Philippine Sociological Society

ASSIMILATION AND ADAPTATION: FILIPINO MIGRANTS IN SAN FRANCISCO

Author(s): JOSEFINA JAYME CARD
Source: Philippine Sociological Review, Vol. 32, No. 1/4 (January-December 1984), pp. 55-67
Published by: Philippine Sociological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41853621
Accessed: 28-10-2015 08:07 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Philippine Sociological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philippine Sociological
Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ASSIMILATION AND ADAPTATION:
FILIPINO MIGRANTS IN SAN FRANCISCO

JOSEFINAJAYMECARD
Sociometrics
Corporation

Thisstudyanalyzes patterns andadaptation

ofassimilation amongtheFilipinosmigrantcom-
munity in theSanFrancisco
living BayArea.Datacamefrom a sampleof200Filipino and
migrants
100 Caucasian fromtheFilipinos'
controls neighborhoods.Thestudy yielded First,
fourfindings.
extensivecultural existbetween
differences Filipino andthèir
migrants Caucasian Second,
neighbors.
thesedifferencesaresmaller
forFilipinoswhohavebeenin theU.S.forsometimethanfornewly
arrivedmigrants;thoughthedataarecross-sectional, withthehypothesis
theyareconsistent that
culturalassimilation
of Filipinomigrantsoccursovertime.Third,structural with
(association
Caucasians) showsan evenstronger
assimilation withtimespentin theU.S. thanthis
relationship
culturalassimilation.
However,socioeconomic appearsto be theslowestin coming.
assimilation
Fourth, whilebothsocioeconomic and structural are moderately
assimilation relatedto migrant
adaptation withlifeintheU.S.),cultural
(satisfaction assimilation toadaptation.
isnotrelated Thusa
Filipinomigrantcanlivehappily in theU.S.witha goodjob andwithmoderate cominglingwith
Americans,evenifheorsheretains theoldcountry'svalues
andattitudes.

Overthelastdecade,thePhilippines has sent Assimilation andAdaptation

moremigrants to theUnitedStatesthanto any
othercountryin the worldexceptforMexico The term"assimilation" is usedhereto refer
and Naturalization Service to the processby which a personor group
(U.S. Immigration
1
Annual Report, 1970-1979). Very little is becomes integrated into a new culture,"a
knownabout the assimilation of and
and adaptation process interpénétration fusionin which
of this large group of migrants.This paper persons and groups acquire the memories,
analyzesdata collectedin thecourseof a cross- sentiments, and attitudesof otherpersonsor
culturalstudyof the motivationfor fertility groups,and, by sharingtheirexperienceand
control(Card 1978a; Card 1978b,Card 1979) history,are incorporated withthemin a com-
to provide empiricaldescriptionsof these mon culturallife(Parkand Burgess1921)."
the
phenomena.Specifically, paper describes Several kinds of assimilationhavebeen sug-
patterns of assimilation and adaptationamong gested by the theoreticalliterature.
Ofthesethe
Filipinomigrants livingin the San Francisco most important are: (1) socioeconomic as-
Bay Area; documents the empirical interrela- similation,or the extent to which a personor
tionshipsamong various kinds of assimilation group attains occupational "success;" (2) cul-
(socioeconomic,cultural, and structural) dis- tural assimilation, or the extent to which a
cussedin thetheoretical literature
; and assesses or
person groupadopts the cultural patterns
the extentto whichthe varioustypesof as- - includingvalues, attitudes,roles, and be-
similationare relatedto successfuladaptation haviors- of thedominant or majority groupin
by the migrant to American or U.S. life.While a society;and (3) structural or associational
the data base analyzedwas not designedwith assimilation, or theextentto whicha personor
presentobjectivesin mind,it containssufficient groupco-mingles withandencounters inprimary
information to provideinsighton these im- relationships membersof the dominantgroup
portantissues. (Gordon 1964, Portes 1975). It is important

55

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 PHILIPPINE REVIEW
SOCIOLOGICAL

thatthesevarioustypesof assimilation be kept colonialperiod(1898-1946) in thePhilippines

