Abstract
Perceived discrimination has been found to be a common acculturative stressor among migrants negatively affecting their psychological acculturation process. Yet, a comprehensive review that focuses on how perceived discrimination is conceptualized and operationalized in the acculturation context is still missing. Furthermore, it is still unclear whether subtle and blatant forms of discrimination have been considered and compared in their effects in the acculturation literature, albeit some research suggests that the distinction between these two forms of discrimination is relevant and should be considered. Following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute, the present scoping review aimed to provide a systematic map of how perceived discrimination has been studied in the literature on first-generation adult immigrants’ psychological acculturation. A comprehensive search was executed in three databases (EBSCO, Scopus, and Web of Science), and 2,872 relevant sources were identified. A total of 143 studies were included after screening abstracts and full texts. A systematic coding scheme was then applied to all included articles. Results showed that 80% of the studies were cross-sectional and/or considered discrimination as a predictor of psychological outcomes, while other variables, for example, acculturation orientations and identity constructs, have been much less studied. Perceived discrimination was measured with over 50 different scales, yet only 10% of the studies made a clear conceptual difference between subtle and blatant discrimination. Moreover, the operationalization of these two forms of discrimination was often ambiguous. The present review identifies important knowledge gaps in the acculturation literature and draws recommendations for future research.
In 2020, there were 281 million international migrants worldwide, according to the International Organization for Migrations’ estimates (McAuliffe & Triandafyllidou, 2021). The term “migrant” refers to any person moving away from his or her place of usual residence, temporarily or permanently, and for a variety of reasons (Sironi et al., 2019). Upon contact with members of their receiving country, migrants undergo a process of cultural and psychological change commonly referred to as acculturation (Horenczyk et al., 2013; Sam & Berry, 2010). Moreover, when individuals migrate from one country to another, they become part of a cultural minority group which is often underprivileged in the receiving country, having less or more difficult access to resources and being exposed to several minority stressors (Meyer, 2003), including discrimination.
Discrimination is widely defined as a phenomenon rooted into social structures of power, legitimized by ideological systems, and manifested at different levels (e.g., interpersonal, institutional, structural) through behaviors that aim to maintain the status and privileges of the dominant groups, at the cost or disadvantage of other groups (Krieger, 1999). Perceived discrimination refers then to the subjective belief of being a target of discrimination, which occurs when individuals attribute the experience of unfair treatment to prejudice toward their group membership (de Freitas et al., 2018; Major et al., 2002). There is cumulative evidence that perceived discrimination is negatively related to individuals’ psychological and physical health (Schmitt et al., 2014). Moreover, evidence shows that perceived discrimination is an important part of the psychological acculturation process of migrants, which entails the complex psychological changes that occur at the individual level as a result of contact with a new culture (Berry, 1997; Sam & Berry, 2010). Yet, discrimination is multifaceted, can manifest itself in different forms, and the way in which it is expressed and perceived may have different associations with migrants’ outcomes. While discrimination can be expressed overtly, for example, through yelling or physical violence, it can also manifest itself more covertly, as in the case of micro-insults and microinvalidations (Sue, 2010). These two different expressions of discrimination, also referred to as blatant (overt) and subtle (covert) discrimination, may not be equivalent in how they shape migrants’ acculturation experiences. However, it is not clear yet to what extent they have been distinguished and separately studied in the context of first-generation immigrants’ acculturation, that is, individuals who are foreign-born and voluntarily moved and permanently settled in their receiving society. Moreover, the existence of numerous acculturation constructs and measures contributes to the creation of a scattered state of the art (Rudmin, 2009), hindering scholars’ attempts to systematize results and gain a clearer picture of the field.
Existing reviews including first-generation immigrants have provided only a glimpse of the role of perceived discrimination in the context of psychological acculturation. Most of these reviews have not specifically focused on perceived discrimination, but rather considered it as one of the many stressors affecting acculturation (e.g., Bierwiaczonek & Waldzus, 2016; Fanfan & Stacciarini, 2020; Rudmin, 2009; Wilson et al., 2013). Furthermore, these reviews did not exclusively focus on first-generation immigrants (Bierwiaczonek & Waldzus, 2016) or only considered specific acculturation constructs (e.g., psychological or sociocultural adaptation outcomes, Bierwiaczonek & Waldzus, 2016; Wilson et al., 2013), geographical contexts (e.g., the United States or the European context, de Freitas et al., 2018; Fanfan & Stacciarini, 2020), or ethnic groups (e.g., Latinos, Fanfan & Stacciarini, 2020). Most importantly, to the best of our knowledge, none of the previously conducted reviews clearly distinguishes between subtle and blatant perceived discrimination.
In sum, every year, millions of immigrants voluntarily cross international borders to settle in foreign countries, where they are likely to encounter some form of discrimination, primarily enacted by the members of the receiving society. Consequently, a growing number of studies have adopted different methodologies, constructs, and measures to examine the role of discrimination within first-generation immigrants’ psychological acculturation process, and the field calls for a systematization of the state of the art (Rudmin, 2009). The present scoping review aims to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of how perceived discrimination—and, in particular, its subtle and blatant forms—has been studied, conceptualized, and operationalized in the literature on first-generation immigrants’ psychological acculturation processes. Our ultimate aim is to provide a map of the key concepts and constructs used to study perceived discrimination in the psychological acculturation literature, to better understand how they relate to each other and to get a better insight into the antecedents, consequences, and underlying psychological processes in this context.
Theoretical Frameworks Used to Study Psychological Acculturation
Over several decades, acculturation has been widely studied by anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists, who proposed a variety of models and theoretical frameworks to study the process and its outcomes (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006; Berry, 1997; Schwartz et al., 2010; Ward, 2001; Ward et al., 2016). While acculturation can be more broadly conceptualized as a mutual intergroup process involving beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of the migrant groups, as well as their receiving societies (Horenczyk et al., 2013), psychological acculturation refers to an individual-level process, which has often been examined from the perspective of migrants.
In an attempt to systematize the acculturation literature, Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2006) conceptualized the psychological acculturation process by considering three groups of variables: acculturation conditions, orientations, and outcomes. Acculturation conditions refer to the context in which individuals acculturate, including the characteristics of the migrants’ receiving society and heritage culture, perceived intergroup relations, and perceptions of discrimination. Acculturation orientations refer to the extent to which migrants (a) seek to maintain the identity and characteristics of their heritage culture and (b) get in contact with and participate in the receiving society (Berry, 1997, 2006a). These two elements can be seen as the two axes of a matrix (i.e., high/low culture maintenance vs. high/low intergroup contact), which generate four different acculturation strategies when combined: integration (high culture maintenance and high intergroup contact), assimilation (low culture maintenance and high intergroup contact), separation (high culture maintenance and low intergroup contact), and marginalization (low culture maintenance and low intergroup contact; Berry, 1997, 2006a; Sam & Berry, 2010). Acculturation orientations and strategies shape the acculturation process by linking acculturation conditions to adaptation outcomes (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006), which occur at the psychological (i.e., affect, mental health, and wellbeing), sociocultural (i.e., cultural learning and competency), and cognitive level (i.e., via social identification; Ward, 2001). Following the framework of Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2006) framework, in the present review, we refer to “psychological acculturation process” as a comprehensive term to describe acculturation conditions, orientations and outcomes. Moreover, we focus on a specific acculturation condition: perceived discrimination.
Perceived discrimination—especially when enacted from the receiving majority—can be considered as a societal stressor for the migrant minority group (Demes & Geeraert, 2014). It represents a risk factor which can affect migrants’ acculturation orientations and outcomes, since it is known to harm mental health and wellbeing, possibly motivating them to separate from the receiving society, therefore limiting their culture-learning process (Berry, 1997, 2006b; Bierwiaczonek & Waldzus, 2016). In turn, migrants’ acculturation orientations and outcomes may also affect the extent to which they perceive discrimination (e.g., individuals who prefer marginalization strategies have been found to report more experiences of discrimination; Berry et al., 2006). Consequently, a more coherent approach to psychological acculturation should consider discrimination as a potential condition as well as a potential outcome of this process.
First-Generation Immigrants
The term “migrant” is a comprehensive term, not defined under international law, that includes individuals with different characteristics, origins, and motives (Sironi et al., 2019). Migrants can be characterized based on their type of mobility (temporary vs. permanent) and the voluntariness of their migration (voluntary vs. forced; Berry, 2006a). Temporary migrants who voluntarily migrate include sojourners, expatriates, and international students, while forced migrants fall into the categories of refugees and asylum seekers. Immigrants, or first-generation immigrants, are individuals who voluntarily migrate from their usual place of residence to permanently settle in a new country (van Oudenhoven, 2006). Immigrants’ children and their descendants are still considered migrants by some scholars (and referred to as second-, third-, and further-generation immigrants), while others consider them to be members of ethnocultural minority groups (Berry, 2006a; van Oudenhoven, 2006). Nonetheless, scholars agree that different migrant groups undergo different psychological acculturation processes. For example, the extent to which migrants retain their heritage culture and enter in contact with receiving nationals depends, among others, on their motivation, length of stay in the receiving country, and expectations. For instance, first-generation immigrants may have certain expectations about life in their new country because of the permanent and voluntary nature of their stay, which can differ largely from the motivations of temporary and forced migrants (van Oudenhoven, 2006). Therefore, the psychological acculturation processes of different migrant groups should be studied as separate phenomena, which may relate to different conditions (e.g., perceptions of discrimination) and consequences (Berry, 2006a; Ward, 2001). Moreover, the applicability of the psychological acculturation framework to ethnocultural minority groups (including second-, third-, and further-generation immigrants) is limited, since acculturation outcomes such as sociocultural adaptation (i.e., knowledge about cultural norms) are usually not an issue for individuals with an ethnic minority background who were born and socialized in the receiving society of their immigrant ascendants. Applying the psychological acculturation framework to second- and further-generation immigrants may even be problematic from an ethical epistemological point of view because it means that they are considered to be perpetual foreigners, that is, as never belonging to the country they were born in. Hence, when the aim is to examine the role of perceived discrimination within the context of psychological acculturation, it is more meaningful to focus on first-generation immigrants.
