate-gies such as (a) seeking new elements for intergroup comparisons, (b) redefining existing elements for such comparisons, and (c) selecting an alternative refer-ent group to which one’s in-group is compared. New elements for intergroup comparisons are those that compare one’s in-group to the out-group on some new dimension, leading to a more favorable evaluation. Individuals search for new, positive aspects of their group to justify the features not welcomed by other groups, or they seek features they deem as superior. For example, in an experi-ment involving unequal resource distribution among groups, Hirose et al. (2005) found the following:

[Low-status group members] try to secure a positive self-identity for the group by finding another dimension in which they can evaluate themselves as superior to the dominant group, [such as a higher rating of in-group member trustworthiness,] because they cannot affirmatively appreciate themselves in the status-related dimen-sion of dominance, as reflected by the actual resource disparity. (p. 19)

One may recognize that one’s social group has problems but choose to focus on the positive aspects of the group, “such as role models who exemplify the best characteristics of the group” (Phinney et al., 1992, p. 470). In fact, there is some evidence that upward comparisons (comparing the self with an in-group member who outperforms the self) can be identity-enhancing because this “reflects posi-tively on the group identity, making it more attractive” (Schmitt, Branscombe, Silvia, Garcia, & Spears, 2006, p. 311).

The second variation of social creativity consists of changing one’s val-ues so that previously negative comparisons become positive, thus justifying unwelcome features or making them more acceptable through interpretation. The “classic example is the ‘Black is beautiful’ slogan [in which] the salient dimension, colour, remains the same but the usual value-system is reversed” (Turner & Brown, 1978, p. 205). Changing the referent comparison group is a third alternative in applying social creativity. For example, instead of compar-ing one’s group to the dominant majority, one may choose to compare one’s group to other minorities (Ellemers, 2002). In addition to changing comparison groups, individuals may resort to comparisons over time (Blanz et al., 1998). For example, immigrants may choose to compare their situation in the United States to their situation prior to immigration or to the situation of more recent immigrants. Blanz et al. speculated that group recategorization—splitting the

Shinnar 557

group into subcategories—could serve in identity maintenance. For example, Hispanic immigrants could recategorize their group by separating recent immigrants from long-time residents or separating their in-group according to national origin. In fact, strained relationships among Hispanics of different national origins have been cited as a concern by 83% of the Hispanic respon-dents in a national Pew Hispanic Center study (Brodie et al., 2002). Researchers believe this finding results from differences in levels of income and education (41%), differences in country of origin (34%), and differences in skin color (8%), indicating some within-group differentiation is occurring (Brodie et al.). This finding leads to the third proposition:

P3: Mexican immigrants who perceive negative social identity will apply social creativity by: (a) searching for new dimensions or characteristics of their in-group that result in a more favorable intergroup comparison; (b) changing the interpretation of some group characteristics, which will result in a more favorable intergroup comparison; or (c) searching for new refer-ent groups for intergroup comparisons, which will result in a more favorable evaluation of the in-group.

The last coping mechanism—social competition—refers to engagement in social action so as to promote changes in the status quo. Such collective actions are targeted at gaining acceptance by the majority culture in an effort to affirm the value of one’s group when intergroup social comparisons are unfavorable. In the case of Mexican Americans, an example could be the Chicano movement of the 1960s. Social identity theorists believe that collective action is used when group boundaries appear most impermeable. Deaux, Reid, Martin, and Bikmen (2006) found that immigrants of color who had been in the United States for more than 8 years were more likely to reject social inequality and engage in collective action so as to improve the condition of their group.

Social action can also be targeted to promote changes of certain aspects of one’s own ethnic group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) so as to eradicate negative stereotypes held by the majority group. This eradication could be achieved by efforts to change deviant behaviors by in-group members who are perceived to negatively impact the perceptions of the majority group. Marques, Yzer-byt, and Leyens (1988) identified the Black sheep effect, in which “unlikable in-group members are more negatively evaluated than unlikable out-group members when their behaviors are relevant for the in-group’s social identity” (p. 10). This effect can lead to psychological exclusion from the in-group when “deviant group members [are] judged as less typical of the in-group by individuals who are likely to care the most about the in-group image, namely high identifiers. This seems to allow them . . . to safeguard the image of their group” (Castano, Paladino, Coull, & Yzerbyt, 2002, p. 381). The last proposition follows:


P4: Mexican immigrants who perceive negative social identity will apply social competition by attempting to change the perceptions held by American society of their in-group.

Method

Data collection was qualitative in nature and consisted of semistructured interviews. I chose a qualitative approach because of its appropriateness to inves-tigating understudied populations (Gomez et al., 2001; Morrow & Smith, 2000). Given the limited literature on the ways in which Mexican immigrants cope with negative social identity, I felt it was important to use a descriptive, exploratory approach grounded in the “richly detailed narratives of the lived experiences of individuals” (Fassinger, 2001, p. 279). Combining semistructured interviews and the grounded-theory method of data analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) allowed for a framework to emerge from the direct experiences of Mexican immigrants.

