CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Respect for human rights and fundamental freedom for all without distinction as to race, sex,

religion, or language. . . This is the creed of the Charter approved in 1945 by the United Nations to fight against racism. Though discrimination legally ended in some nations, a new face of racism took place today. This new face of racism is called modern racism-a subtle form of discrimination, wherein outwardly people do not harbor prejudice, but they actually do hold racist attitudes. Despite far reaching efforts to change attitudes, laws, and policies to eliminate racism globally, the dark truth remains. As Brooks (2002), a distinguished professor of law and a writer on matters of race and civil rights expressed that even if people are integrated in principle, yet, they can be segregated in their actions. Ethnic minorities often experience racism (Goldberg & Hodes, 1992) and Muslims in the Philippines are not an exception to this reality. Their marginalization and impoverishment demonstrate that they are discriminated from the mainstream of the Philippine society. This truth is set against the backdrop of the battered human condition of the minorities. A survey conducted by the Human Development Network and the United Nations (2000) laid the harsh reality suffered by the Muslim Minorities in the provinces of Tawi-tawi,

2 Basilan, Maguindanao, and Lanao del Sur. These densely populated Muslim areas fall within the 20 poorest provinces on the basis of the following three indicators: longevity, knowledge, and standard of living. In terms of life expectancy at birth (years), Human Development Index (HDI) shows that Tawi-tawi, Basilan, Maguindanao, Sulu, and Lanao del Norte have the shortest life expectancy with the following figures, respectively: 51.9, 61.4, 55.8, 52.9, and 57.1. The data also reveal its respective literacy rate (%): Tawi-tawi, 52.67; Basilan, 48.8; Maguindanao, 68.71; Sulu, 57.73; and Lanao del Sur, 59.31. Another indicator of poverty is the per capita income of these five provinces. As of 1997, these five Muslim areas fall within the top five poorest provinces with an average per capita income of 10,578. Overall data shows that these five provinces are also considered to be the top five poorest provinces in the country based on the above indicators. Poverty and destitution continue to hold back the life of Muslim Filipinos because of their limited participation in economic affairs and activities both in the local and national level. Muslim (n.d.) cited several factors that direct the exclusion of Muslims from economic activities. One factor was that they were being driven out from the choicest part of Mindanao where economic activities were growing. Another factor was their lack of participation in agriculture-based economic activities considering that a great number of Muslims were dispossessed of lands, the only means of economic subsistence for many of them. Another facet where majority of the Muslim Filipinos expressed grievances for their economic marginalization was the unfair welfare efforts initiated by the government for this group of people. Various welfare agencies such as the former Commission on National Integration (CMI), Mindanao Development Authority (MDA), Office of Muslim

3 Affairs (OMA), and the Southern Philippines Development Authority (SPDA) were not provided with sufficient power and resources to implement various welfare programs. Lastly, evidence of economic discrimination against Muslim members was cited in the recruitment activities of some industries and corporations in Mindanao. In a study jointly conducted by University of the Philippines (UP) and the Mindanao State University (MSU) in 1972, only few Muslims received employment in some industries in Mindanao. Various firms and industries demonstrated biases in terms of selection of employees both for skilled and nonskilled jobs. Muslim (n.d.) further emphasized political marginalization as another significant form of discrimination among Muslims in Mindanao. Political marginalization resulted to political exclusion in terms of internal governance. For the past decades, public governance in Muslim- dominated provinces has been controlled by nonMuslims. History disclosed that the Americans took control in the governance of the Moroland during the first 2 decades followed by Christian Filipinos right after the Philippine Independence in 1946. Though the Philippine Legislature represented some Muslim Filipinos, they are too few to suggest political empowerment. The continuing centralization of policy making and implementation incapacitated them to implement major development programs within their bounds. Moreover, their being underrepresented in the policy-making agencies that handle Muslim affairs constituted as another political cry. For example, the Marcos regime incapacitated several Muslims who were proficient in handling agencies created to handle Muslim affairs. For generations, the Muslims recognize this harsh reality of destitution as a form of neglect and discrimination against them and their communities. From this scenario,

4 minorities are taking vigilant actions. Members of the minority groups who are aware of their conditions are learning to stand up and speak for their rights through political actions. Others took a more radical action and rebellion is often advanced as an expression of their dissatisfaction. The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and its military arm, the Bangsa Moro Army, was founded in 1968 under the chairmanship of Nur Misuari. The vision of the group is to create an independent Muslim state particularly in the regions of Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan (MINSUPALA). The Moro armed struggle was articulated on the belief that the Philippine Government was implementing a policy of isolation and dispersal of Muslim community that had been detrimental to the Muslims and Islam. From this perspective, it is the sole duty of the Muslims to wage a Jihad (Holy War) physically and spiritually. Several wars had been fought by the MNLF against the Philippine government, which resulted to massive military operations. By 1976, 50,000-100,000 people have been reportedly killed and the number of refugees had reached 2 million; property loss was estimated at P330-500 million. These series of encounters between the MNLF and the government posed as a threat to the existing Philippine State (Peace Matters, 1997). Negotiations with the previous presidents failed to forge peace and reconciliation. However, with the ascension of President Ramos to power in 1992, new initiatives were laid down to bring about its goal of achieving peace in the country. As President Ramos declared: Let us all lay to rest our enmities and conflicts and either we rise together above or self-centered bickering and factional quarrel or we fall into the pits we have dug for one another (Duenas, 1992, p. 3).