distinct,both conceptually and operationally, exposed most Filipinosto Americanways;in
since "no a priorireasonexistsforassuming addition,as a resultof theeducationalsystem
perfectcorrelation amongthem.. . . Immigrant established in thisperiod,mostFilipinosspeak
familiesmay maintainoriginalidentitiesand some Englishand do not have to adjustto a
valuesand yetproveoccupationally successful. completelyunfamiliar languageupon arrivalin
Success in the socioeconomicstructureand the U.S. On the otherhand,like mostAsian
culturaltransformation does not,on the other countriesthe Philippines is a developingcoun-
hand,automatically guaranteeacceptance into try with traditional values, attitudes,and
nativecircles(Portes1975)." mores. This paper will providedata on the
An additionalpostulatein the theoretical extentto whichthe new2groupof post-1965
literatureis thatassimilation comesin stagesor Filipinoimmigrants havebeen assimilated into
phases.Typicalof thisthinking is the notion and themselves adjusted to the of
U.S. way life.
thatstructural assimilation is a prize'attainable It willthen address another gapin theliterature
onlyafterculturalassimilation (Gordon1964) on the role of assimilation in the migrant
and/or socioeconomicassimilation(Grebler, adaptationprocess. Can adaptationoccurwith-
Mooreand Guzman1970) havebeen achieved. out assimilation? Proponents ofthemelting pot
studies have concept have long discouraged thisnotion.This
Empirical (cf. Greely 1974)
willlook intowhetherempiricalsupport
generallyfailedto findsupportforthesetheo- paper
reticalpresumptions. The presentpaper will for their concernsexists.
presentempirical datarelevant to thisissue.
TheSamples
The adjustment processby whicha migrant
establishesand maintainsa relativelystable
Data for the studywere gatheredvia 300
reciprocalrelationshipwith his or her new
environment is referred to as "adaptation."In in-depthinterviews of 1-1/2hourseach, con-
thepresentpaper,adaptationwillbe measured ducted as part of a largerprojecton cross-
of generalsatisfac- cultural determinants of the motivationfor
by respondents' self-reports
tion withtheirlivesin the U.S. The following fertility control (Card 1978a, Card 1978b,
variableshave been found to be relatedto Card 1979).
satisfactoryadjustment,or adaptation: the One hundredFilipino and 50 Caucasian
psychological make-upof the migrant, his/her marriedcouplesbetweentheagesof20 and40,
occupationand socioeconomicstatusin the and residingin the San FranciscoBay Area,
countryof origin,the motivation behindthe were interviewed.All couples were racially
migration, the consonancebetweenthenorms homogeneous,i.e., husband and wife were
of the countries of originand destination, and eitherboth Filipino or both Caucasian.The
the presenceof resistanceor receptor(espe- Filipinosampleswas stratified by numberof
ciallyfamily)networks in thenewcommunity yearslived in the U.S.
(<4 years;>4 years).
(Bar-Yosef1968, Myersand Masnick1968, Both the Filipinoand Caucasiansampleswere
Price 1968, Brody 1969, Sandis 1970, Rogg then further stratifiedby age of wife(20-30;
1971; Chen 1973, Choldin1973). The relation- 31-40) and by socioeconomicstatus (low;
shipbetweenthe varioustypesof assimilation high3)in an effortto assurethata widevariety
and adaptationhas not been systematically of age and socioeconomic
groupswererepre-
investigated. sentedin thestudy.
Filipinomigrants make an interesting case Filipinorespondents werechosenbyrandom
study because their culture of origin is some- selection from immigrant entrylistingsat the
wherebetweenWestern andEasternin termsof PhilippineConsulateforthe years1965-1976.
proximity to the U.S. way of life. The U.S. Caucasianrespondents werechosenby random

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FILIPINOMIGRANTS
IN SANFRANCISCO 57

selectionfromtelephonestreetdirectories of economicstatusscore,againusingtheHollings-
the Filipinos' neighborhoods.The Filipino head and Redlich(1958) categories.
Thisscore
stratified
randomsample was augmentedby was thenimputedto boththemalerespondent
personalreferral methodsforabout one-fourth and hiswife.Coefficient on the
alphareliability
of the cases, for cells in the samplingdesign indexwas .53.
to fill.
difficult
Culturalassimilation.Culturalassimilation
Husbandsand wiveswereinterviewed sepa- was conceptualizedas the degreeto whicha
ratelybut simultaneously by a pair of inter- givenmigranthad taken on the knowledge,
viewersmatchedforraceand sex withrespon- attitudes,values,rolesandbehaviors of thehost
dents. All interviewswere conductedin the culture.Operationally it wasmeasured bycom-
languageof the respondents'choice; for the puting the discrepancybetween migrants'
vastmajorityof cases (95 percentof Filipinos standardscoreson 17 of thesecharacteristics
and 100 percentofCaucasians)thiswas English; and the Caucasianmean scoreon the charac-
a smallnumberof interviews was conductedin teristic(see row headings,Table 1), weighting
Tagalog,thePhilippinenationallanguage. suchdiscrepancy by thedifference betweenthe
Filipinogroupmeanand the Caucasiangroup
Variables mean (last column,Table 1), and then sum-
mingup the 17 weightedscores.Becausedata
It was hypothesizedthatmigrantadaptation analyzedwere gatheredas partof a fertility-
withlifein the U.S.) wouldbe a
(satisfaction relatedstudy,the indicesof culturalassimila-
functionof (1) backgroundfactorssuch as tion used referredeither to fertility-related
socioeconomicstatusin the countryof origin; attitudesand behavior,or to hypothesized
(2) the degreeto whichthe migrantwas assi- determinants of this behavior.However,the
milated- socioeconomically, culturally,and decisionmodelwhichguideddesignof
fertility
structurally- into the new environment; and the interviewquestionnaire (Card,Wood,and
(3) theextentto whichthemigrant was able to Jayme1979) encompasseda wide gamutof
maintainsatisfactory familyand kin relation- individualcharacteristics,
including knowledge,
shipsin thenew environment. A briefdescrip- values, attitudes,roles, and behavior(see
tionofthevariables includedandhoweachwas Table 1). For thisreason,it is believedthatthe
operationalizedfollows. available data forma comprehensive enough
Background demographicfactors. There basisforinferring amountof individual cultural
weresixbackground factorshypothesized to be assimilation.
relatedto assimilationand adaptation:(young)
age, (many)numberof yearslivedin theU.S., Structuralassimilation.Structuralassimila-
(high)originsocioeconomicstatus,(large)sizetion was conceptualizedas the amount of
of community actual or potentialinteractionbetweenthe
of socialization,(high) educa-
tional attainment, and the extent to which migrantand the surrounding (non-Filipino)
migration was motivated by professional community.
and Seveninterviewitemswereusedto
otheropportunities measurestructural
in the U.S. Originsocio- assimilation:
(1) Areyou at
economicstatuswas computedas a linearcom- presenta memberof anyAmerican social,poli-
tical, or othersimilarorganization?
binationof father'seducation,father'soccupa- (2) What
tion,and mother'seducation(Hollingshead and
percentage ofyourleisureor socialtimedo you
Redlich19584). Coefficient presentlyspend with Americans?
on
alphareliability (3) Givena
theindexwas .77. choicehowwouldyourather spendthemajority
of your workinghours?The possibleanswer
Socioeconomic assimilation This variable codes are: witha mixtureof peoplecomposed
was measuredby combiningmale respondents' mainlyof Filipinos;witha mixtureof people
educationand occupationinto a singlesocio- composedmainlyof Americans; no preference.