Participants

Participants were 17 Mexican immigrants employed in the Las Vegas hos-pitality industry. In all, 10 were women and 13 were married (average age = 38.6 years, SD = 9.9 years; average U.S. tenure = 16.6 years, SD = 9.3 years). Participants’ average length of schooling was 9.9 years (ranging from 3–15 years, SD = 3.9 years). Also, 12 participants worked in back-of-the-house posi-tions (housekeeper, houseman, cook, porter, kitchen worker) and 5 worked in front-of-the-house positions (bartender, food server, bus person or server assis-tant), representing two departments: housekeeping, and food and beverage. The employment categories of this study’s participants were consistent with other studies reporting on the concentration of immigrant workers in the low-skilled jobs in housekeeping and food and beverage (Bernhardt, Dresser, & Hatton, 2003), especially the concentration of Hispanic workers in three main positions: food preparation workers, housekeepers and housemen, and janitors and cleaners (Waddoups & Eade, 2002). Table 1 shows a detailed demographic description of the present study’s participants.

Procedure

I—a bilingual (English–Spanish), female, non-Hispanic immigrant with relevant cultural knowledge and experience in conducting interviews with Hispanic individuals—conducted the interviews in this study. As was recom-mended by Fassinger (2001), I was familiar with “the issues of importance to the population being studied” (p. 278). I gained access through the leader of a local church who, in collaboration with a local labor union, supported immi-grants through the citizenship process. He agreed to provide a list of immigrant

Shinnar 559

workers who were employed at one of the casino–hotels in town. All study participants were in the United States legally (with work authorization), which is a requirement to qualify for citizenship. The list included 76 Mexican immi-grant employees, all of whom were contacted and invited to participate in the study. Of them, 24 were unreachable after a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 10 attempts on various days and at various times, and 14 declined. Also, 21 expressed some interest in participating but were unable to commit at the time they were contacted because of work or family obligations. The final sample consisted of 19 interviews with 17 different individuals (2 of whom participated in follow-up interviews), which is within the recommended sample size for this type of research (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997). Follow-up interviews served to reexamine questions that were not sufficiently developed in the first interview. Interviews averaged close to 50 min in length (ranging 30–100 min), were conducted in Spanish (with one exception), and took place in a location chosen by each of the participants, usually in the participant’s home (with two exceptions).


TABLE 1. Interviewee Demographic Information

Tenure in United Work Age States Marital Education tenureJob title Gender (years) (years) status (years) (years)

Restaurant food server Male 46 37 Single 14 25Dishwasher or runner Female 35 11 Married 9 5Housekeeper Female 27 9 Married 9 5Bartender Male 33 18 Married 9 13House man Male 49 19 Married 15 13Bus person Female 41 14 Married 12 6Buffet server assistant Female 24 5 Married 12 2.5Fry cook Male 35 23 Married 5 8Cook Male 30 5 Married 12 4Room service server Female 37 15 Married 15 5Utility porter Female 42 24 Single 6 10Kitchen worker Female 63 35 Single 6 4Housekeeper Female 32 8.5 Married 9 6Pantry cook Female 41 12 Divorced 15 4Dishwasher Male 38 16 Married 3 3.5Housekeeper Female 31 10 Married 5 5House man Male 53 21 Married 13 7.5

Interview

The interview protocol (see Appendix) was developed for this study and designed to address issues related to work life such as relationships with peers and managers, attitudes and experiences related to work, work-life concerns, and experiences related to life in the United States. I pilot tested the interview protocol to assess appropriateness of questions and conducted it with a Mexican male, employed in the hospitality industry, whom I had previously interviewed for a different study on financial decision making. However, the interview-pro-tocol development continued throughout the interviewing process on the basis of King’s (2004) recommendation that interviews be flexible and modified through the use of adding “probes or whole topics which had originally not been included, but have emerged spontaneously in interviews; dropping or re-formulating those which are incomprehensible to participants or consistently fail to elicit responses in any way relevant to the research question(s)” (p. 15).

The protocol served as a guide for me, but questions did not always follow the same order, nor did I necessarily ask them of each participant. This process is typical of qualitative interviews (King, 2004) and allows participants to lead the conversation and give their perspective on the research topic.

Data Analysis

To preserve reliability (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Rubin & Rubin, 1995), I kept a log detailing the rationale behind specific interview questions and orga-nized all interview tapes and transcript records in a readily available format. Fur-thermore, I checked negative instances for possible rival propositions (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). For example, in the initial interviews, participants described relationships with coethnic supervisors or managers as better than the relation-ships with supervisors or managers from different ethnic backgrounds because of ease of communication, shared cultural background, and higher comfort level in interpersonal interaction. However, in subsequent interviews, participants described the opposite situation, in that they reported that their coethnic supervi-sors or managers treated them poorly by pushing them harder and giving them more work compared to Anglo or African American supervisors or managers. Because this situation was considered a negative instance and a contradictory finding, I addressed the question regarding relationships with supervisors or managers in all subsequent interviewees. This process is in line with Rubin and Rubin’s (1995) consistency principle that requires researchers to further examine “ideas and responses that appear to be inconsistent” (p. 87), including coherence of themes (examining contradictions among different themes, coherence in indi-viduals, and contradictions in what individuals say).

As was recommended by Maxwell (1996), I preserved validity by adopting five techniques. I produced verbatim transcriptions of all interviews (after each

Shinnar 561

interview and before conducting the follow-up interview), which allowed for as many alternative explanations as possible to be tested. I examined discrepant cases, pursuing incompatible ideas in subsequent interviews. Furthermore, I sought feedback from an external and neutral third party. Last, I compared results to those of other studies “to enhance confidence in converging empirical results” (Lee, 1999, p. 168). The present study’s findings are compared with those of past studies in the discussion section of this article.