5 President Ramos initiated a collective peace process involving all sectors of the society. Political negotiations were initiated with all insurgent groups and with all efforts to bring the communist groups and the MNLF into the mainstream of the society. This thrust for political negotiations with all insurgent groups was reflected in Ramos first state of the Nation Address during the opening of the 9th Congress in July 1992. This complements his administrations Philippines 2000 goal of achieving economic growth where conditions would be favorable if peace and political stability are achieved. Under the Ramos Administration, the first formal talks between the Philippine Government and the MNLF were initiated in the later part of 1993. However, the GRPMNLF Peace Agreement was finally concluded on the Fourth Round of Talks that was held on August 1996 where one of the contentious issues, the Integration of the MNLF Forces in the AFP, was resolved. The AFP with the thrust of integrating 5,750 former MNLF rebels into the AFP and promoting their professional growth and development formally launched the MNLF Integration Program. This was launched upon the directive of the Philippine Government. The integration follows a two-stage process, namely, the joining process consisting of three subphases, which are processing, individual training, and OJT/deployment; and the final integration process consisting of the mixing process phase and the full integration process. By the year 2000, the Integration Program is expected to reach its completion. In September 1997, the AFP initially launched a 3-year Training and Development Program. Initially, 500 MNLF members took the training. At present, there are a total number of 5,000 trained MNLF Integrees. Unfortunately, according to Capt. Cruz,

6 Integration Officer of the Phillippine Army, the envisioned integration failed to achieve the timeline because issues on discipline, trust, obedience, and perceived discrimination hampered the progress of the program. Furthermore, he added that this perception of discrimination also operates in the working relation between the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) Integrees and AFP personnel within the organization. Relational problems emerged and this seriously affected not only the progress of the integration program but also the people involved. Issues of ethnicity and discrimination remained sensitive to the MNLF Integrees. Given that situation, how does one react to such experience of discrimination? How does the situation of perceived discrimination affect the well-being of the person? The issue of discrimination demands attention because of its special role in the psychological well-being of the individual. Several studies conducted assume that discrimination has negative mental health consequences (National Institute of Mental Health, 1983) especially among the minority groups despite the absence of clear empirical evidence to support it (Jackson et al. 1999). Research also indicates that racial or ethnic discrimination leads to increased stress and psychological consequences (Basic Behavioral Science for Mental Health, 1996). Coping with this kind of experience can result to chronic levels of stress that have physical and mental health consequences. Although some literature reveals that stressful events affect ones mental health, however, other factors independently mediate the influence of stress on ones mental health. Smith (1985) clearly emphasized that internal or personal factors moderate the impact of stress. These internal factors may or may not put an individual at risk for psychiatric symptomatology. Furthermore, other studies show that

7 environmental factors also moderate the effect of stress on the individuals well-being (Shinaev & Levy, 2000). Previous assumptions on the relation of perception of discrimination offer a new area of research in the Philippine setting considering its diverse cultural differences. Specifically, the Integration program of the Philippine Government needs to be understood from a psychosocial perspective because this critically touches the issue of sociocultural differences intertwined with Integrees basic areas of cognition and emotion. Thus, this study attempts to understand the role of discrimination on the individuals well-being. This research also seeks to understand the role of different internal and external factors such as collective self-esteem, locus of control, and social support that may play as mediating variables that may buffer the stressful effect of discrimination on the individuals well-being. Review of Related Studies The review of related studies considers the definition of discrimination. It also examines the different studies related to discrimination and well-being. Likewise, this review considers several studies on collective self-esteem, social support, and locus of control as potential mediators between discrimination and well-being. Finally, this section reviews the literature on the significant role of ethnic location on the individuals well-being.

8 Discrimination Discrimination is considered as a behavioral manifestation of stereotypes and prejudice. This pertains to any political, economic, cultural, or social situation where an individual or group is treated differently. The basis is usually tied to their membership in a

socially distinct group or category. The categories include ethnicity, sex, religion, age, or disability (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986). Discrimination is enhanced and influenced by both feelings and beliefs about ones social group (Brehm & Kassin, 1996). Frederick and Knoble (1980) emphasized that discrimination is acting out prior prejudice. Prior prejudice develops only after the process of differential treatment. However, prejudice and discrimination tend to feed and enhance each other; the two work in a vicious cycle by enhancing the power, reputation, or status of one group at the cost of the other group. Modern Racism and Discrimination Even if some countries advocate the principle of equality, people can be racially ambivalent. People may desire to be unbiased and impartial but the presence of anxiety and discomfort become so evident when with other racial or ethnic minorities. This is an indirect manifestation of discrimination defined as modern racism. Discrimination is identical with modern racism. Modern racism occurs because people often embrace competing beliefs and values. They keep these negative beliefs toward other groups but when placed in a situation, they act and express unfavorable opinion. For example, the study of McQueen (as cited in Feldman, 1995) on social relations between