Perceived Subtle and Blatant Discrimination
Over the years, due to the spread of antiprejudice norms, blatant expressions of discrimination have become increasingly less accepted, and more subtle forms of discrimination have emerged (Duckitt, 2010). Blatant discrimination (also known as old-fashioned or overt discrimination) is commonly defined as the explicit and intentional unfair treatment of an individual based on his or her belonging to a stigmatized or socially disadvantaged group, which is usually expressed (and perceived) in the form of overt insults, violent behaviors, and other explicit displays of prejudice (Jones et al., 2016).
On the other hand, subtle discrimination has been defined in multiple ways over the years. For example, Swim and Cohen (1997) defined subtle sexism as the “openly unequal and harmful treatment of women that goes unnoticed because it is perceived to be customary or normal behaviour” (p. 104). This definition could be easily adapted to understand subtle discrimination against other underprivileged groups, such as migrant minorities. Other scholars have looked at subtle discrimination through the framework of microaggressions, defined as everyday subtle snubs, insults, and indignities perceived to convey negative and denigrating messages to individuals because of their group membership (Sue, 2010). More recently, Jones and colleagues (2016) defined subtle discrimination “as negative or ambivalent demeanour and/or treatment enacted toward social minorities on the basis of their minority status membership that are not necessarily conscious and likely convey ambiguous intent” (p. 4). Their meta-analytic review found that the effects of perceiving subtle discrimination on psychological correlates in the work domain were at least as negative as those of blatant discrimination. Although the study did not determine whether subtle discrimination provides incremental validity beyond blatant discrimination, the authors proposed that subtle discrimination deserves equal consideration and attention to blatant discrimination. Their results are in line with what scholars already stipulated about subtle discrimination three decades ago by emphasizing that “the ambiguity surrounding both positive and negative [subtle] treatment that may result from covert prejudice is problematical for the stigmatized individual” (Crocker & Major, 1989, p. 621). Hence, it is crucial to better understand to what extent perceived subtle discrimination has been studied in the psychological acculturation literature and what its role is in immigrants’ psychological acculturation processes.
For the purpose of this study, and based on previous definitions, we define perceived subtle discrimination as the individual perception of unfair, stereotypical, or prejudiced 1 treatment, based on one’s membership to one or more stigmatized and underprivileged groups, that is expressed through covert and commonplace behaviors, as well as through derogatory, often ambiguous, and likely to be socially, morally, and legally accepted messages, such as jokes, micro-insults, and invalidations (Jones et al., 2016; Major et al., 2002; Nelson, 2009; Sue, 2010; Swim & Cohen, 1997). Because of its ambiguity and subjectivity in how it is perceived, subtle discrimination often overlaps with definitions of perceived discrimination. However, we consider it important to distinguish subtle from perceived discrimination as the latter should be seen as an umbrella concept encompassing any kind of subjective experience (or processing) of discrimination, regardless of whether it is expressed in subtle or blatant ways.
Perceptions of blatant and explicit discrimination have been commonly linked with negative psychological and physical outcomes (Jones et al., 2016). Similarly, although seemingly more innocuous, subtle forms of discrimination such as microaggressions have been hypothesized to be energy-depleting and thus especially harmful for individuals’ mental health due to their ambiguous and cumulative nature (Major et al., 2002; Sue, 2010). Hence, they imply a great psychological and emotional cost for those who are the targets of this form of discrimination. For example, studies have linked microaggressions with negative emotions, mental health symptoms, psychological distress, and low psychological adjustment among minority members (Lui & Quezada, 2019; Wong et al., 2014). Yet, research about subtle discrimination toward first-generation immigrants seems to be particularly scarce (Wong et al., 2014), possibly because these immigrants are often deemed not to be proficient in the language of their country of settlement, and thus not aware of subtle forms of discrimination, which are more covert and mostly encoded into language (Ng, 2007). However, this may not be the case for those immigrants who are already fluent in the language of the receiving country upon arrival, especially for those who move between countries that share a colonial history (e.g., Brazilian migrants moving to Portugal, Argentinians to Spain, Moroccans to France, Indians to the UK, etc.). Moreover, in the context of first-generation immigrants’ psychological acculturation, it is still unclear to what extent scholars have distinguished between subtle and blatant forms of perceived discrimination.
The Present Review
The present scoping review aimed to map and systematize the literature about first-generation immigrants’ perceived discrimination within a psychological acculturation framework. Given that the psychological acculturation framework cannot be fully applied to second- and further-generation migrants and that psychological acculturation processes vary based on migrants’ type of mobility (permanent or temporary) and their motives (voluntary or forced migration), we decided to focus exclusively on the experiences of first-generation, adult immigrants, defined as foreign-born individuals who voluntarily moved and permanently settled in their receiving country (Berry, 2006a; van Oudenhoven, 2006). Guided by the theoretical framework proposed by Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2006), we aimed to identify (a) the methodologies, constructs, and scales used to study perceived discrimination in the psychological acculturation process; (b) the extent to which researchers distinguished between subtle and blatant forms of perceived discrimination; (c) the findings regarding the association between perceived discrimination and acculturation orientations and outcomes and the underlying psychological processes studied (predictors, mediators, moderators, and outcomes). Moreover, consistent with the theoretical framework adopted here, we keep our focus on perceived discrimination as immigrants’ subjective experience of unfair treatment from the receiving majority group.
Methods
Scoping Review
The present scoping review was conducted following the general framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and the guidelines defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (Aromataris & Munn, 2020; The Joanna Briggs Institute [JBI], 2015). A scoping review allows to explore the breadth and depth of the state of the art and seeks to provide a descriptive overview of the reviewed material (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Munn et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2014). Scoping reviews are especially useful in complex and heterogeneous research fields, since they focus on comprehending the state of the art, identifying knowledge gaps, and clarifying key concepts (JBI, 2015; Peters et al., 2020). Contrary to systematic reviews, which are often used to confirm current practices in a given field, address any variations in such practices, and identify new ones, scoping reviews examine how research has been conducted in that field by providing an overview of the prominent theoretical constructs and of the available evidence (Munn et al., 2018).
At the beginning of the study, and to define our research questions and objectives, we conducted a desk review of already published reviews in the fields of discrimination and acculturation. None of the reviews that we identified (e.g., Bierwiaczonek & Waldzus, 2016; Fanfan & Stacciarini, 2020; Rudmin, 2009; Wilson et al., 2013) focused specifically on perceived discrimination and first-generation immigrants, considered the psychological acculturation framework in its entire breadth, nor sought to distinguish between subtle and blatant forms of discrimination. The objectives, inclusion criteria, and methods for this scoping review were specified in advance and are documented in a pre-registered protocol, published on OSF.io. 2
Search Strategy
We searched the literature and selected keywords about the psychological acculturation process including (a) perceived discrimination, encompassing conceptualizations of subtle forms of discrimination (i.e., microaggressions), in combination with (b) acculturation variables that could be conceptualized as acculturation orientations or outcomes according to the framework of Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2006), and (c) first-generation immigrants. The initial search and identification of records was conducted on March 20, 2021, on Scopus and Web of Science, two online libraries containing the largest number of peer-reviewed journals for social sciences, as well as on EbscoHost, an online platform aggregating several databases (e.g., APA PsychInfo, SciELO, and MEDLINE, see Section 5 of Supplementary Online Materials for more information). The following string was used to search all databases: (Discriminat* OR Prejudic* OR Bias* OR “Unfair treatment*” OR Stigma* OR Racis* OR Xenophob* OR Microaggress* OR Microinsult* OR Microinval* OR Microassault*) AND (*Migrat* OR *Migrant* OR “foreign born*”) AND (Acculturat* OR Adaptat* OR Adjustment). A total of 2,872 unique sources were identified across all chosen databases. We also consulted the reference list of relevant literature reviews in the field (e.g., Bierwiaczonek & Waldzus, 2016; de Freitas et al., 2018; Fanfan & Stacciarini, 2020) and manually identified 10 records that could potentially be included in our review. All steps of the selection process are illustrated in the form of a PRISMA Flow Diagram in Figure 1 (and described in detail in Section 1 of Supplementary Online Materials 3 ).
PRISMA Flow Diagram.
Source of Evidence Screening and Selection
Empirical studies using any type of methodology, as well as secondary studies (i.e., literature reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses), were all considered eligible for review purposes if published (a) in peer-reviewed journal articles (following the methodology of previous scoping reviews in the field, Fanfan & Stacciarini, 2020; and as a proxy for quality of the included resources, Pham et al., 2014), (b) in English, and (c) after 1970, that is, the decade when the concept of subtle discrimination was first introduced (Duckitt, 2010). To be included, sources had to consider (a) immigrants’ perceived discrimination as enacted by the members of the receiving society, (b) as part of the psychological acculturation process (i.e., include at least one psychological acculturation construct falling under the theoretical model proposed by Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver [2006] of (c) first-generation, adult (older than 18 years) immigrants, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, country of origin, or country of settlement. Second-generation and following generations of migrants, ethnocultural groups, sojourners, refugees, asylum seekers, underage migrants, undocumented migrants, and clinical populations (i.e., migrants with chronic or pathological physical and mental health conditions) were not included in this review. However, sources comparing two or more groups of migrants (e.g., first- and second-generation immigrants; voluntary and forced migrants, etc.) were included to extract information about our population of interest. Sources that did not distinguish between groups or did not disaggregate data for first-generation immigrant groups were excluded.
After detecting and deleting possible duplicates, the inclusion criteria were applied to all sources in a two-phase screening process. First, two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of all sources (k = 2,872 retrieved from databases and k = 10 from other sources) to check whether they fit the inclusion criteria, resulting in 360 included sources. Second, they retrieved the full texts of these 360 sources and screened them again against the inclusion criteria, resulting in 143 included articles (see Figure 1). The full texts of 20 sources were classified as “unretrievable” after several attempts to contact the authors failed. In both screening phases, conflicts and uncertainties were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.