The transcribed interviews resulted in 206 pages of analyzable material. Researchers recommend that a minimum of two researchers analyze data so as to cross-validate the typology of recurring themes and codes (Hill et al., 1997; Miles & Huberman, 1984), which increases the reliability of the themes identified and subsequent conclusions (Lee, 1999). In the present study, three individuals analyzed the data: myself and two graduate students. One graduate student was naïve about the literature and the other more knowledgeable, and one was a Latina and the other a non-Latina. We analyzed data individually, each generating a list of codes and themes from all the transcripts that were then compared and discussed in group meetings and synthesized into one list. As was recommended by Hill et al., I made sure to foster an atmosphere where everyone felt safe to talk and in which open dialogue existed at every group meeting to ensure each member felt unconstrained to share her view on how data should be coded. When disagreements surfaced, we openly discussed them, and we examined inconsistencies in interpretation by going back to the data until we reached consensus.

I used a three-phase coding approach (open, axial, and selective coding) on the basis of Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) grounded-theory method. First, I completed open coding through line-by-line analysis, breaking the data down into discrete parts (a word, phrase, or short paragraph). These parts are more manageable when a researcher wishes to examine the data more closely, compare it for similarities and differences, and categorize it (Strauss & Corbin). After open coding, I placed codes into domains or concepts. A concept or domain is a “label, placed on discrete happenings, events, and other instances of phenomena” (Strauss & Corbin, p. 61). Each domain can include several terms, identified in the open coding process, linked to it by a semantic relationship (Spradley, 1979). For example, one domain identified in this study was having a coethnic supervi-sor means X. Initially, terms such as ease of communication, common cultural background, and comfort of interaction were included. However, as additional interviews were conducted, other terms emerged such as poor treatment, humili-ation, disrespect, being given more work, and discrimination.

In the next step—axial coding—“data are put back together in new ways . . . by making connections between categories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 96). In the present study, this step resulted in the generation of categories describing ways to favorably compare one’s in-group to an out-group. I applied selective coding last, integrating ideas together at a higher level of abstraction that defines


“a conceptualization of a descriptive story about the central phenomenon of the study” (Strauss & Corbin, p. 119).

Results and Discussion

Perception of Negative Social Identity

Prior to addressing the question of coping with negative social identity, I offer some evidence regarding the degree to which this study’s interviewees per-ceived that their ethnic group holds low status in American society. In support of P1, 12 of the 17 participants indicated that they felt Mexicans, in general, and Mexican immigrants, in particular, are poorly treated. These indications included perceptions of themselves as holding low social and occupational status, being subjugated to stereotypes, being treated as inferior, and having fewer rights than White and African American employees. The following quotations offer inter-view excerpts that demonstrate these perceptions. Only the English translations of interview excerpts are presented.

A male food server felt that as a Mexican immigrant he was treated as “a second-class citizen,” and that in order to be considered a “good Mexican,” he was expected to know “his place” and not aspire to obtain higher status positions at work. He felt that his Anglo coworkers resented his escalation in occupational status, from bus person to food server, and wanted him to stay in what they consid-ered to be an appropriate position for him, namely the lower status position of bus person. He explained, “Coworkers, you know, some . . . want to see you being their servant but not being their equal.” Being fluent in English and experienced in the food-service industry, he felt that he was highly qualified for the position he held.

I get really frustrated ’cause [of] the way we are treated. As long as you do work for them, you’re a good Mexican or Latino. . . . Being in the position that I am, ’cause I am equal to some of the ones who are not [Latinos], that’s why they kinda resent that. I mean, it’s okay, for example, if there is a bus boy they’re making do the work. In a way, what I am trying to say is that they [the Anglos] feel superior to us.

Interviewees also mentioned poor treatment by customers. For example, one male bartender said, “Sometimes there are people [customers] that [when] they see that you are Hispanic they try to put you down and all.” Similarly, a female bus person felt that customers at the restaurant where she was working treated her like a “servant.”

Other interviewees spoke of the fact that Mexicans were doing the work that no one else wanted to do. For example, a female housekeeper felt that her man-ager was reluctant to let her or her coworkers transfer to other positions because they were the ones doing the hardest, most physically demanding jobs that no one else wanted. A female bus person stated, “Everything is work, but there are jobs, physically demanding jobs, that regularly you always see Hispanics doing.”

Shinnar 563

Similarly, speaking about the October 2003 raid at Wal-Mart (Zimmerman et al., 2003), a male food server expressed anger at the treatment of Latinos in the United States.

I really do get offended. I really do get bummed out when I hear . . . we’re one of the growing minorities in this country, and here they’re picking up on the negatives. They’re not thinking about the contributions, and I see a lot of that everywhere. You know, last night I heard, Wal-Mart hired . . . so many illegal aliens, and look at the jobs they were doing. . . . . And those [are] jobs that nobody wants, and that hurts me as a Mexican, [a] Latino, that they squeeze you, they take all your energy, and then you’re still, on top of that, being discriminated [against].

Some interviewees perceived that Hispanics have fewer rights than Anglos and African American employees do and thus are less able to defend themselves against their employers. For example, a female dishwasher stated, “They [African American employees] know how to defend themselves more than we do.” Simi-larly, a male dishwasher stated, “A Latino is fired more easily and an American not so easily. Because the American has more . . . ability to be here, he complains more. . . . The Latino doesn’t know the law.”