9 Blacks and Whites showed that though Whites feel that the relations between them have been improving, on the contrary, African Americans feel that their relation with the Whites has not been improving. Devine (as cited in Feldman, 1995) offers an explanation for this phenomenon. In this context, she stated that people often experience unintentional prejudice-

like thoughts and feelings due to automatic information processing which has something to do with their negative prior learning about those individuals subjected to discrimination. Discrimination and Minority Status Discrimination is contextualized as the distancing, avoidance, and exclusion of person of low social status and category by person with greater power and status (Lott & Maluso, 1995). Thus, in most cases they are directed toward groups with lowstatus, the minority group. The minority group refers to the group whose members possess less power, control, and influence than do members of a dominant group. Moritsugu and Sue (1983) contend that the minority status might be statistically, politically, or psychologically determined, so long as the result is a common perception of the minority member as existing outside the dominant structure (p.163). They believed that individuals who are members of the minority group potentially face hostility, prejudice, and discrimination. In Smiths (1985) review of related studies, discrimination has the net effect of producing two types of group memberships: an inside-of-group and an outside-of-group distinction. These two types of group membership lead to stress especially for those who are excluded from membership in a particular group. Oftentimes, out-group members encountered levels of rejection namely: verbal rejection, discrimination, and physical attack.

10 In the United States, discrimination against African American minority restricted them from upward mobility, thus, poverty became so evident for this group of people. Significant indicators of discrimination displayed discrepancies between African Americans and Anglo Americans in terms of health, income, and occupations (Dana, 1993).

Marginalization and Discrimination in the Philippine Context Rodil (2003) expressed that colonialism is chiefly responsible for ethnic minorities marginalization in the Philippines. Colonialism became obvious in the 15th century with the presence of the Spaniards in the country. Since then, armed clashes were noted until 1898 between the Spaniards and the Moros. Spanish colonizers described this as guerras piratas or fight against Moro pirates. Rodil (2003) believed that by using piracy as a reason, the Spaniards gave their military depredations the color of a domestic affair, a fight in selfdefense, a struggle against evil forces justifiable within the context of Christianity. Kamlians (1995) review of literature articulated that the conversion of the natives through Christianity was deemed important to extend their colonial holdings. During this period, the Spaniards employed the divide and rule tactics where Spaniards used Christian Filipinos to fight against their own kind-in this case against Moros, to prevent them from uniting in a common cause. The Spaniards were successful in christianizing and colonizing the natives of the entire archipelago. In 1892, for example, a total number of 191,493 indigenous people from Mindanao were converted to Christianity, which marked the success of the Spaniards gaining foothold in Mindanao. However, in the case of the Moro people, they fought the colonizers defensively and offensively for 330 years. In those years of war, there

11 were only a handful of Spanish soldiers but hundreds if not thousands of Christian conscripts participated in these military operations (Rodil, 2003). Kamlian (1995), who wrote on the history and culture of Muslims in the South, recounted that the Spanish-Moro war, brought resentment and ill-feeling between the Filipinos and the Bangsamoro people. Partly, the success of Spanish colonization can also be gauged in terms of the estrangement and animosity that divided the Bangsamoro people and the Filipinos. Though expansion of Spanish jurisdiction was made possible during this period but it was during American Colonization that displacement and dispossession took place in a larger context (Rodil, 2003). With the signing of the Treaty of Paris, the inhabitants of the Philippine islands, instantly, were under the rule of the United States of America. Later on, steps were being undertaken to suppress all forms of opposition as to Americas right of possession and the establishment of colonial rule (Rodil, 1994). The US presence in the archipelago was responded with widespread resistance from the Moros particularly within the period of 1903 to 1936. Despite the resistance, the Americans were successful in systematizing the whole process of land ownership, land registration cadastral survey, homesteading, and agricultural investments as cited by Kamlian (1995) in his article entitled The MNLF and the Emergence of the Bangsamoro Identity among Muslims in the Philippines: A Historical Perspective. The systematization led to the resettlement programs where both Lumads and the Moros lost their ancestral lands to the Filipino Christians and US settlers and large US corporations. In 1913, a resettlement program in the Bangsamoro homeland was accentuated with the establishment of agricultural colonies particularly in the area of