Data Extraction
To extract data from each article, two researchers jointly developed a coding scheme, and the data were coded in SPSS (see Section 1.3 of Supplementary Online Materials for more details). Two independent reviewers pilot tested, discussed, and refined the coding scheme. Subsequently, the main reviewer applied the coding scheme to all remaining articles. To guarantee intercoder consistency, a second reviewer double-checked the data coded from 14 articles (i.e., 10% of the total, as recommended by guidelines for reliability of qualitative coding, O’Connor & Joffe, 2020).
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using SPSS, Excel, and NVivo. First, frequencies and means of categorical and numerical variables were computed in SPSS. Second, a conceptual analysis was conducted by two reviewers, who coded the constructs identified in each study via multiple rounds of analysis and discussion. The identified constructs were first grouped into larger conceptual codes and then organized according to the theoretical framework proposed by Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2006). Third, NVivo was used to conduct a content and thematic analysis of nominal variables (e.g., results from qualitative studies and reviews). To ensure intercoder consistency, a second researcher independently reviewed 20% of the coded data (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020). Finally, tables and evidence maps were computed to facilitate the reading and interpretation of findings. A summary of the relevant information of all included studies is reported in Table A1 in Appendix.
Results
The results presented below are divided into two main parts. First, after describing the characteristics of the sources and samples included, we provide an overview of the concepts used to examine perceived discrimination, acculturation orientations, and outcomes across all studies (including qualitative studies and reviews), as well as of the measures adopted to operationalize these concepts in quantitative studies. It should be noted that, unless specified differently, the frequency numbers reported below represent the absolute count of each concept identified, indicating how many times a concept appeared across all sources. A bubble map (Figure 2) provides a visual summary of the concepts and their frequency. In the second part, we provide a descriptive summary of quantitative findings regarding the relation between perceived discrimination, acculturation orientations, and outcomes. An evidence map (Figure 3) supports the interpretation of these findings. A summary of findings from qualitative studies and reviews can be found in Section 3 of Supplementary Online Materials.
Conceptual Map of Psychological Acculturation Based on the Framework Proposed by Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2006).
Evidence Bubble Map Showing the Frequency of Positive, Negative, or Non-Significant Associations With Outcome Variables From Quantitative Studies With Discrimination as a Predictor.
Source Characteristics
Although we searched for studies published from 1970 (decade of the first conceptualization of subtle discrimination; Duckitt, 2010), all included studies were published between 2000 and 2021, with 69.2% of the studies (k = 99) being published between 2011 and 2020, indicating an increase of interest in examining perceived discrimination in the context of first-generation immigrants’ psychological acculturation in the last decade. Of the 143 included studies, 51% (k = 73) were conducted in the United States, 7.7% (k = 11) in Spain, 7% (k = 10) in Hong Kong, followed by Canada (k = 9), Finland (k = 8), and Australia (k = 6; for a detailed overview, see Table A1 in Appendix).
Most of the included studies adopted a cross-sectional design (k = 117, 81.8%). There were also 12 (8.4%) qualitative, 8 (5.6%) longitudinal, 1 half-longitudinal, 1 quasi-experimental, and 1 mixed-methods design studies. Three literature and systematic reviews were also included. Of the 127 studies adopting quantitative methodologies, 76 (59.8%) used primary data, and 51 (40.2%) used already existing databases. The most often used database (k = 21) was from the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS), conducted between 2002 and 2003, which contains data about the incidence of mental illness and service use among Latino and Asian Americans (Massachussets General Hospital, 2022). Other secondary datasets used were, for example, the INPRES project (Intervening at the Pre-Migration Stage: Providing Tools for Promoting Integration and Adaptation Throughout the Migration Process; k = 3), the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III, 2012–2013; k = 2), and the Korean Mental Health Study (KMHS; k = 2).
Samples Characteristics
Across the 127 included quantitative studies, sample sizes ranged from 74 to 15,006 participants (median = 460), while for qualitative and mixed-methods studies (k = 13), they ranged from 6 to 49 (median = 22). Across all 140 included empirical studies, 94 (67.1%) sampled only first-generation immigrants, while 46 (32.9%) also included other populations (i.e., natives, second- and further-generation immigrants, other migrant populations). In these studies, the percentage of first-generation immigrants ranged from 22.1% to 96.7% (M = 63.11, SD = 17.4).
The average age of first-generation immigrants across all studies ranged from 19.28 to 72.20 (M = 37.49, SD = 8.05, median = 37.55). Yet, about a third of the studies (k = 46; 32.6%) did not report the mean age for the sample or subsample of first-generation immigrants. A few studies sampled only male (k = 4; 2.9%) or female immigrants (k = 18; 12.9%). The percentage of first-generation immigrant females in studies with mixed-gender samples (k = 93) ranged from 20 to 95.3 (M = 57.17, SD = 14.34). In 25 (17.9%) studies, this information was not reported.
Most studies recruited first-generation immigrant participants from several countries (k = 100; 71.4%) and most likely had sampling criteria based on ethnicity, for example, 41 studies (29.2%) focused on Asian immigrants. Similarly, 39 studies (27.9%) focused on Latin American or Hispanic immigrants who had migrated from South and Central America. Seven studies sampled African, 4 studies European, and 1 study Jewish immigrants. Thirty-nine studies (27.9%) sampled participants from specific countries, such as China (k = 10), Korea (k = 5), and Turkey (k = 3; for a detailed overview, see Table A1 in Appendix).
Acculturation Conditions: Perceived Discrimination-Related Concepts and Constructs
We focused our review on studies assessing discrimination from the targets’ (i.e., immigrants) perspective. This form of discrimination was often labeled as perceived discrimination, encompassing perceived group discrimination, perceived prejudice, perceived social exclusion, perceived group hostility, or attributions to prejudice (k = 65). Similarly, some studies referred to discrimination experiences, exposure to discrimination, and social rejection (k = 41). Domain-specific forms of discrimination, such as racial, ethnic, and language discrimination, foreigner objectification, religious-based prejudice, discrimination perceived in the healthcare context and in the neighborhood, and COVID-19 discrimination, were also studied in some cases (k = 34). Other studies included everyday discrimination (also referred to as daily or recurrent discrimination, k = 12), vicarious discrimination, and anticipated discrimination (k = 6).
Table SM.1. in Supplementary Online Materials shows the way perceived discrimination-related concepts were operationalized across all quantitative studies. The most frequently used measures for discrimination were the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS, k = 8, D. R. Williams et al., 1997) and the discrimination measure from the NLAAS (k = 21), which consists of multiple scales, one of which is also the EDS. The other discrimination measures included in the NLAAS Survey assess individual perceptions of being treated unfairly or being disliked and of vicarious discrimination (i.e., seeing members of the national/ethnic ingroup being discriminated). Studies adopting the NLAAS database treated these measures in different ways during statistical analyses: For example, some studies adopted only the EDS (e.g., see study no. 71 in Table A1 in Appendix), others computed the scores of all measures to obtain a unique score for perceived discrimination [e.g., 85], 4 and yet another set of studies separately used the scores of each measure to make statistical comparisons of their relation with different outcome variables [e.g., 81].
Nine studies operationalized perceived discrimination using discrimination-related stress measures (e.g., discrimination-based acculturative stress and racism-related stress). Furthermore, 48 quantitative studies (33.5% of the total) did not use well-established measures or did not report scale names. Of these, 19 studies measured discrimination with a single item, 10 measured it with two or three items, and only 17 measured it with at least four items. Two studies did not describe the discrimination measure adopted.
Only 20 articles (14% of the total) included the concepts of subtle and/or blatant forms of perceived discrimination by explicitly referring to a construct or framework related to these forms of discrimination. Subtle discrimination was conceptualized as subtle discrimination (k = 6), covert discrimination (k = 5), microaggressions (k = 4), hassles (outgroup hassles, daily racial hassles, k = 3), or everyday discrimination (in this case described as a form of minor, chronic, and commonplace mistreatment, k = 2). Blatant perceived discrimination was conceptualized as blatant discrimination (k = 5), overt discrimination (k = 4), racist crimes (k = 1), or major racist experiences or events (k = 3).
Nevertheless, the operationalization of subtle and blatant discrimination was often ambiguous. Table SM.1. and SM.2. (see Supplementary Online Materials) show how the same concepts and measures (e.g., everyday discrimination) were often used to examine general perceived discrimination but also subtle or blatant forms of discrimination. For instance, while some studies used the EDS (Williams et al., 1997) to measure subtle discrimination [e.g., 28], another study [27] split the same scale into two dimensions, with one measuring subtle discrimination and the other one measuring blatant discrimination.
Acculturation Orientations: Concepts and Constructs
Concepts related to acculturation orientations were considered in 38 articles (26.6% of the total; see Table SM.3. in Supplementary Online Materials), 5 including immigrants’ acculturation strategies (sometimes also referred to as acculturation attitudes, including ethnic and mainstream acculturation, receiving and heritage culture orientations, cultural maintenance and adoption, k = 29), as well as intercultural contact (k = 5). Social relations, such as friendships with members of receiving and native countries, negative interactions, and perceived intergroup differences, were also examined (k = 10). Within this framework, the Acculturation Attitudes Scale (Berry et al., 1989) and the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS, Stephenson, 2000) were among the most-used measures. Moreover, a considerable part of the studies (k = 45; 31.5% of the total) assessed acculturation orientations as a more general socio-demographic construct by using indicators such as generational status or length of residence in the receiving country. For example, the operationalization of acculturation orientations often relied on using length of residence as a unidimensional measure, that is, as a proxy of the amount of contact that immigrants might have had with their receiving society culture and its members. It is important to note that sometimes scholars adopted these measures to operationalize acculturation as a broader, more general process, without making any specific reference to acculturation orientations (e.g., heritage culture maintenance and intercultural contact). Finally, one study [139] considered the level of integration in the receiving country at the macro-level (alongside individual-level variables such as generational status and length of residence), operationalized through a combination of multiple European indexes (such as the Citizenship Policy Index [CPI]).