Several interviewees used powerful terms to describe the way they felt Mexicans were stereotyped in the United States. A male houseman stated that Americans “see us with racism . . . like we’re not from this planet . . . or like we came to take away the work or the food.” In fact, several interviewees spoke about what they perceived to be resentment from Anglos and African Americans toward Latinos for taking away jobs. For example, a female housekeeper stated, “Americans think that one comes to steal their jobs.” A male houseman said, “Sometimes the Americans or the Blacks who don’t have work, they blame the Mexicans.” This perception caused some interviewees to feel unwelcome in the United States, as stated by a male food server: “I know a lot of people would like for me to leave. They say, ‘What are you doing here? If you don’t like it here, go back [to Mexico].’”

Some of the interviewees felt that Mexicans are perceived to be fit only for menial, low-status jobs. For instance, two female respondents communicated strong feelings regarding the way in which they felt Latinos were perceived. The female cook stated, “We the Hispanics, they see us like donkeys,” and the female housekeeper stated:

They say that the Hispanic is stupid because he allows others to treat him however they feel like, and he continues working like a donkey. I don’t like this—that they always want to treat us as though we’re inferior.

The interviewees used the following additional words to describe the ways in which they felt they were perceived or treated: slave, stupid (female house-keeper); invader, destructive, animal (female cook); robot (male food server); machine (male house man); servant (female bus person and male food server);


alien—not from this planet (male houseman); lazy—abusing welfare system instead of working, criminals, drug dealers (female food server); and parasite living off of government assistance (female bus person).

The aforementioned statements indicate that many of the interviewees in this study perceived that, as a group, Mexicans hold low social and occupational status. This perception could result in a negative social identity and create a need for coping. These statements are fueled by the way Mexican immigrants feel they are perceived by Anglos and by the stereotypes to which they feel subjugated. Some of the identified coping mechanisms are presented in the following section. Interview excerpts to provide support for the research propositions accompany the discussion.

Coping with Negative Social Identity

Individual mobility. P2 suggested that Mexican immigrants who perceive negative social identity would attempt to dissociate themselves from their ethnic group. In fact, 4 interviewees specifically explained how occupational advancement was desirable because it could serve as a way to differentiate themselves from other Mexican immigrants, whom they saw as conformistas, or accepting of their state and satisfied with what the interviewees perceived to be minimal achievements. This term was used pejoratively, as a lamentable characteristic of their ethnic group. These individuals disapproved of those who accepted their situation with-out trying to progress beyond the basic necessities of life. An example of this discontent included the following statement by a make cook:

There are people who conform [by] staying at one level. As a dishwasher, I knew people who have 10, 15 years doing the same [job], and I think that if I advanced even a little . . . in the position it [would] make me feel good.

Similarly, a female bus person explained her frustration with the conforming behavior of her older brother who, after living in the United States for over 20 years, has never learned to speak English. She expressed her frustration with his lack of desire to learn the language, which she felt limited his ability to progress in the United States and communicate with anyone who did not speak Spanish. She was confident in her ability to advance, learn the language, obtain a driver’s license, and purchase a home, stating, “Not me! I will not conform. . . . I see people who conform. [They say], ‘I have a job and they speak Spanish there.’”

However, leaving one’s ethnic group is not always possible. With the discrimina-tory treatment of the interviewees by management and blocked career paths because of limited human capital (i.e., English proficiency, relevant work experience, and education) several interviewees felt that, even though they desired to progress, higher level jobs were not available to them. They explained that their managers did not want Hispanic workers to advance because the managers perceived them to be fit only for

Shinnar 565

menial labor-type jobs and wanted to keep them in those positions. For example, a female dishwasher stated, “They see us like laborers. . . . They don’t consider us for anything [else]; we just go there to work, and that’s it.”

In addition, interviewees mentioned some negative outcomes as a result of the attempt to dissociate from their coethnic peer group. Some interviewees reported criticism from coethnic peers when the interviewees tried to pursue higher level jobs. For example, a female cook said, “When people my own race, Latin people . . . see that someone is about to move up, they make sure that this person does not move up.” Furthermore, a certain degree of internal pressure appeared to exist in the group to retain their ethnic identity. A female cook spoke about receiving critical reactions when she tried to comment to coethnic peers on what she felt was inappropriate behavior. For example, when she spoke with other Mexicans about the need to preserve the cleanliness and good repair in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, her peers criticized her by stating, “You’re already [behaving like you’re] from here, [like an] American.” Similarly, a female housekeeper spoke about the negative reactions from her peers when she decided to pursue American citizenship:

I feel bad sometimes because . . . my coworkers tell me—sometimes there are His-panics like me, from Mexico . . . they tell me, ‘You’ve become a citizen, you already think you’re American.’ They say that when one becomes a citizen . . . one betrays the homeland. . . . I tell them, ‘That’s not true.’ I tell them, ‘Because I can’t be the same [like an American], a paper does not change anything.’ I tell them that. But they [respond], ‘No! Because you became a citizen, you already feel like the Americans.’ Well, I tell them it’s not true.