12 Cotabato, Lanao, Davao, Zamboanga, and Agusan. These programs forcibly pulled them out of their homeland, thus, marked the beginning of their socioeconomic marginalization. With the declaration of Philippine Independence on July 4, 1946 from the Americans, this also marked the beginning of their minority status in the Philippine neo-colonial state (Kamlian, 1995). Prior to this event, Bangsamoro leaders came up with a historical document called Dansalan Declaration. As expressed in the declaration, We do not want to be included in the Philippines for once an independence is launched there will be trouble between us and the Filipinos because from time immemorial these two peoples have not lived harmoniously together. Our public land must not be given to people other than the Moros (Philippine Muslim News, 1968). At present, like with minorities in the United States, Muslims were also restricted from upward mobility. As reflected in the survey conducted by the Human Development Network and the United Nations in year 2000, Muslim minorities who are concentrated in the areas of Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, Maguindanao, Sulu, and Lanao del Sur experienced the poorest conditions in terms of income, education, and life expectancy. In addition to that, they were also discriminated both in the economic and political activities. Economic discrimination was evident in the form of their nonparticipation in agriculture-based economy whereas political marginalization is evident through political exclusion in handling internal Muslim affairs (Muslim, n.d.). Colonialism and neo-colonialism resulted to long process of marginalization, not only among Lumads but also among Moros or Muslims in Mindanao. Rodil (2003) recounted that before the Lumads exercised control over a substantial territorial area encompassed in the

13 seventeen provinces, now they only constitute, according to the 1990 census, the majority in only nine municipalities. Furthermore, it was disclosed that the Moros had jurisdictional control over an area covered in 15 provinces and 7 cities, now the Moros are left with only 5 provinces and 15 municipalities.

As a summary, Muslims in the Philippines continue to experience neglect and discrimination in the form of political, economic, and social marginalization. Their marginalization even resulted to unrest and violence in Muslim and minority occupied territories even up to the present. Discrimination, Stress, and Well-Being Stress is defined as the persons response to threatening events or situations termed as stressors where individuals could not respond appropriately because it transcended their operating integrity (Wheaton, 1996). Stress ranges from life experiences to major life events (Crnic, 1996). Stressors are those variations in life that include life change events, daily hassles, role strains, ongoing difficulties, and various forms of childhood and adult traumas (Wheaton, 1996). Socioeconomic status and acculturation were also identified as culprits of stress (Santrock, 1999). Acculturation, stress, and other mental health consequences. Acculturation occurs when an individual or group experience cultural modifications due to continuing contact between two distinctive cultures. Stress occurs as a consequence of this process. Members of the minority most likely encountered hostility, prejudice, and lack of effective support. Knight, Virgin, and Rosa (1994) found that these experiences contribute to alienation, social

14 isolation, and heightened stress. In the United States, interracial tensions emerge as they compete for limited housing, employment, and other opportunities. This creates ethnic animosity. Also, out-group status for the minorities may result in social isolation, marginality, and heightened stress (Maritsugu & Sue, 1983; Smith, 1985). Accordingly, stress is a potential factor to the loss of mental health and/or physical health. This is also considered as a major psychological source of causation in understanding health in general (Wheaton, 1996). Several researches propose that race is an important variable that would account for many of the psychological symptoms that minorities have experienced. Racism was associated with poorer mental health (Fischer, 1999). Another empirical study of Landrine and Klonoff (1996) found perception of individual experiences with racist discrimination assessed with Schedule of Racist Events (SRE) to predict self-reports of more global and several specific mental health concerns. In Jacksons review of related studies, as cited in Klonoff, Landrine, and Ullman (1999), it revealed that racial discrimination contributed to Blacks symptoms of distress, which accounts for 7.5% of the variance. Klonoff, Landrine, and Ullman (1999) further conducted an in-depth and follow-up study to measure the sufficiency of this result considering the limitation of the instruments in which racial discrimination and symptoms distress were gauged. In addition to problematic measures of discrimination, Klonoff and others perceived that Jacksons study failed to consider generic (can happen to anyone) stressful events as contributory factors to symptoms. It assumed the possibility that generic stressor contributed more than did racial discriminations. However, upon examination of the contributions of racial discrimination, status variables, and ordinary

15 stressors to psychiatric symptoms, results revealed that racial discrimination contributed significantly to symptoms and accounted for a large percentage of the variance, which is 15%. In some psychiatric studies, African Americans and Hispanic Americans are at higher risks for many mental disorders (Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council, 1996; Pavkov, 1989). Smiths study (1985) also showed that the experience of discrimination accounted for at least 9% of the variance in illness. Studies spanning over 40 years of research (Moritsugu & Sue, 1983) showed that minority status was associated with heightened risk of mental disorder. Evidence showed a considerable relationship between psychopathology and minority status. Though in the light of correlational studies, cause and effect relationships are difficult to establish, it does not necessarily follow that discrimination does no harm to mental health and well-being (Fischer, 1999). Acculturation, diversity, and adaptive coping. Cultural diversity in the United States lead many members of different ethnic, racial, cultural groups to cope with conflicts created by their marginality__the experience of living within more than one cultural context. In the face of hostility and animosity, some members of the ethnic minorities experienced animosity and marginality whereas some learned to be resilient. Others have established their own communities whereas others have learned to negotiate with the dominant culture in America have developed impressive adaptation, coping strategies, and competencies (Santrock, 1999). The process of adaptation could take any of the following: assimilation (being absorbed in the dominant cultural group), acculturation (acquiring the salient elements