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58

ûj ^ H
S Û> * * *
CC^s*
*
*
*
* * **
*«««
** *** *-< * * *
****** ** ** *
* *
**
*
*
§ 3ye vo vo votj-r*vocoo nh
COJi
g )ko OS
'
vo
ONvo*o
<N vooo
' 00
' r-Tj* m(M ^ «O
s a.-s.'s r fr 7 í r r 7
itti
ê&î!
q
03
N S oso *-<*/*>
_-2
gg
tî-
vo
"
rřTtr-r-<ntj- oortnmwTř
' '
o mvo
tj-*-< r--
mm 00
a «»j~ï
H * sjj S ^ r rr rrr r í
á £:§ <3
di«¿i^
Ns
vJ s; es (NCN 00Onvo <N^ <N»-■<N r-00
run^t^ooo tj-o'
çj.S
^ m rocsOcNMM
' TÍ- O r- *-<
¡¡¡s r r ri rrr r r
"^Ct,

1«£
¿¿'SS *Or-^|Tt| M I I ^ON'-I Tt
I'vo
^•8-ça * io Ttvo 1en
.... 00
. 00voOn t>10
5* V «ig
•s
.SO a^ 8
c
a
•S* ! &
č «T
co S-gg
3 ^ vo^too^(N^ Tt^^vot^oo 00r- ^ro
^¡1
Ie*

*
s ~C
■liž » Ã .SÄ g
n
•a -cPQ
S & *c 2
x> S <U
> o _«
5^ 1 5 •â-â-â-âff'â SflSSi S'§ §<•§>
!s s Basala t< 2a
s B.|s
g> O < ssl&&f
U< UhPUE W UH
^ -s.
1 O
S o> tH VH
O
G "ä
5 <u
Õ e S o
° o 02"S
2
o
'ä j= e £ s«3«
0 «2§ Je
P G O_h2 S O «i «i
2>m2.2«° § .>
I * i £. i 1^1 0 o JSg.
I I8« 3 0a *•§ 1 g g « E. 3 „2 H1
a C'H'0'0 vo
'S
g
^p'o
-p^o 2 o tí 0 8.S) jjBí^»32 5 s s ^^ í2S^ -g Mi§i3
B'S g iP ">
I +5«dtí II i2
G .« oß22^^f«o^^o*e>J3*S«<-iR ü
^Q Cu C °<« 1 ft'tîC n ft"« S .2
4S«>o-M,^§,2a>a>o'3 22p22c5st3*S
'S O ^ 2, ^2
I m 3 *3Pf pS3 « *3 o ^ So JŽ io
i ®?«e S'i °vS » ï I >-ë Sv-ë-ë 'S 'S B'S > gì řg£^-ěá&"«
e *
fil ii|1 ill 111 |¡¡ liiíll? riSK-^i
<u ?£ § •esÂEufcá g<zc55<<s^xž sësl1-avvv
Ie^H. -S . . •§£«. . a gaegg.0-.0-^
M ^(smrřvivo^
>
-|
<5ooao^(S
m -I5^«n Sv vor- &X>O-OUC ***
s¿5s«<uc5
i

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IN SANFRANCISCO
FILIPINOMIGRANTS 59

(4) Givena choicehowwouldyou ratherspend Wherewouldyou put yourselfon theladderat