Researchers also documented such critical attitudes among coethnic peers in other studies. For example, successful Hispanic women felt as though they were being viewed by their coethnic community as having sold out for being successful by American standards (Gomez et al., 2001). Another study found that Mexican American students pejoratively referred to their more academically suc-cessful peers as wanting to become White (Matute-Bianchi, 1986), or successful according to White standards. Other such pejorative epithets include oreo, apple, coconut, which imply that “such people are racially distinctive physically (are people of color on the outside) but have become culturally like the majority (on the inside), referring to values, beliefs, etc.” (Vázquez & García-Vázquez, 2001, p. 326). Because the approval of one’s in-group can be of great importance, especially when one is part of a minority, some individuals may be weary of distancing themselves from their coethnic in-group. For those individuals who perceive it to be too difficult to leave their ethnic group because of discrimination or critical feedback from coethnic peers, other options for coping with negative social identity exist.

Social creativity. P3 suggested that Mexican immigrants who perceive negative social identity would engage in social creativity. Social creativity includes three


courses of action: (a) searching for new dimensions or characteristics of one’s in-group that result in a more favorable intergroup comparison; (b) changing the interpretation of some group characteristics, which will result in a more favorable intergroup comparison; or (c) searching for new referent groups for intergroup comparisons, which will result in a more favorable evaluation of the in-group. A new dimension for intergroup comparisons identified in interviews was the focus on family values. A female server assistant spoke about the lack of family values among Americans. She critiqued a coworker who had not seen her child in 5 years, something this woman considered unacceptable. She felt, “It’s like [the Americans] don’t give any value to the family.” Using commitment to fam-ily values as a new dimension for intergroup comparison, she saw Mexicans as superior to Americans. Other applications of social creativity include modifying the interpretation of certain group characteristics. This application took on two distinct forms. First, some individuals changed their interpretation of the jobs that Mexicans typically held. Rather than adopting the view that Mexicans are capable of only menial labor-type jobs, they chose to focus on and take pride in the fact that Mexicans are hard workers. Others changed the dimension of Mexicans being in low-status positions by focusing on the characteristics of these jobs, namely identifying them as honest or decent rather than undesirable, menial-labor jobs.

Several interviewees proudly identified Mexicans as hard workers who do honest work. Jetten, Schmitt, Branscombe, and McKimmie (2005) have already identified increased in-group respect as a response to threats to the value of one’s in-group as a coping mechanism. By taking pride in the identity of the hard worker and the fact that this characteristic is a quality inherent to Mexicans, interviewees were focusing on what they perceived to be a positive attribute of their group, as evidenced by statements like “the Mexican works hard” (male houseman) or “the Latino is a good worker” (female utility porter). A female housekeeper who was called a “stupid Mexican” by her supervisor made a particularly strong statement when, deeply offended, she responded, “Yes, I am Mexican. I don’t deny that. But I am not stupid, and my work—I know how to do it!” Similarly, a female cook felt proud when an Anglo coworker told her that “you guys [Mexicans] are very good workers.” A male houseman used this characteristic to favorably compare Mexicans with Anglos:

The Mexican is a better worker than the American. The Mexican builds homes; the Mexican goes to the fields; the Mexican works in everything. The American wants to work only in easy jobs and well-paid jobs. And the Mexican does not care if he is paid 5 dollars an hour, or 20, or 30. The Mexican works harder and the American always works, but in easy jobs.

Two female interviewees focused on the low status of their jobs but neverthe-less took pride in them by stressing that these were dignified and honest jobs. For example, a female housekeeper stated:

Shinnar 567

I think that anything is a good job if you put effort into it. I mean, you have to put effort into it. . . . Sometimes people say, ‘Oh, you clean rooms.’ And so one says, ‘Yes, I clean rooms, because it’s a dignified job; it’s a decent job.’ So I think that any job is good, as long as it’s dignified and decent.”

Similarly, a female cook mentioned her way of coping with the frustration of having held a low-status job on arriving in the United States: “It’s very frustrating, very frustrating, because there [in Mexico], I worked in a bank, which was what I studied. . . . But [cleaning houses, bathrooms] is honest work.”

The third variation of social creativity refers to individuals’ search for new referent groups for intergroup comparisons, which will result in a better evalu-ation of their ethnic group. For some interviewees, a comparison with the peer group at a different time period, namely other Mexican immigrants in the past, resulted in a favorable comparison because of the progress the group achieved over time. For example, a male bartender stated:

Personally, it satisfies me a lot that there are more Hispanics and that . . . well, more than anything that they are getting ahead. . . . Lately, Hispanics can be seen even in politics. . . . it makes you feel better—right? . . . to see a Hispanic who is getting ahead, who is advancing. You can have something to say, being an immigrant who has come to this country without anything. [You] can reach something like that.

A female housekeeper’s statement clearly identifies satisfaction and pride in the progress of her ethnic group across time:

It’s something that you see, that sometimes people say, ‘I was cleaning floors and I was able to give my son a career.’ And that makes one feel that—well, if she could do it, why not me? That’s good, that’s a good example for you to advance. I think that this isn’t a reason to feel badly. On the contrary, it’s good. We’re gaining points as Latinos.

It is surprising that a few other interviewees chose to compare their pres-ent situation to that of their Anglo coworkers. Even though Anglo coworkers are members of the majority group, interviewees perceived this comparison to be favorable because of the satisfaction derived from having achieved the same occupational status as their Anglo coworkers in spite of the perceived advantages that Anglos have in terms of citizenship status and English-language proficiency. For example, a female housekeeper stated, “There are people who were born here in this country and they’re working in the same job as we are.” Also, a female bus person said, “They were born in this country. They have their language. They are American citizens. This opens doors everywhere, and still they are there, making the same salary as I am.”