16 of the dominant culture), alternation or biculturalism (becoming proficient in two cultures), and multiculturalism (maintaining a separate cultural identity while working in collaboration with other groups to achieve superordinate goals). These processes have displayed implications on mental health and well-being of members of the different minority groups. On the one hand, some studies have shown that biculturalism has its own advantage (Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council, 1996). Results of studies examining the effects of biculturalism on the adjustment of Hispanic youth and children of Anglican origin proved to be promising. Another similar study conducted on Southeast Asian immigrants who came to the United States displayed significant levels of adjustment. But it is important to highlight that social networks played a significant role in the process of adjustment (Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council, 1996). The preceding studies on racial and ethnic minorities and refugees have begun to shed light on the environmental sources of strengths, resilience, and hardiness that these people manifested in the face of harsh conditions. However, if adaptation processes often put individuals own culture in a subordinate position, this creates conflicts and challenges that can increase stress and mental discomfort (Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council, 1996). This is similar to Smiths (1985) proposition where the adaptation process poses as a source of stress. He believed that when ones identity is threatened psychopathology is more likely to occur.

17 Mediators of Discrimination and Well-Being Simple exposure to stressful life events such as discrimination does not have to lead to physical and psychological symptoms. Some individuals experience physical and emotional disorders after exposure to stressful events, others do not. Whether or not an individual develops the symptoms as a result of being exposed to stressful events is dependent upon a number of internal factors (Smith, 1985). Individuals, for example, may have different psychological defenses, coping responses, and personality predispositions that may put them at risk for psychological or psychiatric symptomatology. Internal and external factors may play as special mediators between discrimination and well-being and mental health. Collective self-esteem. Self-esteem is one mediator of stress. Self-esteem (or selfconcept) has two distinct aspects: personal identity and social identity. Personal identity includes beliefs about ones skills, abilities, or attributes such as intelligence and attractiveness. Whereas Rosenberg (1979) defined self-esteem as the personal and global feelings of self-worth, self-regard, and self-acceptance, collective self-esteem refers to that aspect of the individuals self which derives from their knowledge of their membership in a socially distinct group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). Under this premise, racial/ethnic comparison is considered as a social basis of self-esteem. Thus, the concept of collective self-esteem evolves where ones self-concept is partly anchored on the persons race, ethnicity, and religion.

18 Individuals by virtue of their membership in a social category are subject to being labeled as deviants and are targets or victims of discrimination. They are often identified and labeled as a stigmatized group (i.e., an out-group relative to the dominant group in a society). The members are devalued not only by specific in-groups but also by the broader society or culture (Crocker & Major, 1989). As a result of this, members of the stigmatized group experienced substantial negative social, economic, political, and psychological consequences. One possible consequence is the lowered self-esteem among members of the minorities. It is

proposed that self-esteem is a central aspect of psychological functioning (Taylor & Brown, 1988; Wylie, 1979), and an index of psychological well-being (Gray-Little & Hafdal, 2000). This is strongly related with other variables, including general satisfaction with ones life (Diener, 1984) and mental health (Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council, 1996). Thus, it is assumed that lowered self-esteem among members of the minorities would lead to negative psychological consequences. However, research on self-esteem among Blacks and minorities has yielded inconsistent and conflicting findings (Adam, 1978). Also, empirical studies to support such assumptions that members of the stigmatized groups have low self-esteem were remarkably limited. A substantial body of evidence on the self-esteem of minority/ethnic groups showed that Blacks have equal or higher levels of self-esteem than Whites (Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council, 1996; Crocker, 1999; Porter &Washington, 1979; Rosenberg, 1979; Wylie, 1979). In another study conducted on the effect of prejudice/discrimination on academic stigmatization showed that students

19 specifically reacted in two different ways. It either produced poor school grades or preserved self-esteem (Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council, 1996). Anchoring on this context, review of related studies showed that several mechanisms or protective factors buffer the effect of discrimination on the individuals self-esteem. Luhtanen and Crocker (1989) summarized these protective factors into three areas, namely: (a) attributing negative feedback to prejudice against their group (system), (b) selectively

comparing their outcomes with those members of their own group or the in-race comparison, and (c) selectively devaluing those attributes on which the group performs poorly and valuing and enhancing those qualities on which the group excels. The third factor contributes to the current study conducted by the researcher. One mechanism that members of the stigmatized group may buffer the effect of negative feedback on their self-esteem is by selectively devaluing those dimensions or aspects which members perform inadequately and valuing those attributes on which members excel. The proposition stresses that individual members tend to consider those attributes and characteristics, which they performed poorly, relative to others, as less important. This is, therefore, not central to their self-definition. On the other hand, selective valuing is the process of enhancing or upholding those qualities, which are integral to the self. Any of these processes serves as a strategy of enhancing and maintaining self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989). These selective devaluing and valuing are valid to in-group-out-group distinctions. This perspective falls under the Social Identity Theory that was originally