themajority ofyoursocialhours?Samechoices the presentstageof yourlifein termsof how
hereas in 3 above.(5) To whatextentdo you satisfiedor dissatisfied you are withyourown
feelactivelyinvolvedin American culture, in its personal life? All three questionshave been
people, and in its way of life? Five response used widely in national and multinational
optionsranging from very much to very little surveys of life satisfaction (e.g. Question1:
and given.(6) Whatpercentof yourpresent Gurin,Veroff,and Field 1960; Bradburnand
closefriends areFilipino?Fiveresponseoptions Caplovitz 1965; Question 2: Converseand
ranging fromalmostall ofthemto almostnone Robinson1965; Question3: Cantril1965).
of themandgiven.(7) To whichculturedo you
feelcloser,Filipinoor American? Fiveresponse Results
options rangingfromFilipino,definitelyto
Answersto the following researchquestions
American,definitelyare listed here. These
will be discussedin turn:(1) are thereindeed
itemswere looked at separatelyand in com-
differencesbetween Filipino mi-
bination as a singlescale score. Coefficient significant
grants and Caucasian controlson the study's
alphareliabilityofthescalescorewas .59.
of
indices assimilation and adaptation?(2) Do
Family relationships in the new country. these differencesdecrease with increasing
Sevenvariables wereexaminedas beingrelevant exposure to U.S. culture?That is, is there
to familyrelationships in the U.S. Six of these reasonto believethat,withinthe 12-yeartime
weresingleitems:numberof relatives livingin frameof the study (1965-1977), individual
house, in neighborhood, in U.S.; numberof assimilation and adaptationoccur?(3) Do the
relativesseen monthly;presenceof emotional data supportGordon'stheorythatculturaland
or physicalproblemswith children;and per- socioeconomicassimilationare necessaryfor
ceived ease of findingchildcare.The seventh structural assimilation to occur?(4) Whichof
variablewas the totalscoreon a 10-itemscale the three types of assimilation- socioeco-
be- nomic, cultural,or structural - is most im-
measuringthe extent of communication
tween the individualand his/herspouse on portantto adaptation?How does the magni-
varioustopicsranging frompoliticsto number tude of the relationship betweenassimilation
of childrendesired.Coefficient alphareliability and adaptationcomparewith the magnitude
ofthespousecommunication scalewas .69. of the relationshipbetweenadaptationand
its otherantecedents suchas background demo-
Adaptation.Adaptationwas conceptualized factors and in the
as the degreeto whichthemigrant was happy graphic family relationships
newcountry?
in and satisfiedwith his/herlife in the U.S.
It was measuredby combiningrespondents' Are ThereCross-Cultural in
Differences
answers(previously transformed into standard Cultural Assimilation andAdaptation?
scores) to the followingthree questions:
(1) Takingall thingstogether, how wouldyou Table 1 listedthe 17 knowledge, value,atti-
say things are these days - would you sayyou tudinal,role, and behavior-related variablesthat
are veryhappy,pretty happy, or not too happy made up the cultural assimilation index for
these days? (2) In general, how satisfying do Filipinomigrants, and showed rather extensive
you find the way you're spendingyour life cross-culturaldifferenceson the variables
thesedays?Wouldyou call it completely satis- betweenthe Filipino migrantand Caucasian
fying,prettysatisfying, or not verysatisfying? controlsamples.Fifteenof the 17 inter-group
(3) Here is a pictureof a ladder. Supposewe differenceswere statisticallysignificant;of
say thatthe top of theladder[10] represents these,13 wereof a magnitude greater thanhalf
the best possiblelife foryou and thebottom a standarddeviation.Thus, Filipinomigrants
[1] represents the worstpossiblelifeforyou. (1) had less accurate knowledgeabout re-

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 PHILIPPINE REVIEW
SOCIOLOGICAL

productionand birthcontrol,(2) were less control,(12) had less motivationto practice

modern,(3) enjoyedassociatingwithpeople
more, (4) valued theircareersless, (5) had
largerconceptsof théterm"family",(6) were
more influencedby religion,(7) had more
favorableattitudestowardchildren,(8) pre-
ferredlarger-sizedfamilies,(9) had stronger
preferencesfor male children,(10) had less
favorableattitudestowardabortion,(11) had
less favorableattitudes toward population
contraception, (13) believedmorestrongly in
spouses' sharing household tasks,5 (14) at-
tendedchurchmorefrequently, and (15) used
less effective
contraceptionin a lessregularway
thantheirCaucasianneighbors.
Table 2 presentsthe meanscoresof Filipino
migrantsand Caucasiancontrolson the three
indicesof adaptationstudied.Caucasiansgave

ofHappinessand Satisfaction,
Table2. MeanSelf-Rating Vs.CaucasianControls
FilipinoMigrants

Filipinomigrants Caucasians t,Filipinos

Adaptationindex vs.
Mean S.D. n Mean S.D. n Caucasians

Happinessrating 2.16 .58 200 2.41 .54 100 3.59***

(3-pointscale)
Satisfaction
rating 2.04 .51 199 2.17 .50 100 2.09*
(3-pointscale)
Laddersatisfactionrating 7.16 1.37 198 7.49 1.29 100 2.00*
(10-pointscale)

*p< .05
***p< .001

slighlyhigherself-happinessratingsthan Fili- groupswith varyingamountsof exposureto

pinos on all threeindicesstudied.In short, U.S. culture.Most of the analysesto be re-
Filipinomigrantsappear to be less satisfied ported in this and the followingsectionre-
with theirlives in the U.S. than Caucasian presentattemptsto obtain longitudinal, pro-
butthemagnitude
controls, of thesedifferences cess-relatedinsights from available cross-
in smallcomparedto themagnitude of cultural sectionaldata. Hie terms"change" and "in-
betweenthegroups.
differences crease/decrease" will be used looselythrough-
out to standfordifferences amongrespondent
Do MigrantAssimilationandAdaptation subgroupsdiffering in amount of time ever
IncreasewithTime? livedin the U.S. It shouldbe keptin mindthat
actual intrapersonal change is neverdirectly
The assimilationand adaptationprocesses measuredbecause the studywas not a longi-
are necessarilylongitudinal- occuringover tudinalone.
time and involvingcontinuousfeedbackbe-
tweenthe individualand his/her environment. Table 3 presentstheaveragedeviationfrom
Data in the presentstudy were gatheredat a the socioeconomicstatus,culturalassimilation,
singlepointin time,albeitfrom cross-sectional structuralassimilation,and adaptationgrand