Another 38 articles (26.6% of the total) focused on concepts related to social identification. Although identity and identification processes have been theoretically framed as part of cognitive adaptation outcomes (Ward, 2001), they have often been used interchangeably with acculturation orientations in empirical research (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006). Indeed, from a theoretical point of view, many authors seem to agree that acculturation orientations and social identity are two distinct constructs (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006; Ward, 2001). Yet, at the empirical level, they are often confused and used interchangeably. To avoid redundancy and conflation of results, identity-related constructs are here presented together with acculturation orientations. The implications of this conceptual overlap are illustrated in the Discussion section. Within this perspective, we found that, similar to acculturation orientations, social identification was often conceptualized according to two dimensions: (a) identification with the native ethnic or national ingroup, including cultural and religious identification (k = 27) and (b) identification with or as a typical member of the receiving society (k = 17). Finally, six studies included attitudes toward the national or ethnic ingroup/outgroups (e.g., attitudes toward nationals and other immigrant groups, realistic threat), while one study [89] considered bi-cultural self-efficacy. Across all quantitative studies, the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM, Phinney, 1992) was the most frequently used approach to operationalize identity-related constructs.
Acculturation Outcomes: Concepts and Constructs
The present review identified 113 articles (79% of the total) including at least one concept or measure of psychological adaptation outcomes (see Table SM.4. in Supplementary Online Materials; see Note 5). The most used concepts were related to specific mental health outcomes, such as depression (including major depressive disorder, depressive symptoms, depressive mood, suicidal ideation, k = 40) and psychological distress (including perceived stress, k = 29). Some studies also focused on general mental health outcomes (e.g., general assessment of mental health disorders, psychological symptoms, psychiatric disorders, k = 19) and anxiety (including anxiety symptoms, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety, k = 11). Other psychological adaptation variables were related to wellbeing outcomes, such as satisfaction (including satisfaction with life, job satisfaction, satisfaction with migration, k = 17), psychological and social wellbeing (k = 16), and self-esteem (including collective self-esteem, k = 13). A large variety of measures were adopted to operationalize psychological adaptation, among which the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (and derived versions, including the CES-D-K, Cho & Kim, 1998; Radloff, 1977) and Kessler’s Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler et al., 2002) were the most often used ones.
Sociocultural adaptation was considered by 39.2% (k = 56) of the included articles (see Table SM.5. in Supplementary Online Materials; see Note 5). Concepts related to linguistic acculturation (such as language learning, proficiency in the language of native and receiving countries, language preference) were by far the most studied (k = 54). These concepts were often measured with unspecified or non-validated single- or multiple-item measures in which participants self-rated their language skills. Culture-related concepts (values and practices of the receiving and heritage cultures and perceived cultural distance or differences, k = 16) and the different aspects of behavioral and sociocultural adaptation (k = 12; e.g., operationalized as difficulties experienced in everyday social situations in the receiving country via the Sociocultural Adaptation Scale, Ward & Kennedy, 1999) were also examined.
Other Acculturation-Related Constructs and Concepts
Other acculturation-related concepts, such as migration-related experiences (e.g., reasons for migrating, context of exit, k = 19; see Table SM.6. of Supplementary Online Materials; see Note 2), family acculturation (e.g., family-culture conflict, marital adaptation, k = 7), and migrants’ intercultural values (i.e., support for multiculturalism, transnationalism, and tolerance, k = 5) were also considered by some of the included articles. 6 Moreover, acculturative stress and migration-related stressors were examined in 36 studies (25% of the total). It should be noted that, in the current review, we make a distinction between psychological distress and acculturative stress, as the former refers to nonspecific symptoms of stress that are manifested through the perceived inability to cope effectively, harm and discomfort, and that can take the form of mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression (Ridner, 2004), while the latter is defined as a specific type of stress resulting from the psychological acculturation process (e.g., communication difficulties, cultural misunderstandings, distance from one’s country of origin; Berry, 2003; Romero & Piña-Watson, 2016). Nevertheless, acculturative stress is also sometimes operationalized as the difficulties and stressors that characterize psychological acculturation, that is, the sources of stress itself (e.g., the social, attitudinal, familial, and environmental (SAFE) Acculturative Stress Measure, Padilla et al., 1985). Due to this ambiguity, already highlighted elsewhere (Rudmin, 2009), in the present review, acculturative stress is not categorized under psychological outcomes but under “other acculturation-related constructs and concepts.”
Perceived Discrimination, Acculturation Orientations, and Outcomes: A Summary of the Empirical Evidence
Perceived Discrimination as an Acculturation Condition
Unspecified Forms of Perceived Discrimination
Cross-Sectional Studies
Across the 117 cross-sectional studies included, we identified 237 statistical relations (e.g., regression models, analyses of covariance, path and structural equation models) in which unspecified forms of perceived discrimination (i.e., with no specification or reference to subtle or blatant forms) were hypothesized to be either a dependent or independent variable. In most of these relations (k = 206; 86.9%), perceived discrimination was considered to be the independent variable. Also, it should be noted that most studies included more than one acculturation-related variable (see Table A1 in Appendix). Therefore, the frequencies reported in this section may include studies that contributed to the frequency more than once, if it examined multiple statistical relations. As illustrated by the bubble map in Figure 3, the great majority of studies examined the relation between discrimination and adaptation outcomes, while very few studies (k = 3) examined its links with acculturation orientations, albeit with inconsistent results. For example, in one study [97], perceived discrimination was positively associated with separation and marginalization strategies, while another study [23] found that perceived discrimination increased the likelihood of participants being assigned to an assimilation or a biculturalism (i.e., integration) cluster and decreased the likelihood of being assigned to a separation cluster. Studies considering the moderating role of acculturation orientations in the relation between discrimination and adaptation outcomes also produced contradictory results. For example, one study [131] found that behavioral orientations toward the receiving society buffered the relation between discrimination and acculturative stress in a moderated mediation predicting psychological distress. Yet, a few other studies (k = 3) observed that acculturation orientations toward the receiving culture (i.e., operationalized as orientations toward intergroup contact or adoption of the receiving culture) exacerbated the negative effect of discrimination on adaptation outcomes. Interestingly, a study [130] examining acculturation orientations as mediators in the relation between perceived discrimination and psychological distress for Pakistani and Nepalese migrants in Hong Kong noted that the results differed across the two groups: For Pakistanis, perceived discrimination was positively related to orientations toward the receiving culture, which in turn were positively related to psychological distress; for the Nepalese, perceived discrimination was negatively related to orientations toward the receiving culture, which in turn were not significantly related with psychological distress.
Finally, identity-related constructs were examined by 10 studies, again with inconsistent or even contradictory results: Most studies point to a negative relation between discrimination and identification with both the ethnic/national ingroup (k = 3) and receiving society (k = 5) variables, while three studies did not find any significant relation between these variables, and one study observed a positive relation between discrimination and ethnic identification [122]. Similarly, some studies suggest that social identification acts as a significant mediator in the relation between perceived discrimination and psychological adaptation outcomes (e.g., in one study [17], identification with both the ethnic group and the receiving society was negatively related to perceived discrimination and positively to wellbeing), while other studies have found no support for it [51].
Psychological adaptation outcomes were the most frequently examined outcomes of perceived discrimination (67%). Perceived discrimination was found to be positively related to depression (k = 25), psychological distress (k = 26), negative mental health outcomes (k = 15), and anxiety (k = 10). Perceived discrimination was also found to be negatively related to wellbeing (k = 12) and satisfaction with life (k = 10). In this context, social support was observed to act as a moderator, buffering the detrimental effect of perceived discrimination on psychological outcomes (k = 9). Regarding sociocultural adaptation outcomes, perceived discrimination was found to be positively related to performance difficulties in everyday situations and difficult adjustment to the local lifestyle (k = 3) and negatively related to language proficiency (k = 1; [108]).
Longitudinal Studies
All eight longitudinal studies included in this review examined unspecified forms of perceived discrimination as predictors of acculturation orientations and outcomes. Four of them examined the effect of perceived discrimination on psychological adaptation over time. Focusing on Chinese immigrants in Hong Kong, one study [33] discovered that perceived discrimination positively predicted depressive symptoms over two time points 1 year apart, while another study [99] found that perceived discrimination had a negative effect on quality of life over two time points 1 year apart.
Longitudinal studies within the Finnish acculturation context, based on the INPRES project database (i.e., a 3-year research project investigating the influence of the premigration variables on postmigration integration and adaptation among migrants from Russia to Finland; [69]), generally confirm findings from cross-sectional studies. For instance, one study [86] showed that the anticipation of discrimination at the premigration stage was positively related to immigrants’ perceived discrimination in the receiving country, which in turn was negatively related to wellbeing. In diverse cultural contexts, perceived discrimination was also found to negatively predict identification with native and receiving societies [69], language proficiency [124], and identificational integration [41] over time. Furthermore, one study [69] observed that it negatively predicted attitudes toward the receiving majority group longitudinally, while another study [87] did not find any significant effect on acculturation orientations toward culture maintenance.
Subtle vs. Blatant Perceived Discrimination
We identified 15 quantitative studies (10.5% of the total) in which scholars conceptually distinguished between subtle and blatant forms of discrimination. However, six of these studies adopted measures assessing both subtle and blatant discrimination but did not conduct separate statistical analyses on these two forms (instead, they computed a unique measure for “unspecified forms of perceived discrimination,” see Table A1 in Appendix). Hence, only nine studies examined the relation between one or both forms of discrimination with acculturation orientations and outcomes. All nine studies had a cross-sectional design, and eight of them hypothesized subtle and/or blatant discrimination to be predictors of psychological adaptation outcomes. Of these, three exclusively examined subtle discrimination and found that it was negatively related to general mental health and positively related to depressive symptoms. However, one study did not find any significant association between subtle discrimination and depression, or self-esteem [1].