20 conceived by Tajfel and Turner (1986). According to the Social Identity Theory, every individual strives to enhance his or her self-esteem. Self-esteem has two components, namely, personal identity and collective social identities. Although personal identity refers to feelings of personal worth, collective social identity refers to evaluation of the worthiness or value of the social groups such as racial, ethnic, or religious groups of which one is a member. The theory further proposes that when an individual is confronted with a threat to his social identity, the person strives to maintain a positive social identity (i.e., collective self-esteem) by identifying or creating favorable comparisons between their in-group and out-group, thereby creating a positive social identity or high collective self-esteem (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). For example, African Americans are a highly distinct minority group. Because of their minority status they felt separated from the majority and at the same time allied to others of their own group. In the quest for positive social identity, they emphasize their desirable distinctiveness (i.e., Blacks are beautiful). In the process of perceiving the group positively, it fulfills the motive for positive social identity. Therefore, African Americans, as members of distinct minority group, derive a higher level of collective selfesteem from identification with their in-group than do members of the majority (Gray-Little & Hafdahl, 2000). Social identity leads every individual to derive pride from being connected with their own distinct group and/or to belittle other groups (them) in order to feel secure about ones own group (us) (Brehm & Kassin, 1996; Crocker & Major, 1989). Social identity theory has two basic predictions: (a) a threat to ones self-esteem heightened the

21 need for ingroup favoritism, and (b) expressions of in-group favoritism enhanced ones selfesteem (Brehm & Kassin, 1996). Crocker and Luhtanen (1990) proposed that those who are high in collective selfesteem are likely to protect their social or collective identity in the face of group or collective threat. Studies conducted by Brewer (1979), Brewer and Kramer (1985), and Tajfel and Turner (1986) manifested a more positive evaluation of things associated with the ingroup and more negative evaluation of things associated with the out-group. Even in studies using minimal intergroup paradigm, individual members will evaluate in-group members favorably than out-group members (Brewer, 1979). Luhtanen and Crockers (1990) study using the minimal intergroup paradigm showed consistent prediction. They further added that even under this minimal intergroup paradigm where group boundaries seemed to be meaningless and even in the absence of hostility, history, or conflict, members would display biases in favor of the in-group. The study of Islam and Hewstone (1993) displayed support for such finding. It showed that higher expectations of the religious in-group and lower-evaluation of the religious out-group enhanced self-esteem as in the case of Muslims and Hindu respondents. Review of related studies on the relationship of self-esteem and mental health in the midst of stigmatizing events or situations brought about by the respondents ethnicity, race, and religion displayed conflicting results. Other studies showed evidence of buffering (e.g., Fernandez, Mutran, Reitzes, 1998; Rector & Roger, 1997) whereas others do not. A study conducted by Jalaslas (1994) showed that self-esteem mediates between mental health and

22 perceptions of discriminations whereas other study (Fischer & Shaw, 1999) demonstrated that self-esteem did not mediate the link. These conflicting findings on the role of self-esteem on mental health and psychological well-being among ethnic minorities convinced the researcher that in the face of stressful and stigmatizing situations, the collective self-esteem (a distinct type of self-esteem) strongly plays a special role in the psychological well-being of the ethnic minorities. The collective self-esteem will mediate directly the degree to which the person will manifest psychological symptoms in the face of a stressful situation. This hypothesis in some way works consistently with Smiths (1985) proposition that racial minorities who have strong level of racial/ethnic identity (i.e., high collective self-esteem, for this particular study) will be able to cope with stressor stimuli due to race (or ethnicity) than a comparable group that has a low level of racial/ethnic identity (i.e., low collective self-esteem). Thus, when considering self-worthiness of the minorities, it is the collective self-esteem that operates between discrimination-well-being link, thus, freeing the members from debilitating and stressful consequences brought about by their membership in a specific minority group. The researcher assumed that the collective self-esteem plays a significant relationship to Integrees well-being. Social support. Social support is defined in terms of information from others that a person is loved, cared for, esteemed and valued, and considered to be part of a network of communication and mutual obligations (Cobb, 1976). Studies have shown that individuals with social support networks (spouses, friends, family members) who provide psychological

23 and material resources are in better health compared to people with fewer support contacts (Broadhead et al. 1983; Leavy, 1983; Mitchell, Billings, & Moos, 1982). Social support is recognized for its capacity to enhance immunity, thus, linked to health (Shiraev & Levy, 2001). Smith (1985) observed that early line of research on stressful life events focused on unidimensional relationship between stressful life events and psychological symptomatology. However, a number of recent researches emphasized the multidimensional approach in understanding stress impacts. The author identified level of social support as another variable that plays a significant relationship with stressful life events, which mitigates the effects of stressful events. Cohen and Wills (1985) considered the process how social support yields beneficial effects on well-being. The premise is anchored on the so-called buffering hypothesis. This theory posits that support protects (buffer) persons from developing pathogenic influence when under stressful conditions. Caplan (1974) identified the stress-mediating functions that social support system provides, which includes the following: (a) helps people organize their skills and resources for coping with the stressful life event, and (b) share the burden of stress, and give emotional and instrumental support. The stress buffering hypothesis mechanisms of social support may operate in two different ways. Firstly, support may intervene between the stressful event (or expectation of that event) and a stress reaction by preventing a stress appraisal response. In this case, the significant others can provide necessary resources by redefining the context of the stressful situation or may reinforce ones perceived ability to cope with the stressful experience. Therefore, this prevents a particular situation from being perceived as stressful. Secondly,