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 61

a
^ I ^ S § »
ti ^v. t: Q
S ^«I
m
o
ON CO Tl"
os m r-
2 5
rV S o Š ^v_ O <N (N l>
k, ,5 g

Jk.
ç. Qj »3 ^ „
0 r <£»g ^ * * * *
**?>*■» S ^ * * * *
g fe s § os o o r-
<N (N Tf
oo
ON
S £
^ ^ ^ iWiOOOTl-
<3 ^

»
*3 t- oo */">oo
cq
(N• (N ro (N

cd
S> cq
co ?^2¡ (N ON O <N
•S 1 - V
/' .R
X t t 9 ^
3 C O O <N O
•5 1
I iT
■8
•ä
1
5
có_
I 3 O ^ ¡2 ~ vo I- t-
•S "? .5 V 'o es w r-;
o" Q . Sí o O
* «2
Ç? ^
S
I I
s
'S co
tí S ÍS ON Os os o
S «O Dî O rf Ti- <N
^ r^-SV O O O O
I s g K_ iiii
g &
o <fc.
.s: K
•2
■G
¡I
s; è 4s ^ 3t ^ o ?! ¡o §
^ S ö ff ?lili 7 7 i «
e '? .S £ £
o
c 1cu
s «S
t iC
fi
^3 O
§ £) S
*« *
s:
Qj P
-M a .2g tí Co
°
•a g» CÖ O tí Oj O
° ü
¡s S
Q to JStrt ^2 T3 .O
<Do
c «
.§ .a
S g «g
.s .s o
=3 6/5
§ *^ř t? *r3 ÎS *° tí
«3*Q
*ô
.3 G W5
2 cd T3
G
O G«C -h
«s o
S O 2 oj D O O
cn £ 8^52 ïïy'v v v
à O 3 O Cl r-J- Û.S1.
Tí ±2 p ¿d
o 3 j= •§ S S í i:
$ CO O 00 < <f.o

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 PHILIPPINE REVIEW
SOCIOLOGICAL

meansforsubgroupsof Filipinomigrants who Are the VariousTypesofAssimilation

lived in the U.S. for varyinglengthsof time
(less than 2 years;2-5 years;6-10 years;and
more than 10 years).Age and socioeconomic
statuswerepartialledout beforethecomputa-
tionof subgroup meansto ensurethatobtained
differenceswereindeedattributable
subgroup
to lengthof timelivedin theU.S. and not to
factorscorrelatedwith this independent vari-
able of interest.On all fourmeasures,statis-
subgroupdifferences
tically significant were
found.In general,bothassimilationandadapta-
tion grewwith numberof yearslivedin the
U.S. The trendwas stronglysignificant and
linear for structuralassimilation.For socio-
economic status, cultural assimilation,and
adaptationtherewas a slightdownturnfor
who had livedin theU.S. morethan
migrants
ten years.The smallnumberof respondents in
thissubgroup(19), however, makesit hardto
evaluatehow much significance to attachto
thislastfinding.
PostulatedDistinct?If sofHow are
TheyInterrelated?
As previouslymentioned,two of the pri-
mary theoreticalissues in the assimilation
literaturecenteraroundthemultidimensionality
of the assimilationconstructand the time
orderingof assimilation phases. Table 4 pre-
sents the intercorrelations among the three
types of assimilation studied and numberof
years lived in the U.S. Significant but mode-
ratelylow correlations (.16 to .19) were found
among the three assimilationconstructs. Even
allowing for truncation of true correlations
broughtabout by measurement errorin the
variables,it seems reasonableto conclude that
the threetypesof assimilation are relatedbut
distinct.It is thus important,when talking
about assimilation, to specifywhichtype of
assimilation is meant.

Table4. Intercorrelations Variables

AmongAssimilation-Related

Socioeconomic Cultural Structural

status assimilation assimilation

No. ofyearsin U.S. .05 .14* .28***

status
Socioeconomic .19** .18**

Culturalassimilation .16**

*p< .05
**p< .01
***p< .001

The relativemagnitudeof the correlations phases. If socioeconomicand/orculturalassi-

betweentypesof assimilation and numberof milationwerenecessaryforstructural assimila-
years lived in the U.S., in conjunctionwith tionto occur,as the Gordonand Greblertheo-
Table 3 data on differences in assimilation riespostulate,the firsttwo assimilation types
meansamongsubgroups of migrants who have should change more rapidlythan the third.
livedin theU.S. forvarying of
lengths time,can Data in Table 3 and in the firstrowof Table4
be used to shedlighton the Gordonand Greb- implythatthisis not the case. Socioeconomic
ler hypotheses of timeordering of assimilation statusand culturalassimilationdo not increase