Only five studies compared the effects of subtle and blatant discrimination. One of these [37] found that both blatant discrimination (operationalized as major racist events) and subtle discrimination (operationalized as daily racial hassles) were equally positively significantly related to stress for Dominican immigrant women in the United States and that heritage culture orientation buffered the relation between subtle discrimination and stress, but not between blatant discrimination and stress. Another study [38] observed that both forms of discrimination were related to acculturative stress for Dominican immigrants in the United States, with subtle discrimination displaying an even stronger effect size than its blatant counterpart. Finally, one study [103] examining the effects of discrimination for Korean immigrants in Canada found that blatant discrimination was negatively related to positive affect but was not related to emotional arousal or cognitive processes. In contrast, they found that subtle discrimination was related to cognitive appraisal of the discriminatory event, which in turn was associated with depressive symptoms.
Perceived Discrimination as an Acculturation Outcome
Unspecified Forms of Perceived Discrimination
Across cross-sectional studies, we also identified 31 statistical relations that considered perceived discrimination as an outcome variable. Among these, eight considered acculturation orientations as independent variables, with separation and marginalization being positive predictors of perceived discrimination (k = 5) and integration, assimilation, and biculturalism being negatively related to it (k = 2). Yet, one study [139] found that integration at the receiving country level, measured by a selection of migration-related policy indexes, was positively related to perceived discrimination. Proficiency in the language of the receiving country was also observed to be positively related to perceived discrimination in four studies. Finally, ethnic identification was found to be positively related to perceived discrimination in two studies, and negatively in one [116].
Subtle vs. Blatant Perceived Discrimination
One cross-sectional study [27] examined to what extent several variables used as a proxy for acculturation orientations and outcomes predicted perceptions of subtle and blatant discrimination among older Asian immigrants in the United States. Findings showed that possessing a naturalized citizenship was associated with higher perceptions of both subtle and blatant forms of discrimination, while identification with others of the same ethnic ingroup was associated with higher perceptions of subtle—but not blatant—discrimination. Moreover, English-speaking ability, age of arrival, and years of residence were not significantly associated to perceived subtle and blatant discrimination after controlling for socio-demographic and social support variables.
Perceived Discrimination as a Mediator and a Moderator
Some cross-sectional studies also examined unspecified forms of perceived discrimination as mediators of the relation between proxy variables for acculturation orientations (e.g., linguistic acculturation) and psychological adaptation (i.e., mental health outcomes; k = 10), between ethnic identity and sociocultural adaptation [100], as well as between integration and intercultural contact with the members of the receiving society [61]. Moreover, two studies considered unspecified forms of perceived discrimination as moderators. One [50] found that discrimination moderated the relation between Muslim immigrants’ religiosity and self-esteem, in such a way that, for those who perceived high levels of discrimination, the association between religiosity and self-esteem was negative, whereas at low levels of discrimination, the relation was positive. In the other [79], it was discovered that perceived discrimination moderated the relationship between English proficiency and psychological adaptation outcomes. Specifically, it was observed that language proficiency was related to detrimental mental health outcomes among immigrant Asians if they had reported high levels of everyday discrimination.
Discussion
The present review sought to propose a systematized map of how perceived discrimination has been studied within the literature on first-generation immigrants’ psychological acculturation. We identified a total of 143 studies meeting our inclusion criteria across three databases. Most of these studies adopted a cross-sectional design (81.8%), were conducted in W.E.I.R.D. (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, Henrich et al., 2010) societies (88%), and sampled migrants from non-Western and developing countries (86%). Furthermore, almost 40% of the included studies conducted data analysis using existing databases, such as the NLAAS. Although the NLAAS was implemented almost two decades ago, more recent studies are still based on these data. Hence, considering that findings in this domain are characterized by being mainly correlational, based on Western data, as well as using the same databases, there seems to be a systematic bias in the acculturation literature in psychology. The conceptual and evidence maps presented in this review reflect this bias. In addition, most studies sampled participants based on very general ethnic categorizations (e.g., Latin American, Asian American, and so on) rather than their country of origin. This choice may be explained to some extent with the difficulty of recruiting large, representative samples of migrants from single countries, yet it also reinforces cultural generalizations and stereotypes across ethnic groups. For example, Latin Americans may include migrants from Mexico, Central America Caribbean countries, or South America, which present large cultural differences. In fact, studies that compared immigrant groups based on their countries of origin (e.g., Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2006; Tonsing et al., 2016) observed significant differences among such groups, highlighting possible cultural and contextual factors that are specific to each group and that should be considered in future research. Future studies should provide an in-depth analysis of the experiences of different national migrant groups and focus especially on non-Western migratory paths. Qualitative methodologies, which were adopted only by a small percentage of studies in this review, may be especially helpful to explore these under-researched issues. Future reviews are also encouraged to extend their search to databases and libraries containing larger numbers of non-Western journals, seeking to provide a more comprehensive portrait of immigrants’ experiences of acculturation around the world.
Perceived Discrimination as an Acculturation Condition
Conceptual and Operational Issues in the Study of Perceived Discrimination
Drawing on the framework proposed by Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2006), we organized the literature according to three groups of variables: acculturation conditions, orientations, and outcomes. Consistently with this framework, we focused on studies examining discrimination from the perspective of targets (i.e., immigrants) enacted by the receiving majority group. We found that most studies conceptualized this construct as perceived or experienced discrimination and examined it as an antecedent to acculturation orientations and outcomes. Yet, the present review highlights some issues in the conceptualization and operationalization of this construct.
For instance, the majority of the included studies examined perceived discrimination as a “general” experience of unfair treatment, that is, without distinguishing between its subtle and blatant manifestations, while some studies also focused on specific types of discrimination, such as language, healthcare, religious-based, and vicarious discrimination. Due to the scarcity of definitions provided, it is not possible to determine whether these forms of discrimination are conceptually similar to, overlap with, or incorporate subtle and blatant discrimination. Future efforts are needed to conduct an in-depth analysis of these constructs and systematize this conceptual disarray.
Moreover, some of the included studies operationalized perceived discrimination through stress-related measures (i.e., discrimination-related stress). Scholars have already questioned this type of operationalization, since it simultaneously measures discrimination as the cause of stress as well as stress as the probable effect of discrimination (Lilienfeld, 2017). Likewise, this type of operationalization considers stress to be an antecedent rather than an outcome of the psychological acculturation process (Rudmin, 2009). Discrimination was also often assessed with single-item measures (e.g., “have you ever been treated unfairly because of your ethnicity?”), which possess low predictive validity, sensitivity, and reliability, especially when used to operationalize multifaceted and complex constructs (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012). Future studies should avoid these types of operationalization and seek to adopt well-established, theory-grounded measures for the assessment of perceived discrimination.
Directions for Future Research on Subtle and Blatant Discrimination
The present review identified only a few studies that examined the relation between subtle and/or blatant perceived discrimination and acculturation orientations and outcomes for first-generation immigrants. First, in this context, the study of subtle and blatant discrimination may benefit from a clearer conceptualization of these two forms. Future studies should provide coherent definitions and operationalizations, that is, the scales used to assess subtle and blatant discrimination should reflect the theoretical frameworks and construct definitions adopted in each study. This type of differentiation, with already established scales, could be achieved by conducting a thematic analysis of the items of each scale when designing the study or, at the very least, through a factorial analysis after data collection.
Second, scholars should also seek and refer to clearer theoretical frameworks. In this context, we propose that the framework of microaggressions (Sue, 2010) is particularly useful to assess subtle forms of perceived discrimination. None of the quantitative studies included in this review operationalized subtle discrimination through microaggressions scales. Hence, we recommend the adoption of microaggression scales in future research focusing on the psychological acculturation processes of first-generation migrants.
Third, and most importantly, we identified a consistent overlap between the constructs of perceived discrimination, everyday discrimination, and subtle discrimination. As emphasized at the beginning of this review, perceived discrimination refers to a comprehensive construct that includes all forms of discrimination (subtle and blatant), as assessed through self-report measures, and should not be confounded with specific forms of discrimination. Also, the concepts of everyday and subtle discrimination were often used interchangeably: We found that the EDS (Williams et al., 1997), which is based on the homonymous theoretical framework (Essed, 1991), was often used to assess subtle discrimination, although it contains items such as “you are threatened and harassed” (Williams et al., 1997), which rather represent blatant expressions of discrimination. Indeed, one of the studies included in this review (Chan, 2020) split the EDS into two factors, one assessing subtle and the other assessing blatant discrimination, and found differential associations with other variables, such as age, ethnicity, and ethnic identification (e.g., being a Filipino immigrant and higher ethnic identification were associated with perceived subtle discrimination, but not with blatant). As such, we propose that the EDS should be used to assess the frequency of perceived discrimination in general, rather than its subtle (or blatant) manifestation.
All the studies included in this review, except for one, examined the effects of discrimination exclusively on psychological adaptation outcomes, suggesting that both subtle and blatant discrimination negatively affect immigrants’ mental health and wellbeing. Some of the included studies found that these two forms of discrimination were differently related to psychological outcomes (e.g., Chau et al., 2018) or were related to different outcome variables (e.g., Noh et al., 2007). These findings help to illustrate the importance of distinguishing between different forms and concepts of perceived discrimination. Future studies should try to disentangle the effects of these two forms of discrimination, also focusing on other acculturation outcomes, such as sociocultural and cognitive adaptation. In this context, another important research question is how different types of measures for subtle and blatant discrimination relate to acculturation orientations and outcomes and whether effect sizes differ. The operationalization of these forms of discrimination in the articles included in this review is too fuzzy and heterogeneous to answer this question, and more studies are warranted to examine this issue.