24 social support may mediate between the experience of stress and pathological outcome by reducing or eliminating the experience of stress and the stress reaction or by directly influencing physiological processes. Reduction of the perceived stress reaction through adequate support from others may work in any of the following ways: (a) providing solution to the problem, (b) lessening the perceived importance of the problem, (c) by tranquilizing the neuroendocrine system so that people are less reactive to perceived stress, and (d) by facilitating healthful behaviors (House, 1981). A comprehensive review of literature by Cohen and Wills (1985) discussed the mediating functions of support resources. There are four categories in which support fall into: (a) esteem support, (b) informational support, (c) diffuse support, and (d) instrumental support. Esteem support involves the assurance that the person is esteemed and accepted. Self-esteem is enhanced by giving assurance to the person that he/she is valued for their own worth despite any difficulties or personal faults. This type of support is also called emotional support, expressive support, self-esteem support, ventilation, or close support. The informational support involves defining, understanding, and coping with problematic events. This is also called an advice support, appraisal support, and cognitive guidance. Diffuse support and belongingness is the social companionship provided by others in terms of leisure and recreational activities. The reduction of stress is accomplished through the presence of significant others who can facilitate positive affect or who can help work out his worries or problems. This kind of support is also called diffuse support and belongingness. The next category is the instrumental support that comes in the form of financial aid, material support,

25 and tangible support (e.g., spending time for leisure and activities, relaxation, and entertainment). Cohen and Wills (1985) reviewed the dynamics as to how these resources moderate the effects of stressful events. The experience of stressful events creates a feeling of helplessness and often suggests possible threat to self-esteem. These experiences can be offset through esteem support. Informational support allows the individual to assess the event and allows appropriate coping responses that would offset possible feelings if there is an incapacity to handle the stressful event. Instrumental and social supports are effective when they satisfy a specific need for a specific stressful event. For example, if stress is due to losing a loved one, then, it can be best remedied through social companionship. If stress is due to economic problems, then, it can be alleviated by instrumental support. It is clearly demonstrated that social support has psychological and physical benefits to people suffering from a wide array of physical and psychosocial stressors (Taylor, 1995). A large body of research demonstrated that social support is related to psychological and physical health outcomes. Social support lessened the experience of psychological distress during stressful times (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kessler & McLeod, 1985). Among the elderly, recently widowed, or victims of sudden severe, uncontrollable life events, social support may be especially helpful in the reduction of psychological distress brought about by their experiences (Dunkel-Schetter & Wortman, 1981; Glick, Weiss, & Parkes, 1974). Aside from the psychological benefits of social support, studies demonstrated that it has physical health outcomes. Social support appears to lower likelihood of illness and to speed recovery from illness when it does occur (Kulik & Mahler, 1989). In the area of health psychology, studies

26 revealed that social support is related to mortality. Studies conducted by Berkman and Syme (1979), House, Robbins, and Metzner (1982), and Blazer (1982) disclosed that mortality, regardless of causes, was greater among persons with relatively low levels of social support. On the contrary, greater social support reduces the risk of mortality due to serious disease (House, Amberson, & Landis, 1988). Also, several prospective studies utilizing mental health measures have demonstrated a positive relationship between social support and mental health. The study on the negative impact of racist events done by Cohen and Wills (1985) also revealed that social support arbitrates the impact of negative stressful events. This report is found to be true among Chinese-Americans. The impact of stressor stimuli was negligible when social support defined in terms of community involvement was high (Lin, Simeone, & Kuo, 1979). Another study was also conducted on stressful life events and the social support or coping networks of members of racial minority groups. A study on the interpersonal networks and mental health problems among Blacks, Whites (Anglos), Mexican Americans, and Guamanians showed that having family members whom they could call on for help was significantly related to lower levels of psychiatric symptoms. At the same time, the results showed that the presence of close friends to call on in times of help among Whites and Mexican Americans was associated with significantly lower symptom/dysfunctions scores (Warheit, Vega, Shimizu, & Meinhardt, 1982). On the opposite direction, other researches suggested that social network can be a source of stress and conflict, thereby increasing the risk for symptomatology (Fiori, Becker, & Coppel, 1983; Hall & Wellman, 1985; Rook, 1984). However, Cohen and Wills (1985)

