Exportar Publicação

Tai, L.L., Bierwiaczonek, K. & Guerra, R. (2024). Different Standards of Host Society’s Responses to Refugees. 33rd International Congress of Psychology (ICP).

T. L. Ling et al.,  "Different Standards of Host Society’s Responses to Refugees", in 33rd Int. Congr. of Psychology (ICP), Prague, 2024

@misc{ling2024_1766250431971,
	author = "Tai, L.L. and Bierwiaczonek, K. and Guerra, R.",
	title = "Different Standards of Host Society’s Responses to Refugees",
	year = "2024",
	url = "https://icp2024.com/"
}

TY  - CPAPER
TI  - Different Standards of Host Society’s Responses to Refugees
T2  - 33rd International Congress of Psychology (ICP)
AU  - Tai, L.L.
AU  - Bierwiaczonek, K.
AU  - Guerra, R.
PY  - 2024
CY  - Prague
UR  - https://icp2024.com/
AB  - There are more than 110 million forcibly displaced people, an additional 1.6 million in the first half of 2023 (7). Unlike other migrants, refugees face additional burdens in the adaptation process. Echterhoff et al. (1) proposed the Psychological Antecedents of Refugee Integration (PARI) model, focussing on two central psychological factors: Perceived Forcedness, the subjective experience of forced displacement; and Related Perils, the dangers associated with forced displacement. Additionally, refugees face discrimination in housing, employment, healthcare, and education. Correlational evidence showed that discrimination negatively affects participation in host societies (4), reduces migrants’ adoption of local culture (2), and reduces likelihood of integration (3).
Furthermore, refugees encounter different standards of the host society’s response. For example, Portugal scored 81 out of 100 in MIPEX (5); its comprehensive integration policy includes healthcare access for asylum-seekers and cultural diversity education in schools. In contrast, Malaysia does not recognise refugees. Without a national asylum system, refugees have limited access to housing, employment, education, healthcare, and protection. Treated as “illegal immigrants”, they regularly face detention, forced removals, criminal prosecution, and corporal punishment by the local authorities (6).
This study compares two refugee groups in two different contexts: refugees in Portugal and Zomi refugees in Malaysia. Results showed that perceived discrimination and related perils were significantly higher for Zomi refugees, while subjective well-being and perceived forcedness were significantly higher for refugees in Portugal. For both groups, perceived forcedness was negatively related to subjective well-being, but perceived discrimination was not significantly related to subjective well-being. For refugees in Portugal, perceived discrimination was positively related to perceived forcedness. For Zomi refugees, it was positively associated with related perils. 
We propose that these group differences are a product of specific social and political factors, such as the (non)recognition of refugees, that create a double standard in how refugees are treated.
ER  -