Finally, future research should compare subtle and blatant forms of discrimination by adopting longitudinal and quasi-experimental designs, since the adoption of correlational designs does not allow to determine causality. Moreover, correlational data do not allow to test whether changes observed in acculturation orientation and outcomes have been produced by other relevant factors such as acculturative stressors, which were not controlled for in the analysis. We also advise to include several different outcome variables (e.g., psychological distress, anxiety, positive and negative affects) to better understand whether these forms of discrimination have a differential effect on different aspects of adaptation outcomes.
Acculturation Orientations and Outcomes: Methodological Issues and Directions for Future Research
Acculturation orientations and strategies have been considered in roughly a quarter of the studies included in this review and have generally been found to be related to perceived discrimination. Overall, separation and marginalization strategies were positively related to perceived discrimination, while integration and assimilation were negatively related to it. However, the evidence is not conclusive. These conflicting results may in part be related to the different ways in which acculturation orientations have been conceptualized and operationalized (Celenk &Van de Vijver, 2014): While some studies clustered participants into the four acculturation strategies proposed by Berry’s (1997, 2003) model, others have preferred a bidimensional approach that only assesses immigrants’ orientations toward their native vs. receiving society, sometimes even using ipsative scales, double-barreled questions, or proxy measures, which have been criticized by previous reviews for lack validity, as well as for potentially inducing acquiescence bias (Rudmin, 2009). This latter bidimensional approach may also contribute to explaining the overlap between acculturation orientations and identity-related constructs (e.g., we found that intergroup attitudes often overlap with intercultural contact, and group identification was sometimes examined as an indicator of orientations toward receiving and heritage cultures). Yet, theoretical models often place identity among cognitive adaptation outcomes (Ward, 2001), and many scholars agree that they possess different connotations: Acculturation orientations refer to preference for and attitudes toward the cultures and groups involved in the psychological acculturation process, while identity relates to individuals’ sense of belonging to certain social groups (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006; Sam & Berry, 2010; Ward, 2001). In this context, the few included studies examining identity-related constructs showed contradictory results, that is, while most found that perceiving discrimination negatively predicted identification with both the ethnic/national ingroup and receiving society, some others found a positive relation between these variables.
Moreover, acculturation orientations and identity-related constructs have been considered both as moderators and mediators in the relation between perceived discrimination and adaptation outcomes. Scholars did not always theoretically justify the selection of these variables as predictors rather than outcomes, or as moderators rather than mediators, and more theorizing is needed to clarify their role. Future studies would benefit from the selection of a clearer theoretical framework to guide the operationalization of acculturation orientations and outcomes, as well as the formulation of hypotheses and the construction of statistical models to test.
Only one of the studies included in this review (Yazdiha, 2019) conducted a multilevel analysis examining links between individual- (i.e., perceived discrimination), group- (i.e., perceived societal hostility), and macro-level variables (i.e., the receiving society’s acculturation orientations). This study found a positive relation between high integration policy indices and immigrants’ perceived discrimination, possibly because a greater empowerment of migrants in these societies might render them more susceptible to rights violations as well as to subtle forms of discrimination. Future studies could adopt multilevel analysis approaches to examine acculturation as a more complex, mutual, and interactive phenomenon occurring at different levels (i.e., societal, intergroup, individual) between receiving societies and immigrant groups (Bourhis et al.,1997, 2010).
Regarding the outcomes of acculturation, constructs related to psychological adaptation were the most studied in the articles included in this review, followed by sociocultural outcomes. The present review found consistent evidence for the detrimental effect of perceived discrimination on psychological and sociocultural adaptation outcomes, although the latter were often operationalized by one single indicator (i.e., linguistic acculturation), which may not be appropriate when migrants are already proficient in the language of their receiving country, such as in the case of migrants who come from historically colonized countries (e.g., Moroccans migrating to France, Brazilians migrating to Portugal, etc.). Similarly, nearly a third of the studies assessed acculturation orientations and outcomes through socio-demographic indicators (e.g., living for a long time in the receiving country as an indicator of higher contact with the receiving society). First, these unidimensional approaches consisting of only one variable as an indicator or proxy of psychological orientations or outcomes have been widely criticized in the literature, since they do not provide an exhaustive picture of the complex psychological processes in place (Celenk &Van de Vijver, 2014; Schwartz & Unger, 2016). Second, and more importantly, these measures were often used to operationalize “acculturation” as a generic process, that is, a fuzzy, boundless concept, with no definition and no reference to specific constructs or dimensions of acculturation orientations or outcomes, therefore contributing to the conceptual confusion around the psychological acculturation framework. Moreover, future research may seek to include frameworks specifically focused on cognitive adaptation outcomes (Ward, 2001) by adopting models such as the Categorization-Processing-Adaptation-Generalization (CPAG) model (Crisp & Turner, 2011) or stereotype accommodation (Stanciu & Vauclair, 2018).
Finally, although it was not among the main objectives of this review, we found that more than half of the included studies sought to understand intergroup differences by comparing, for example, the psychological acculturation process of first- and second-generation immigrants, male and female migrants, or migrants with different ethnic and cultural background. Although these studies adopted a perspective that could be considered an intersectional approach, only a small percentage of them (k = 10, 7%) explicitly referred to the intersectionality theory (McCall, 2005). Intersectionality is both a theoretical and methodological framework postulating that the multiple systems of power, privilege, and oppression which characterize the social relations between migrants and their receiving country, manifested under the forms of sexism, racism, xenophobia, classism, and so on, are mutually constituted and work together to produce inequality (Collins, 2015; Mahalingam et al., 2008). In this context, Spierings (2023) recently proposed that empirical approaches to intersectionality could be categorized as (a) technically intersectional (i.e., consider multiple intersections without referring to the intersectionality theory), (b) theoretically intersectional (i.e., consider the intersectionality theory as part of their epistemology), or (c) radically alternative intersectional (i.e., adopt research designs and analysis techniques that are best suited for intersectionality, e.g., latent class analysis). Following this categorization, we would like to invite researchers to adopt the theoretically and radically alternative intersectional approach to explicitly acknowledge multiple systems of power and to better understand the effects of discrimination and inequality for the acculturation orientations and outcomes of different migrant groups, especially those who possess multiple underprivileged and stigmatized identities (e.g., Black migrant women, LGBTQIA+ migrants, etc.).
Limitations
The present review has some limitations. First, because of the large number of peer-reviewed articles encountered during the database search, this review did not include other types of sources, such as book chapters, reports, dissertations, or unpublished works. Similarly, we restricted our search to articles published in English, hence leaving out relevant publications in other languages.
Second, although the definition of first-generation immigrants as individuals who voluntarily move from their usual place of residence and permanently settle in a new country is commonly accepted in the acculturation literature (van Oudenhoven, 2006), some studies may have implicitly relied on other definitions (e.g., using a broader sampling criterion of “foreign-born immigrants” may have included refugees, asylum seekers, or undocumented migrants, although without explicitly acknowledging it). In other words, studies that omitted having sampled other immigrant groups may have been included in this review. This highlights the need to provide more detailed descriptions of study samples, as well as to avoid generalizations among immigrants with different characteristics. Moreover, we have focused on first-generation immigrants in general, without restraining our focus to any specific intersections (e.g., LGBTQIA+ immigrants, immigrant women, etc.). Yet, we acknowledge that the experiences of this population are not homogeneous, since they are shaped by different socio-historical factors, as well as by power and intergroup relations, and we encourage future reviews to focus their scope on specific intersectional populations, which could provide additional insights into group-specific discrimination experiences as part of the psychological acculturation process.
Third, we included studies focusing on different aspects of the psychological acculturation process, independently from the theoretical framework adopted. To systematize such heterogeneous information, we adopted a broad conceptual framework (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006) which integrates well-established theoretical models (Berry, 1997; Ward, 2001). Our categorization has highlighted that some concepts (e.g., acculturation orientations/identity constructs) possess fuzzy boundaries and often overlap with others. Future efforts are needed to improve the definition of these concepts and clarify how they differ from each other.
Fourth, we have focused on perceived discrimination as the subjective and individual experience of unfair treatment as enacted by the receiving majority. Yet, discrimination goes beyond the individual experience and should be considered as part of social structures of power, privilege, and oppression. Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge that social power is inherently relative, socially situated, and context-dependent, that is, defined within each specific social or intergroup relationship, and consequently, it cannot be defined in absolute terms (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007). For instance, some authors have highlighted that social majority and minority groups can be defined based on a wide range of different factors, including number, group distinctiveness, and contextual factors (i.e., social, political, or economic circumstances; Seyranian et al., 2008). Future studies are encouraged to examine discrimination as part of more complex intergroup interactions, through the lenses of ecological frameworks (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014) and mutual acculturation frameworks (e.g., Bourhis et al., 1997, 2010).
Finally, the large number of included studies adopting the NLAAS database has possibly inflated some of the results presented here, especially regarding the association between everyday discrimination and psychological adaptation outcomes, which were the most examined variables in these studies.
Conclusion
The present scoping review aimed to understand how perceived discrimination has been studied in the literature about first-generation, adult immigrants’ psychological acculturation. By screening and analyzing a large number of sources through an extensive review process, we contribute to the field by providing a comprehensive map of the state of the art. The results of our work have been organized in two different parts. The first part, focusing on the conceptualization and operationalization of perceived discrimination, acculturation orientations, and outcomes, may be especially useful to scholars interested in advancing the field. By highlighting trends, pitfalls, and gaps of the current literature, we hope to inform future research and to support the selection of adequate constructs and measures. In the second part of our results, we systematized the quantitative empirical evidence regarding the relation between perceived discrimination and immigrants’ acculturation orientations and outcomes. Although the cross-sectional design of most studies does not allow to ascertain causality, the evidence toward a detrimental effect of discrimination is compelling. As such, the summary provided may be useful to inform not only future research designs and hypotheses but also policy-makers and organizations working and having direct contact with immigrants.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review in the acculturation literature to focus on the distinction between subtle and blatant discrimination. Our results show that these two forms have not only been understudied but also conflated in their definition and operationalization. In this context, it remains especially important for future studies to examine the effect of subtle discrimination, which in the last decades has become prevalent and commonplace, due to the increasing presence of anti-prejudice norms (Duckitt, 2010), and has been found to be especially harmful for underprivileged and stigmatized groups such as ethnocultural minorities (Wong et al., 2014) but is still under-researched regarding first-generation immigrants. Finally, the limitations and biases highlighted in this review may contribute to the development of research guided by clearer definitions of key concepts and more accurate measures, ultimately informing and becoming more accessible to non-academic audiences.