27 defied such proposition. In a review of past studies they conducted, it revealed that, although such assumption was promising for individual cases, it seemed not to be a general phenomenon. Cohen and Wills (1985) stressed that negative effect of social networks on symptomatology displayed little evidence. It was found that only measures of network conflict, a structural aspect of a social network that would not be considered as supportive, were found to have negative effects on symptomatology (Barrera, 1981; Henderson, 1981). Locus of control and vulnerability to stress. The concept of individual differences in vulnerability to stress-related psychopathology has developed from Rotters Social Learning Theory. The theory states that people have a generalized expectancy about the extent to which they control the rewards, punishments and, in general, the events that occur in their lives. Rotter called this generalized expectancy, locus of control. People who are internally controlled expect to be in control of their life events to a high degree. Those who are externally controlled expect their life events will generally be controlled by others or fate (Peplau, Sears, & Taylor, 1997). The hypothesis has been supported empirically. The study of Lefcort (1976) disclosed that American who have an external locus of control expectancy were predisposed to psychopathology. In some instances, an internal locus of control expectancy has been associated with competence, coping ability, and relative invulnerability to debilitating effects of stressful life events (Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976). The same line of query supported such findings. Perlin (1978) pointed out that mastery or control over life events is an important coping resources. A year after Rodin and Langer (1979) conducted a study with nursing home residents, residents who were given responsibility and control over their lives

28 and health regimen showed less physical ailments than those who were not given the accountability to take care of themselves. Ethnic composition in a specific location and well-being. Ethnic density was conceptualized as the composition of minorities in relation to the dominant group living in a particular area. Researches have demonstrated the role of ethnic density on the level of wellbeing and mental health among ethnic minorities; ethnic density was inversely related to psychiatric hospitalization rates (Smith, 1985). The conclusion implies that when minorities constitute a smaller portion in a given area, rates for mental illness was high for ethnic minority in comparison to majority group. This conclusion was validated by studies of Minz and Schwartz (1964), Rabkin (1979), and Bloom (1975) conducted among Black Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Spanish living in a community as minorities. Rabkins (1979) study showed that even if factors such as poverty, family cohesiveness, and mobility were controlled, the relationship between ethnic density and psychiatric hospitalization rate was constant. In another study, Laveists (1996) finding showed that in the United States, when the ethnic minority groups constitute a smaller portion in a specific area, higher incidence of mental illness was observed. The same result was indicated in the study conducted by Boydel and McKenzie (2001) among ethnic minority groups in London wards. There was a two-fold increase in the incidence of psychosis for minority groups with low percentage of ethnic minority inhabitants compared to those living in high ethnic minority ethnic population densities. Similarly, the study of Neeleman, Mak, and Wessely (2001) showed that incidence of parasuicide in African-Caribbean and South Asian patients was related to ethnic density. However, the complexity of the relationship was cited considering that

29 factors such as social support, socioeconomic factors, and social capital may interplay in the relationship. Generally, the marginality theory was criticized on the grounds that this only exists for minority members who do not have strong identification with any minority or majority group. Identification and ability to move in at least one culture successfully help to mediate the effects of marginality (Smith, 1985). Conceptual Framework Stressful life events have been characterized as those situations that produce tension and adversely affect an individuals level of well-being. Stress is used to describe an event that comprises of antecedent, mediating, and response components. An antecedent factor is called a stressor, which elicits response to a particular stressful situation. For this particular study, the antecedent factor is discrimination. On the other hand, a persons level of wellbeing is considered as the individuals response to such stressful situation. Several studies disclosed that the relationship between stressful life events and well-being is not linear. Other external and internal variables mediate between discrimination and well-being. In this study, the mediator variables are the following: collective self-esteem, social support, and locus of control. Also, ethnic location of the individuals is considered as a contributing factor to their general well-being. The relationships of the different variables considered in the study can be schematically summarized in Figure 1.

30

Collective Self-esteem

Perceived Discrimination

Social Support Well-being Locus of Control

Location

Figure1. Diagram for the conceptual framework.

31 Statement of the Problem This present study focuses on perceived discrimination of the MNLF Integrees within the AFP organization. The relationship of discrimination and well-being will be investigated as well as the role of collective self-esteem, social support, locus of control, and ethnic location on Integrees well-being. Specifically, this attempts to answer the following questions: 1. Does perceived discrimination relate significantly to the well-being of the MNLF Integrees? 2. Does collective self-esteem mediate between perception of discrimination and well-being of the MNLF Integrees? 3. Does level of social support mediate between perception of discrimination and Integrees well-being? 4. Does Integrees locus of control mediate between perception of discrimination and Integrees well-being? 5. Does ethnic composition in a particular area or location affect the level of wellbeing of the MNLF Integrees?

32 Research Hypotheses The hypotheses were as follows: 1. Perceived discrimination relates significantly to the well-being of the MNLF

Integrees. Integrees who least likely experienced discrimination in the AFP workplace would most likely maintain a higher degree of well-being. 2. Collective self-esteem is a potential mediator between perception of

discrimination and well-being. 3. Level of social support is a potential mediator between perception of

discrimination and Integrees well-being. 4. Locus of control is a potential mediator between perception of discrimination and

well-being of the Integrees. 5. Ethnic location significantly influenced Integrees well-being. Integrees assigned

in a predominantly Muslim community achieve higher level of well-being compared to Integrees assigned in a predominantly Christian community.

33

34

35

36

37

38