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 63

«e o #
* # *
* »
.O #** * « * *•«
«„•S
«•Ss "S o
OOOJ
__
O ^O O
J -^ ' W MO
- ' <N- co
_ VOCOCO
-4O <N vO*
o 'û
-H (S *
vû *
(Nm
* *
^• M
W
*§•5 ■O■ ■ M •
1 í r
4*1
ví
I » fc
üS č
? 2 8-8 8
Ö
v¡ o e 5
0 So .2 m (Hg § ^ ^
Ä s S si!«
u ^5 S <u IÄ
s .2 'S
« I I 1 I 3^ I I O » -O 5 8
's ^ ï^iaS ® 3 8 •§■ o S o
8 "g I I e S S 1 9
1 -g<§ " íã J I J"
<
•= s|l
"S-S-äi
1
SsS "g I J si
» sí ~§ ?
4 ¡S.« I
1 s §1^1 : Il ^ I
5k 3 S||
S 2 &•§ 'g « .a .S .S ®■§ SC«^ i? .5
« .S« .S
«£ - tá
6 u -3 •§
»X tïedSS3 >, «i^-g^aS 'S 13 í ° .a
S o Ëw« S » o t Si?3 S S S *■« *t3 5
^° <2>
r §c JŠ
o fi•« «§£w 8L
m8.m.§ S&v S 3
SŽ3
fi Ž Ž Ž g1
««cgcoÊ'SS
«2E
t;
g S 8 .S g g 5 ^ o sê ? O'S c>- 3 g
>i ij 5 ^° Sr
1 >>
> -9 .&8<2<2g,§-3-3« ¿ÜSjL-Sg
ooo"^g2¿
e l'sSto S|ll2l|i»'§ 888§ê|^2 °
s •85 |S I 1 8 1 1 s ■§g g I I § I I j= 1 1 g
.o âè£&ô ⣣£«S & I« S £«££11 J «S
i
'S
.N Kg; O * #
.O î 5 * * *
S
•JC â^ "S "§ 2 ï o J o (N ro-■ JhO*i^TtOnmin0'^0'
0 '5
*J poop p(N (N-'I Ô^^^hOOOOOOOOO
* ' *
& .i "i r r r r f r
1 6 *
1
ë
c§
I 11
t S *s î I 5
c fB> 1 î I il
s g -s I II
|Sc§'a .a J "S 2
I Ia Sâ Eě i ^T!e S e =
I »o
e3
I« y «o S?û<
coii^cx^S g
a a o
~o
i2S °8 -s
s
o
a e .2 ç- o u S M
3 S - .2 ¿c
3 fi
oq £ I §g^-S|.S*Q 'S I g i .2 1 8
«o
s: *
.o I I |o¡!= 1 | . alzili!
c «o §
§ Af-ijs I I ^il-oeM-S-oji
I ^ I & |S8§£Í|8||s
1 I* S Ë I ^ Í O'S » JMS«o22§22fl
wo ls|2lS2 I S oS§
ffgp-ã il £|||J «v
a> .5 0 S g 2 0,5Sí 8^ ■5Í-§,Ísá,Í3-§S.33|
ì il-S-ãS
<Owtìtì 1
Z 'g &
wh §| § J S II'S ¡ g 2 2 'S -W
¡2sáSüfc£<ZwCCS î

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 PHILIPPINE REVIEW
SOCIOLOGICAL

as significantly or in as linear a fashionas ment) or to the (professional natureof the)

structuralassimilation.The caveat should be motivationbehind the migrationwere not
made againthatthe data analyzedwerecross- relatedto adaptation.The availability of rela-
sectionaland notlongitudinal in nature.Keep- tivesoutsidethenuclearfamilyforintermittent
ing thislimitationin mind,it appearsthatthe interaction had a smallpositiveassociation with
following conclusions are consistent with the satisfaction (r = .16,p < .05, forrelatives
living
data: (1) Filipino migrantscominglewith in one's neighborhood and fornumberof rela-
Caucasiansat a morerapidratethantheirrise tives seen monthly),but intimatecontact
in socioeconomicstatusor theiradoptionof (relativeslivingin house) was notnecessary for
Caucasianvalues,attitudes,and the like, and adaptation(r = -.06; not significant). Not
(2) such co-mingling can occurindependently surprisingly, relationswithspouseand children
of socioeconomicstatusor of adoptionof the also had significant correlations withmigrant
Caucasianwayoflife. adaptation.
These data may be summarizedas saying
How are theVariousTypesofAssimilation that good jobs and interpersonal relationships
RelatedtoAdaptation? are the most importantcorrelatesof migrant
Are socioeconomic,cultural,and/orstruc- adaptation.Note, too, that co-mingling with
tural assimilationnecessaryfor a migrant's both Caucasians and relativesfrom "back
satisfactionwithlifein thenew country?How home"waspositively relatedto adaptation.
does the relationship betweenassimilation and
adaptationcompare to the between
relationship Summary
adaptation and other postulated antecedents Data froma sampleof200 Filipinomigrants
suchas socioeconomicstatusin the country of and 100 Caucasiancontrolsfromthe
Filipinos'
origin,the motivationbehindthe migration, neighborhoods(stratifiedby age and socio-
and the extent of kinshipnetworksin the economic status) were analyzed to
study
new country?Table 5 presentsrelevantdata. patternsof assimilation and adaptationamong
Thecorrelation betweenadaptationandpresent the Filipinomigrantcommunity livingin the
socioeconomic status was .23 (p < .001); the San FranciscoBayArea.It wasfoundthat:
correlation betweenadaptationand thecompo-
1. Extensiveculturaldifferences exist be-
siteindexof culturalassimilation was .04 (not
tweenFilipinomigrants andCaucasiancontrols
significant);the correlation betweenadaptation
in thesameneighborhoods.
and thecompositeindexof structural assimila- living
tionwas .23 (p < .001). It appearsthata good 2. The evidencefromcross-sectional data
job and the opportunityto associate with implies that these differences "decrease" with
Americansare moderatelyassociated with time,i.e., thatassimilation of Filipinosin the
migrant adaptation,but adoptionof American direction of the surrounding Caucasianculture
values,attitudes, and thelikeis not. In further occur. The changes are rapid enoughto be
supportof thisconclusionis the findingthat detected over a brief 12-year period.
thestructural assimilationindexleastrelatedto 3. This cultural assimilationof Filipino
adaptation(feelingof closenessto American migrantsis more rapid than theirsocioeco-
culture)is theindexmostconceptually alliedto nomic assimilation, but less rapid than their
culturalassimilation. structural(association with Caucasians) as-
similation.Thus, it appears that structural
Contrary to expectations, background
factorsrelatingto themigrant's characteristics assimilation can occurwithoutculturalassimila-
in the countryof origin(date ofbirth,parents' tion.
socioeconomicstatus,size of communityin 4. Whilesocioeconomicand structural as-
whichthemigrant grew up, educationalattain- similation are moderately related to migrant