Social competition. Last, P4 suggested that Mexican immigrants who perceive negative social identity would engage in social action to change the perceptions of their group. Although large-scale, collective social action to promote changes was


not mentioned by any of the interviewees, some felt that they should engage in responsible behaviors to contribute to the eradication of the negative stereotypes associated with Mexican immigrants. A female food server felt that every Mexi-can living in the United States had a responsibility to behave in ways that would eliminate negative stereotypes rather than perpetuate them. A female cook voiced a similar view by stating, “We [Mexicans] are responsible for the fact that they [Anglos] want to run us out, that they want us out of here.” Interviewees described desirable behaviors as working and being self-sufficient rather than relying on the welfare system to support one’s family. A male cook expressed anger at Latinos who abused the system and used government support:

Many people take advantage of that, and I don’t like it. I don’t like to take advantage . . . [by saying something] like ‘I am the only one working. (My wife is not working.) Let’s ask the government for food.’ I don’t like that. . . . It’s better to have a little, but I don’t want people to speak badly of us.

Other interviewees also spoke of the importance and the honor of being self-suf-ficient, expressing dissatisfaction with those people who rely on government support when they could be working. A female bus person felt that it was normal for Anglos to resent Latinos because “there are people out there in society who look at you badly because they think you are taking away things from their country. They think that, for example, the immigrant comes only to ask [for food] stamps or welfare.”

Pursuing career progression was also seen as a way to change the perceptions held by Anglos of Mexicans living in the United States. For example, a female housekeeper expressed her desire to show Anglos that Latinos can do better through career progression. She felt that by achieving career advancement, “the White person should also see that we also came to improve our lives, just like them—who live here.” Similarly, Arbona (1996) found that Hispanic students believed that success would prove the majority-held negative stereotypes of His-panics to be wrong. The desire to break stereotypes was also identified among highly acculturated Asian Americans who had a “higher tendency to choose traditionally closed occupations to prove to European Americans they are not ste-reotypically Asian” (Leong & Serafica, 2001, p. 197). Last, a female food server discussed the image she felt Americans held of Mexican immigrants, an image that was gradually changing thanks to the progress they have made.

Before, it was [that Mexicans] came and they could speak nothing, not even one word of English. They only came to work in the fields. And [the Anglos] saw, like, that’s how these people are. Well, this isn’t so [anymore]. The [Mexicans] know other things. And on the contrary, now we are quickly placing ourselves all the way into politics and in important government positions, in businesses. And [the Anglos] will see.

She stressed the importance of learning English as a tool to demonstrate to Anglos that Latinos are equally capable of progressing.

Shinnar 569

Conclusion

Some of the interviewees in this study felt that they held low social and occu-pational status in the United States. In all, 12 of 17 interviewees reported feelings associated with negative social identity, which triggered the need to cope. On the basis of this study, it appears that all three coping mechanisms are used to various degrees. Interviewees saw individual mobility, in the form of career progression, as a way to dissociate themselves from conforming behaviors of coethnic peers. However, career progression was not always a viable option in the face of discrimi-nation or other barriers such as limited proficiency in English or limited educational attainment. Yet, as indicated by one of the interviewees, progressing at work does not eliminate experiences of discrimination but may actually increase them when non-Latino coworkers resent that progress. Furthermore, critique from in-group members may make leaving their group psychologically taxing.

Social creativity appeared to be used more often among Mexican immi-grants, which occurred in three different ways. First, individuals focused on new dimensions for intergroup comparisons, such as the focus on family values. Sec-ond, individuals changed the interpretation of a group attribute, focusing on its positive aspect, such as viewing Mexicans as hard workers and viewing work as honorable and decent rather than dirty. Third, individuals engaged in comparisons with alternative referent groups, such as Mexican immigrants in the past or Anglo coworkers, which results in a more favorable comparison. This finding offers some answers to Brown’s (2000) question as to referent selection in intergroup comparisons, indicating both downward (with other Mexican immigrants) and upward (with Anglos or established Mexican immigrants and Mexican Ameri-cans) comparisons.

Participants made no mention of collective action. In fact, the May 1, 2006 Day Without Immigrants (which occurred after this study was conducted) had only moderate impact in Las Vegas (Smith, 2006). However, there was some indication that participants used social competition at the individual level in an effort to engage in behaviors that would change the perceptions held by Anglos of Mexicans in the United States. Study participants believed that changing the perceptions was achievable by avoiding the abuse of public assistance through the pursuit of career progression and acquiring English-language skills as a way to demonstrate to Anglos that Mexicans are equally capable.

This study has a few limitations. First, it focused on a single industry, the Las Vegas hospitality industry. Second, the sample, although representative of most of the employment categories held by Hispanic immigrants in the Las Vegas hospitality industry, is somewhat different demographically from the typi-cal Mexican immigrant in the United States. Interviewees were slightly older, more educated, and of longer U.S. tenure than the typical Hispanic immigrant (Guzmán, 2001). Third, the present study used a single data-collection method. Hackett (1997) recommended triangulating data through diverse data sources as


a way to strengthen qualitative studies, because “triangulating multiple sources of data can enhance the applicability of the results in a qualitative study” (Richie et al., 1997, p.146). However, given the method of obtaining access, I was unable to conduct observations at, for example, the interviewees’ places of employment, which could have been another possible data-collection method. Last, a fourth limitation is that, although I am familiar with “the issues of importance to the population being studied” (Fassinger, 2001, p. 278) and am an immigrant myself, I am not of Hispanic origin. However, one of the research assistants who partici-pated in the data analysis was of Hispanic origin.