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221241255615 – Supplemental material for The Role of Perceived Forms of Discrimination Within the Psychological Acculturation Process of First-Generation Immigrants: A Scoping Review
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221241255615 for The Role of Perceived Forms of Discrimination Within the Psychological Acculturation Process of First-Generation Immigrants: A Scoping Review by Elena Piccinelli, Christin-Melanie Vauclair and Claudia Dollner Moreira in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Footnotes
Appendix
Overview of the Studies Included in the Review.
| [N] a | Authors and Year | Journal | Country | Study Design | Sample and Population b | Unspecified forms of Discrimination c | Subtle Discrimination | Blatant Discrimination | Subtle vs. Blatant Comparison | Acculturation Orientations | Psychological Outcomes | Sociocultural Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Abouguendia & Noels, 2001 | International Journal of Psychology | Canada | Cross-sectional | N = 74, South-Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 2. | Abu-Rayya & Abu-Rayya, 2009 | International Journal of Psychology | France | Cross-sectional | N = 6,211, Southern European immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 3. | Ai et al., 2015 | American Journal of Men’s Health | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,127, Latino immigrant men | X | X | X | X | |||
| 4. | Aichberger et al., 2015 | Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology | Germany | Cross-sectional | N = 205, Turkish immigrant women | X | X d | X | X | |||
| 5. | Akinsulure-Smith, 2017 | Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies | The United States. | Qualitative | N = 38, African immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 6. | Alamilla et al., 2017 | Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 113, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 7. | Allen et al., 2014 | Social Science and Medicine | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 803, Hispanic and Black immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 8. | Arana-Chicas et al., 2019 | Kansas Journal of Medicine | The United States. | Qualitative | N = 26, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 9. | Ataca & Berry, 2002 | International Journal of Psychology | Canada | Cross-sectional | N = 200, Turkish immigrant couples | X | X | X | X | |||
| 10. | Ayón et al., 2010 | Journal of Community Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 150, Latino immigrant families | X | X | X | ||||
| 11. | Barry & Grilo, 2003 | American Journal of Orthopsychiatry | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 170, East-Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 12. | Bekteshi & van Hook, 2015 | Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 639, Latino/a immigrant women | X | X | X | X | |||
| 13. | Bekteshi et al., 2015 | Health and Social Work | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 757, Latino/a immigrant women | X | X | X | X | |||
| 14. | Bernstein et al., 2011 | Community Mental Health Journal | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 304, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 15. | Bierwiaczonek & Waldzus, 2016 | Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology | N/A | Systematic review | N/A | X | X | X | X | |||
| 16. | Bobowik et al., 2014 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 1,250, immigrants from Bolivia, Colombia, Morocco, Romania, and Sub-Saharan African countries | X | X | |||||
| 17. | Bobowik, Martinovic, et al., 2017 | European Journal of Social Psychology | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 1,250, immigrants from Bolivia, Colombia, Morocco, Romania, and Sub-Saharan African countries | X | X | X | ||||
| 18. | Bobowik, Wlodarczyk, et al., 2017 | Universitas Psychologica | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 1,250, immigrants from Bolivia, Colombia, Morocco, Romania, and Sub-Saharan African countries | X | X | |||||
| 19. | Cabrera Tineo et al., 2020 | International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 530, Latina young adult immigrant women | X | X | |||||
| 20. | Cakir & Yerin Guneri, 2011 | International Journal of Psychology | The United Kingdom | Cross-sectional | N = 248, Turkish immigrant women | X | X | X | X | |||
| 21. | Calzada & Sales, 2019 | Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Half-longitudinal | N = 175, Latina immigrant mothers | X | X d | X d | X | X | X | |
| 22. | Cano, 2020 | Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 2,222, Hispanic immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 23. | Capielo Rosario et al., 2019 | Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 381, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 24. | Cariello et al., 2020 | Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 202, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 25. | Cerezo, 2016 | Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 152, Latina immigrant sexual minority women | X | X | X | ||||
| 26. | Cervantes et al., 2016 | Psychological Assessment | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 1,516, Hispanic immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 27. | Chan, 2020 | Social Work Research | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 248, Asian older adult immigrants | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| 28. | Chau et al., 2018 | Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 600, Asian emerging adult immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 29. | Cheng et al., 2015 | Asian American Journal of Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 678, Asian immigrants | X | X d | X d | X | |||
| 30. | Cho et al., 2020 | Women and Health | Korea | Cross-sectional | N = 212, Vietnamese immigrant women | X | X | X | X | |||
| 31. | Choi, Hong, et al., 2020 | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 790, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 32. | Choi, Weng, et al., 2020 | Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 2,059, Asian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 33. | Chou, 2012 | Journal of Affective Disorders | Hong Kong | Longitudinal | N = 347, Asian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 34. | Chung & Epstein, 2014 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,012, Asian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 35. | Cook et al., 2009 | American Journal of Public Health | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 2,457, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 36. | Cuadrado et al., 2018 | Current Psychology | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 150, East-European immigrants | X | X d | X d | X | |||
| 37. | Araújo Dawson, 2009 | Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 246, Dominican immigrant women | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| 38. | Araújo Dawson & Panchanadeswaran, 2010 | Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 283, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| 39. | de Vroome et al., 2014 | International Migration Review | Netherlands | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 4,007, Turkish and Moroccan immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 40. | DelCampo et al., 2011. | Cross Cultural Management | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,792, Hispanic immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 41. | Diehl et al., 2016 | Ethnicities | Germany | Longitudinal (database) | N = 1,022, Polish and Turkish immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 42. | Fanfan & Stacciarini, 2020 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | The United States. | Scoping review | Sample N/A, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 43. | Fang et al., 2016 | Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 140, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 44. | Finch et al., 2000 | Journal of Health and Social Behavior | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 3,012, Hispanic immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 45. | Flores et al., 2018 | Journal of Latina/o Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 460, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 46. | Franzini et al., 2004 | Social Science & Medicine | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,745, Hispanic immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 47. | Fuente & Herrero, 2012 | The Spanish Journal of Psychology | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 407, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 48. | Garcini et al., 2020 | Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,340, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 49. | Gee et al., 2006 | American Journal of Public Health | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 666, Immigrants from Haiti, Sudan, Jamaica, Mexico, other Latin American and African countries | X | X | X | ||||
| 50. | Ghaffari & Çiftçi, 2010 | International Journal for the Psychology of Religion | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 174, Muslim immigrants from Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, other Arab and Asian countries | X | X | X | ||||
| 51. | Giuliani et al., 2018 | Europe’s Journal of Psychology | Italy | Cross-sectional | N = 204, North African immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 52. | Gong, 2018 | International Migration | Japan | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 722, Immigrants from Korea, China, US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Peru | X | X | X | X | |||
| 53. | González-Castro & Ubillos, 2011 | International Journal of Social Psychiatry | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 135, Romanian and Ecuadorian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 54. | González-Castro et al., 2009 | International Journal of Social Psychology | Spain | Qualitative | N = 49, Immigrants from Ecuador, Colombia, Morocco, Bulgaria | X | X | X | X | |||
| 55. | Hashemi et al., 2020 | International Journal of Social Psychiatry | Australia | Cross-sectional | N = 382, Young adult Middle Eastern immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 56. | Hashemi et al., 2019 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | Australia | Cross-sectional | N = 382, Young adult Middle Eastern immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 57. | Hasmi et al., 2014 | Annals of Leisure Research | Australia | Qualitative | N = 6, Immigrants from India, Malaysia, Japan, Italy, Philippines, Canada | X | ||||||
| 58. | Hernández et al., 2011 | The Spanish journal of psychology | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 692, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 59. | Hill et al., 2019 | American Journal of Men’s Health | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 101, Latino immigrant men | X | X | |||||
| 60. | Ho & Cheung, 2016 | Journal of Social Work | Hong Kong | Cross-sectional | N = 372, Chinese immigrant women | X | X | |||||
| 61. | Hui et al., 2015 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | Hong Kong | Cross-sectional | N = 182, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 62. | Idemudia, 2014 | African Population Studies | Germany | Cross-sectional | N = 85, African immigrants | X | ||||||
| 63. | Idemudia, 2011 | Journal of Psychology in Africa | Germany | Cross-sectional | N = 85, African immigrant families | X | X | X | ||||
| 64. | Jaggers & MacNeil, 2015 | Best Practices in Mental Health: An International Journal | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 581, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 65. | Jasinskaja-Lahti & Liebkind, 2007 | European Psychologist | Finland | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 2,360, Russian and Estonian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 66. | Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, & Perhoniemi, 2006 | Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology | Finland | Cross-sectional | N = 3,595, Russia, Estonia, Somalia, Arab countries, Albania, Vietnam immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 67. | Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2007 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | Finland | Cross-sectional | N = 1,783, Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union | X | X | |||||
| 68. | Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2006 | Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology | Finland | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 2,360, Russian and Estonian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 69. | Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2012 | European Journal of Social Psychology | Finland | Longitudinal (database) | N = 127, Immigrants from Russia | X | X | |||||
| 70. | Jibeen & Khalid, 2010 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | Canada | Cross-sectional | N = 145, Pakistani immigrant parents | X | X | |||||
