Immigration, coping, and well-being: Implications for communities’ roles in promoting the well-being of immigrants and refugees

Abstract

Promoting the well-being of immigrants and refugees is a critical social justice issue for many communities in the United States. The current study investigated how coping strategies and social support promote the well-being of immigrants and refugees. Participants were foreign-born individuals (N = 90) in a Midwestern state. The effects of coping strategies (i.e. forward- and trauma-focus coping, instrumental and emotional support seeking) and social support (i.e. personal and community support) on three levels of well-being (i.e. physical, psychological, and relationship) were examined using multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) and a path analysis. Results showed main effects of forward-focus coping and support seeking on wellbeing. Additionally, community support significantly predicted different coping strategies. Discussion focuses on the roles of coping and social support, as well as the study’s implications for the roles of communities in promoting the well-being of immigrants and refugees.

Keywords:

• Coping
• immigrants
• refugees
• well-being

Notes

Notes

1 Majority of our South East Asian participants were originally from Myanmar (n = 38) and Thailand (n = 16), and others were from Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia. About 8% of them came from other parts of Asia (Nepal, China, and Bhutan). Twelve percent of our participants were from African nations (Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Burundi, and Somalia), and 9% were from Central and South American nations (Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Cuba, Ecuador, and Peru). Otherwise noted, n ≤ 5 for each nation.

2 In conducting the exploratory factor analysis, rotated component matrix was used. All factor loadings were .30 or greater. Federal programs were included in community support factor given that immigrants and refugees often learn about these programs (e.g. welfare programs) and made available for them in community settings (Simich et al., 2005). Moreover, although the reliability of personal support was relatively low (α = .47), it was still included in the proceeding analysis given the validity (i.e. appropriateness and meaningfulness; Cohen & Swerdlik, 2002) demonstrated with the factor analysis.

3 One item (i.e. “Are you satisfied with your sex life?”) was eliminated for the current study due to its potential to offend people from certain cultures.

4 Forty-nine percent of the participants were currently married at the time of study.

5 We also specified alternative models by removing variables and changing the orders of the paths, yet these did not improve the model fit.