The present study offers some clear evidence in support of the mechanisms used to cope with negative social identity as identified in past studies (Blanz et al., 1998; Breilinger & Kelly, 1994; Mummendey et al., 1999). Future research could further test these findings, possibly by using a quantitative tool. As the Hispanic minority continues to grow and the immigration debate continues to shape public opinion, it will be increasingly important to identify some of the psychological coping mechanisms that Hispanics, whether immigrant or native born, use to cope with stereotypes and negative social identity. Finally, it would be interesting to investigate the implications of negative social identity on indi-vidual desires to acculturate into American society, acquire English skills, and pursue citizenship.

AUTHOR NOTE

Rachel S. Shinnar is a faculty fellow and an assistant professor in the Department of Management of the Walker College of Business at Appalachian State University. Her research interests include investigating work-related issues in the Hispanic community such as work motivation, employee relations, organizational communication, and upward mobility, as well as general work-life experiences of Hispanic immigrants in North America such as financial decision making and social identity.

REFERENCES

Arbona, C. (1996). Career theory and practice in a multicultural context. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. 45–54). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Bernhardt, A., Dresser, L., & Hatton, E. (2003). The coffee pot wars: Unions and firm restructuring in the hotel industry. In E. Appelbaum, A. Bernhardt, and R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Low wage America: How employers are reshaping opportunity in the workplace (pp. 33–76). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., Mielke, R., & Klink, A. (1998). Responding to negative social identity: A taxonomy of identity management strategies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 697–729.

Breilinger, S., & Kelly, C. (1994). Women’s responses to status inequality: A test of social identity theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 1–16.

Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brodie, M., Suro, R., Steffenson, A., Valdez, J., & Lenvin, R. (2002). National survey of

Latinos. Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/15.pdf

Shinnar 571

Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievement, current problems, and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.

Buriel, R., & Vasquez, R. (1982). Stereotypes of Mexican descent persons: Attitudes of three generations of Mexican Americans and Anglo-American adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 59–72.

Casas, J. M., Ponterotto, J. G., & Sweeney, M. (1987). Stereotyping the stereotyper: A Mexican American perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 45–47.

Castano, E., Paladino, M. P., Coull, A., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2002). Protecting the ingroup stereotype: Ingroup identification and the management of deviant ingroup members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 365–385.

Cortés, C. E. (1993). Power, passivity, and pluralism: Mass media and the development of Latino culture and identity. Latino Studies Journal, 4, 3–22.

Deaux, K., Reid, A., Martin, D., & Bikmen, N. (2006). Ideologies of diversity and inequal-ity: Predicting collective action in groups varying in ethnicity and immigrant status. Political Psychology, 27, 123–146.

Dworkin, A. (1965). Stereotypes and self-images held by native-born and foreign-born Mexican Americans. Sociology and Social Research, 49, 214–224.

Ellemers, N. (2002). Social identity and relative deprivation. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 239–264). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fassinger, R. E. (2001). Diversity at work: Research issues in vocational development. In D. Pope-Davis & H. Coleman (Eds.), The intersection of race, class, and gender in multicultural counseling (pp. 267–288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gomez, M. J., Cooke, K., Fassinger, R. E., Prosser, J., Mejia, B., & Luna, J. (2001). Voces abriendo caminos (voices forging paths): A qualitative study of the career development of notable Latinas. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 286–300.

Guzmán, B. (2001). The Hispanic population: Census brief 2000. Retrieved on May 22, 2003, from www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf

Hackett, G. (1997). Promise and problems in theory and research on women’s career devel-opment: Comments on Lucas (1997), Richie et al. (1997), McCracken and Weitzman (1997), Rainey and Borders (1997), and Schaefers, Epperson, and Nauta (1997). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 184–188.

Hernandez, T. J. (1995). The career trinity: Puerto Rican college students and their struggle for identity and power. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 23, 103–115.

Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572.

Hirose, Y., Taresawa, Y., & Okuda, T. (2005). Collective action and subordinate group identity in a simulated society game. Japanese Psychological Research, 47, 12–21.

Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204–1213.

Jetten, J., Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & McKimmie, B. M. (2005). Suppressing the negative effect of devaluation on group identification: The role of intergroup differentia-tion and intragroup respect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 208–215.

Jones, M. (1991). Stereotyping Hispanics and Whites: Perceived differences in social roles as a determinant of ethnic stereotypes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 469–476.

King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 11–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Kochhar, R. (2005). Latino labor report, 2004: More jobs for new immigrants but for lower wages. Pew Hispanic Center Report. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from http://pewhis-panic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=45

Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Leong, F. T. L., & Serafica, F. C. (2001). Career development of Asian Americans: A research area in need of a good theory. In F. T. L. Leong & A. Barak (Eds.), Contem-porary models in vocational psychology: A volume in honor of Samuel H. Osipow (pp. 167–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Limón, J. E. (1992). Stereotyping and Chicano resistance: An historical dimension. In C. A. Noriega (Ed.), Chicanos and film: Essays on Chicano representation and resistance (pp. 3–20). New York: Garland Publishing.

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The ‘black sheep effect’: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Ethnic identities and patterns of school failure among Mexican descent and Japanese American students in a California high-school: An eth-nographic analysis. American Journal of Education, 95, 233–255.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 41. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miville, M. L., Koonce, D., Darlington, P., & Whitlock, B. (2000). Exploring the rela-tionships between racial/cultural identity and ego identity among African-Americans and Mexican Americans. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 28, 208–224.