| 71. | John et al., 2012 | Social Science and Medicine | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,530, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 72. | Jurcik et al., 2013 | Journal of Community Psychology | Canada | Cross-sectional | N = 146, immigrants from Europe, Middle East and North Africa, East and Southeast Asia, Latin America, South Asia, Caribbean Africa (sub-Saharan) | X | X | X | ||||
| 73. | Kader et al., 2020 | Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 279, Arab immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 74. | Kiang et al., 2018. | Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 346, Latino/a immigrant families | X | X | X | X | |||
| 75. | Kim, 2018 | Asian and Pacific Migration Journal | Korea | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 11,263, Asian immigrant women | X | X | X | ||||
| 76. | Krieger et al., 2011 | American journal of public health | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 468, African immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 77. | Lau et al., 2013 | Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,030, Asian immigrant women | X | X | |||||
| 78. | Leong et al., 2013 | American Journal of Orthopsychiatry | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 4,069, Latin and Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 79. | Leu et al., 2011 | American Journal of Community Psychology, | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,583, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 80. | L. W. Li et al., 2020 | Journal of Aging and Health | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 3,056, Asian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 81. | M. Li, 2014 | Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,639, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 82. | Liebkind & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000 | Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology | Finland | Cross-sectional | N = 1,146, Immigrants from Russia, Estonia, Arabia, Turkey, Somalia | X | X | X | ||||
| 83. | Loayza-Rivas & Fernández-Castro, 2020 | Ansiedad y Estres | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 137, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 84. | Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2016 | Journal of Family Psychology | The United States. | Longitudinal | N = 293, Latino/a immigrant families | X | X | |||||
| 85. | Lueck & Wilson, 2011 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 2,059, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 86. | Mähönen & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2013 | Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology | Finland | Longitudinal (database) | N = 153, Immigrants from Russia | X | X | X | ||||
| 87. | Mähönen et al., 2014 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | Finland | Longitudinal (database) | N = 136, Russian-speaking immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 88. | Mak & Nesdale, 2001 | Journal of Applied Social Psychology | Australia | Cross-sectional | N = 372, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 89. | Miller et al., 2011 | American Journal of Orthopsychiatry | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 367, Asian immigrants | X | X d | X | X | |||
| 90. | Morales et al., 2013 | Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, | The United States. | Qualitative | N = 11, Latino immigrant men | X | ||||||
| 91. | Morey et al., 2018 | Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 446, Asian immigrant women | X | X | X | ||||
| 92. | Mossakowski & Zhang, 2014 | Social Psychology Quarterly | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 2,095, Asian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 93. | Muwanguzi & Musambira, 2012 | Journal of Intercultural Communication | The United States. | Qualitative | N = 22, African immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 94. | Negy et al., 2009 | Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 112, Latino/a immigrant | X | X | |||||
| 95. | Nesdale, 2002 | Journal of Applied Social Psychology | Australia | Cross-sectional | N = 281, Immigrants from Hong Kong, Vietnam, New Zealand | X | X | X | X | |||
| 96. | Nesterko et al., 2018 | Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology | Germany and Israel | Cross-sectional | N = 359, Jewish immigrants from the Former Soviet Union | X | X | X | X | |||
| 97. | Neto, 2019 | Universitas Psychologica | Portugal | Cross-sectional | N = 218, East-European immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 98. | Neto & Guse, 2018 | International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care | Portugal | Cross-sectional | N = 252, Immigrants from Angola | X | X | X | X | |||
| 99. | Ng et al., 2014 | Social Indicators Research | Hong Kong | Longitudinal | N = 380, Asian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 100. | Ngo & Li, 2016 | American Behavioral Scientist | Hong Kong | Cross-sectional | N = 501, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 101. | Nicdao et al., 2015 | Research in the Sociology of Health Care | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,987, South-Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 102. | Noh & Kaspar, 2003 | American Journal of Public Health. | Canada | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 180, Asian immigrant parents | X | X | |||||
| 103. | Noh et al., 2007 | American Journal of Public Health, | Canada | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 180, Asian immigrant parents | X | X | X | X | |||
| 104. | Oppin et al., 2015 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | France | Quasi-experimental | N = 84, African immigrant men | X | X | X | ||||
| 105. | Ornelas & Perreira, 2011 | Social Science and Medicine | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 281, Latino/a immigrant families | X | X | |||||
| 106. | Panchanadeswaran & Araújo Dawson, 2011 | Social Work in Public Health | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 235, Latino/a immigrant women | X | X | |||||
| 107. | Perreira et al., 2015 | Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 15,004, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 108. | Polek et al., 2010 | Cross-Cultural Research | Netherlands | Cross-sectional | N = 792, Immigrants from Germany, Poland, Hungary, Russia | X | X | X | X | |||
| 109. | Qu et al., 2021 | Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being | Hong Kong | Cross-sectional | N = 400, Asian immigrant families | X | X | |||||
| 110. | Ra et al., 2019 | International Journal for Equity in Health | Korea | Cross-sectional | N = 1,068, Immigrants from Western countries, East and South-Asian Countries | X | X | X | X | |||
| 111. | Rajendran et al., 2017 | Equality, Diversity and Inclusion | Australia | Qualitative | N = 12, Highly skilled immigrants from India, Ireland, Brazil, China, South Africa, Hong Kong, Belgium | X | X | |||||
| 112. | Revollo et al., 2011 | International Review of Psychiatry | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 414, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 113. | Roberto & Moleiro, 2016 | Journal of International Migration and Integration | Portugal | Qualitative | N = 35, Immigrants from Guinea Bissau, Brazil, Cape Verde, Angola | X | X | X | X | |||
| 114. | Robertson & Grant, 2016 | Journal of Applied Social Psychology | Canada | Cross-sectional | N = 122, African and Asian immigrant entrepreneurs | X | X | X | ||||
| 115. | Rollock & Lui, 2016 | Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,626, Asian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 116. | Roth et al., 2019 | Annals of Epidemiology | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 2,541, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 117. | Salas-Wright et al., 2020 | Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 8,825, Latino/a and Asian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 118. | Samuel, 2009 | Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies | Canada | Qualitative | N = 14, South-Asian immigrant women | X | X | |||||
| 119. | Savage & Mezuk, 2014 | Drug and Alcohol Dependence | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 4,649, Asian and Latino/a immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 120. | Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008 | Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 436, Hispanic immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 121. | Schwartz et al., 2018 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | The United States. and Colombia | Cross-sectional | N = 647, Venezuelan immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 122. | Schwartz et al., 2014 | Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 604, Hispanic immigrant families | X | X | X | X | |||
| 123. | Sevillano et al., 2014 | Ethnicity and Health | Spain | Cross-sectional | N = 1,250, immigrants from Bolivia, Colombia, Morocco, Romania, and Sub-Saharan African countries | X | X | |||||
| 124. | Slonim-Nevo et al., 2009 | Journal of Family Issues | Germany and Israel | Longitudinal | N = 597, Jewish, German, Russian immigrant families | X | X | X | ||||
| 125. | Sun et al., 2020 | Asian American Journal of Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 598, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 126. | Sung et al., 2018 | Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 3,268, Latino/a and Asian immigrants | X | ||||||
| 127. | Teodorowski et al., 2021 | Population, Space and Place | The United Kingdom | Qualitative | N = 30, European immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 128. | Tonsing, 2014 | International Journal of Social Welfare | Hong Kong | Cross-sectional | N = 404, South-Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 129. | Tonsing, 2013 | International Journal of Intercultural Relations | Hong Kong | Cross-sectional | N = 447, South-Asian immigrants | X | X | |||||
| 130. | Tonsing et al., 2016 | Transcultural Psychiatry | Hong Kong | Cross-sectional | N = 447, South-Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 131. | Torres et al., 2012 | Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 669, Latino/a immigrants | X | X d | X | X | X | ||
| 132. | Tran, 2016 | Identity | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 3,511, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | X | |||
| 133. | Valdivia & Flores, 2012 | Journal of Career Development. | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 253, Latino/a immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 134. | Viruell-Fuentes, Mir, et al., 2012 | Social Science and Medicine | N/A | Literature review | N/A | X | X | |||||
| 135. | Vohra & Adair, 2000 | Psychology and Developing Societies | Canada | Cross-sectional | N = 189, Immigrants from India | X | X | |||||
| 136. | Walsh & Tuval-Mashiach, 2012 | Youth and Society | Israel | Qualitative | N = 22, African young adult immigrants | X | ||||||
| 137. | Walters & Mouhktar, 2019 | Journal of Muslim Mental Health | The United States. | Mixed methods | N = 13, Immigrant women from Muslim-centered countries | X | X | |||||
| 138. | Yang et al., 2014 | Archives of Women’s Mental Health | Taiwan | Cross-sectional | N = 268, Asian immigrant women and their husbands | X | X | |||||
| 139. | Yazdiha, 2019 | Ethnic and Racial Studies | The United Kingdom, France, Germany and Spain | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,618, Muslim migrants from multiple countries | X | X | |||||
| 140. | Ying et al., 2000 | Journal of Community Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional | N = 353, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 141. | Yip et al., 2008 | Developmental Psychology | The United States. | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 2,047, Asian immigrants | X | X | X | ||||
| 142. | Yoon et al., 2010 | The Counseling Psychologist | The United States. | Qualitative | N = 10, Asian immigrant women | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| 143. | Yu et al., 2014 | Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology | Hong Kong | Cross-sectional (database) | N = 1,205, Asian immigrants | X | X |
The numbers listed in this column correspond to the reference numbers reported in brackets along the text (e.g., [85] in the text refers to study N. 85 of this table). bEthnicity or country of origin of the sample are indicated consistent with the sampling criteria adopted by each study. cRefers to studies that did not make any distinction between subtle and blatant discrimination. dQuantitative studies including measures that assess subtle and/or blatant discrimination but do not conduct separate statistical analysis on these two forms (instead, they computed a unique measure for unspecified forms of perceived discrimination).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The present study was funded by a merit-based scholarship for third cycle students of the School of Human and Social Sciences (ECSH)—Iscte-IUL (University Institute of Lisbon).
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