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANDADAPTION
ASSIMILATION 65

adaptation(migrant satisfaction
withlifein the logicallyrigorousmanner,was conceptually
new country), cultural assimilationis not limitedin scope, becauseit was based on data
relatedto adaptation.Thus a Filipinomigrant gatheredin the contextof a fertility study.
can livehappilyin theU.S. witha goodjob and Otherinvestigators in possessionof moregene-
with moderate cominglingwith Americans, ral culturaldata are encouragedto use the
evenif he/sheretainsthe old country'svalues, presentstudy'sapproachin quantifying cultural
andthelike.
attitudes, assimilationand thento testwhetherrelation-
shipsobtainedbetweenthisvariableand struc-
5. The presenceof extendedfamilymem- turalassimilationand betweenthisvariableand
bers in the migrant'sneighborhoodmakes a are
adaptation replicated. (3) Theseconclusions
small,positive to
contribution his/heradapta- not to
may apply non-Filipino migrants. For
tion;however,thepresenceof extendedfamily that "trends"
example findings significant
in thehousemakesno additionalcontribution. towardassimilation and adaptationoccurwith-
of theseconclusionsshould
The robustness in a singlegeneration maynot be trueof other
be verifiedon othersamplesbecause of the Asianmigrants who do not possessthefacility
followinglimitationsof the presentstudy: with Englishand an a priorifamiliarity with
and not longitudinal
(1) Cross-sectional data Americanculturethat Filipino migrantsdo
wereanalyzed.(2) The index of culturalassi- becauseofthatcountry's historical
colonialties
milationused,whileconstructedin a methodo- withtheUnitedStates.

Notes socioeconomic statusif thehusband either(1) had

somepostcollege education, or (2) workedas an
Thisstudywassupported withfunds provided by executive, proprietor, manager, administrator, or
theCenterforPopulation Researchof theNational professional. Allothercoupleswereconsidered tobe
of ChildHealthand HumanDevelopmentof lowsocioeconomic
Institute status.In thedataanalysis to
HD-52808
(Contract andGrand HD-10684). be discussed later,however, socioeconomic statuswas
treatedas a continuous variableranging from 1 (Low)
*In1965theU.S. Immigration Actwasamended. to 10(High).
The amendment abolishedthe old national origins ^ Educationcategories. l=less than7 yearsof
quotasystem (of100peryearformanyThird World seniorhigh
countries)and substituted a provisolimiting the school; 2=junior high school; 3=partial
number of immigrants to 170,000fromtheEastern school;4=high school graduate; 5=partialcollegeor
vocational education training;6=standard (4-year)
Hemisphere and 120,000fromtheWestern Hemi- or profes-
Therewasa percountry
sphere. limitof20,000for college university graduation; 7=graduate
to a gra-
sionaltraining (at leastonecourseleading
countriesin theformer, butno individual country
limitationsin the latter.Through the 1970s the duatedegree). Occupation categories
farm
l=unemployed;
sharecroppers; 3=ma-
hassentthefullnumber 2=unskilled employees;
Philippines allowed bylaw. chine semi-skilled 4=skilled
morecasesarebacklogged operators and employees
Thousands waiting fornew
manualemployees, smallfarmowners; farmtenants
quotastobereleased.
yearly whoownfarm 5=clericalandsaleswork-
2 equipment;
^DuringtheAmerican colonialperiodinthePhilip- ers,technicians, andowners oflittlebusinesses; farm
pines,manyFilipinos migrated to theU.S. as farm owners; 6=administrative personnel, smallindependent
laborers.
TheseFilipinos, now called"oldtimers",businesses and minorprofessionals; farmowners;
weregenerally of lowersocioeconomic background7=business managers, proprietors of medium-sized
thanFilipinos who havebeenadmitted underthe businesses, andlesserprofessionals; 8=higher execu-
1965Act.Thispaperdealsexclusively withthenew tives,proprietors oflargeconcerns andmajorprofes-
waveofmigrants andnotwiththeoldtimers. sionals.
o
JSocioeconomic statuswascomputed as a linear ^Possibly becausemoreFilipino wiveswerework-
combination of husband'seducationandoccupation ingin keeping withmigrants' beliefsthatonemajor
(cf.HollingsheadandRedlich 1958).Forpurposes of reasonformigrating is to makemoremoney, andbe-
a couplewasconsidered
stratification, to be ofhigh causedomestic helpwas readilyavailable to most