Morrow, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (2000). Qualitative research for counseling psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lend (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 199–230). New York: Wiley.

Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, T., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with nega-tive social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229–245.

Padilla, A. M., & Perez, W. (2003). Acculturation, social identity, and social cognition: A new perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 35–55.

Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Phinney, J. S., Chavaria, V., & Tate, J. D. (1992). The effect of ethnic threat on ethnic self-concept and own-group ratings. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 469–478.

Richie, B. S., Fassinger, R. E., Linn, S. G., Johnson, J., Prosser, J., & Robinson, S. (1997). Persistence, connection, and passion: A qualitative study of the career development of highly achieving African American-Black and White women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 133–148.

Rogler, H. L., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. (1991). Acculturation and mental health status among Hispanics. American Psychologist, 45, 585–597.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rubinkam, M. (2005, November 19). Immigration raid nets 125 illegal workers at Wal-Mart facility. AP Worldstream. Retrieved May 22, 2006 from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-115426702.html

Shinnar 573


Sanchez, G. J. (1997). Face of the nation: Race, immigration, and the rise of nativism in late twentieth century America. International Migration Review, 31, 1009–1030

Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Silvia, P. J., Garcia, D. M., & Spears, R. (2006). Categorizing at the group-level in response to intragroup social comparisons: A self- categorization theory integration of self-evaluation and social identity motives. Euro-pean Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 297–314.

Sears, D. O., Fu, M., Henry, P. J., & Bui, K. (2003). The origins of ethnic identity among the “new immigrant” groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 419–437.

Shinnar, R. S. (2007). Individual and contextual barriers to career progression among Mexican immigrants. Journal of Career Development, 33, 338–375.

Smith, R. (2006, May 21). Inside gaming: Immigrant protest has little effect on strip. Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved May 22, 2006 from, http://www.reviewjournal .com/lvrj_home/2006/May-21-Sun-2006/business/7476202.html

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Stevenson, R. W. (2004, March 6). Bush is considering waiver for Mexicans entering U.S. New York Times, p. A4.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proce-dures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 61–76). New York: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup behavior (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.

Torres, L., & Rollock, D. (2004). Acculturative distress among Hispanics: The role of acculturation, coping, and intercultural competence. Journal of Multicultural Counsel-ing and Development, 32, 155–167.

Turner, J., & Brown, R. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives, and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 201–234). New York: Academic Press.

Vázquez, L. A., & García-Vázquez, E. (2001). The impact of phenotype on gender and class for Southwestern Hispanic Americans. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), The intersection of race, class, and gender in multicultural counseling (pp. 323–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Waddoups, C. J., & Eade, V. H. (2002). Hotels and casinos: Collective bargaining during a decade of expansion. Retrieved March 15, 2006 from, http://www.unlv.edu/faculty/wad-doups/WaddoupsEadeIRRAProject.DOC

Wright, S. C., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Collective action in response to disadvantage: Inter-group perceptions, social identification, and social change. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 200–238). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmerman, A., Valbrun, M., Stringer K., & Porter, E. (2003, October 24). Raid rounds of 300 illegals at Wal-Mart. Wall Street Journal [Eastern Edition], 242(82), p. B1.

Received March 19, 2007Accepted October 14, 2007

APPENDIXInterview Protocol

1. Please tell me about your work. What do you do? Describe a typical day at work. What do you usually do on a typical day? 2. How do you feel about your work? Do you like your work? What do you like about your work? What do you dislike? 3. Please describe your relationships with people at work (coworkers, supervisors, managers, customers/guests). Please tell me about your managers; how would you describe your relationship with them? Please tell me about your coworkers; how would you describe your relationship with them? Please tell me about the customers/guests; how would you describe your relationship with them? [Ask interviewee to describe specific incidents of interaction—positive or negative.] 4. [If interviewee brings up ethnicity of peers/supervisors/managers, ask:] Is the relationship with your coworkers influenced by the fact that you are Latino/a? How about your supervisors and managers? Does ethnicity influence the relationship? How does it feel to be a Latino/a working in a casino hotel in Las Vegas? 5. If a family member from Mexico wanted to come to Las Vegas to work in a hotel, what would you tell him/her? What advice would you give him/her? What reasons would you give for coming/not coming to work in Las Vegas? 6. Can you give me some examples of how working in Las Vegas is better/ worse than working in Mexico/other U.S. city? What differences have you found between work in the U.S. and Mexico? Where would you rather work—in the U.S. or Mexico? 7. Would you want to do a different kind of job? Do you sometimes think of doing a different kind of job? Did you ever act on this desire? 8. What prevented you from acting on this desire? What happened that prevented you from changing jobs? If you would apply for another promotion/transfer today, what would you do differently? 9. Would you want to be a supervisor or manager? What are some of the reasons for not wanting to be a supervisor? What are some of the reasons you feel that being a supervisor is desirable? What would you need to do to be promoted or to become a supervisor or manager? 10. If I were to ask you to describe yourself, what would you tell me? Assuming I want to know who you are, what information would I need to be able to describe you? Choose three words to describe yourself. [If interviewee is having a hard time, offer examples such as other Latinos, other union members, or coworkers.]

Shinnar 575

��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

shinnar 2008

Documents