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 PHILIPPINE REVIEW
SOCIOLOGICAL
Filipino
migrantswhentheylivedinthePhilippines, Measures of SocialPsychological Attitudes.
household
causing tasksto be perceived
asallocatable AnnArbor:Institute forSocialResearch,
more byclassthanbysex. ofMichigan.
University
Coombs, L. C.
1975 A briefmemorandum on thebackground,
References uses, and procedures for theCoombspre-
ferencescale.Unpublished paper.
Fredandothers.
Arnold, Gordon, M.M.
1975 The value of children: A cross-national 1964 Assimilation in American life:Theroleof
study.Honolulu:East-West Population race,religion, and nationalorigin.New
Institute. York:Oxford University Press.
Bar-Yosef,R. W. Gough,H.G.
1968 Desocialization-resocialization:
The adjust- 1974 Population policyandsocialattitude ques-
mentprocessof immigrants. International tionnaire.
Paperpresented atsymposium on
Migration Review 2:27-42. cross-cultural
psychology, Western Psycho-
Boyd,M. logicalAssociation
meetings, SanFrancisco.
1971 Oriental immigration. InternationalMigra-
tionReview 4:48-61. L.,J.W.Moore,
Grabler, andR.C. Guzman
1970 TheMexican- American people:Thenation's
Bradburn,N.,andD. Caplovitz. secondlargest minority. NewYork:The
1965 Reports onhappiness. Chicago: Aldine. FreePress.
Brody,E. B. A.M.
Greely,
1969 Migration andadaptation: Thenature ofthe 1974 Ethnicity in theUnitedStates:A prelimi-
problem.AmericanBehavioral Scientist nary reconnaissance.NewYork:Wiley.
13:5-13.
H. Gurin,G.,J.Veroff,andS. Feld
Cantril, 1960 Americans viewtheirmentalhealth.New
1965 Thepattern ofhuman concerns.NewBruns- York:BasicBooks.
wick:Rutgers UniversityPress.
A. B.,andF. C. Redlich
Hollingshead,
J.J.,W.J.Wood,
Card, andE. B.Jayme 1958 Socialclassandmental illness.NewYork:
1979 Determinants ofindividual andcon-
fertility Wiley.
traceptiveuse: A review and synthesis of L. K.
the literature.PhilippineSociological Hong,
1976 Recent immigrants intheChinese- American
Review 27:211-234. Issues of adaptations
community: and
1978aThemalleability offertility-related
attitudes impacts.International Migration Review
andbehavoir in a Filipino migrant sample. 10:509-514.
Demography 15:459-476.
Lyman, S.
1978bThecorrespondence of datagathered from 1974 Chinese-Americans. New York: Random
husband andwife:Implications forfamily House.
planning studies.
SocialBiology 25:196-204.
W.B.
Miller,
1979 Differences in the antecedents and con- 1975 Description of instruments usedin a re-
sequences of the motivation forfertility searchproject on thepsychological aspects
controlamong Filipinomigrants and offertilitybehavior inwomen. Unpublished
Caucasiancontrols. Journal of Population paper.
2:140-161.
W.B.andN.M.Fisk
Miller,
Chen,
Pei-Ngor 1969 Sexualknowledge questionnaire. Stanford,
1973 Samoans in California.Social Work CA:Stanford University.
18:41-48. G.C.,andG.Masnick
Myers,
H.
Choldin, 1968 The migration experience of New York
1973 Kinship networks in themigration process. PuertoRicans:A perspective in return:
InternationalMigration Review 7:163-175. InternationalMigrationReview 2:80-90.
Converse,P.,andJ.Robinson R.E.,andE. W.Burgess
Park,
1965 The use of timein American societyIn 1921 Introduction to the scienceof sociology.
J. P. Robinson and P. R. Shaver(eds.), Chicago: UniversityofChicago Press.

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 67

A.
Portes, E. E.
Sandis,
1975 Assimilationof LatinAmericanminorities 1970 Characteristicsof Puerto
Ricanmigrantsto
in theU.S. DukeUniversity,
unpublished and fromtheU.S.International
Migration
research
proposal. Review,4:22-43.
C.
Price, D.
Smith, H., andA. Inkeles
1968 SouthernEuropeans Problems 1966 TheO. M. scale:A comparative
inAustralia: socio-psy-
of assimilation.
International
Migration measure
chological ofindividual
modernity.
2:3-23.
Review, Sociometry29:353-377.
Rogg,E. and
U.S.ImmigrationNaturalization Service.
1971.The influence of a strong com-
refugee 1970-1979. AnnualReport.Washington, D.C.:
munityon theeconomic ofits
adjustment U.S.Government Office.
Printing
members.International Review
Migration ,
5:474-481.

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions