Page 45 - IJPS-7-2

International Journal of
Population Studies Objective and subjective assimilation of migrants

3. Results

The summary statistics of these variables based on the
chosen reference group are shown in Table 1. Notably,
migrants with different reference groups do differ. In
particular, migrants, who selected a reference group closer
to the mainstream reference group (i.e., urban people),
tended to be younger or male, and had higher education
levels, a longer migration duration, and a stronger intention
to stay. It was observed that the economic assimilation
into the reference group differed across the reference
groups (Table 1). However, the economic assimilation into
the mainstream is generally higher for those who chose
reference groups closer to the mainstream reference group.
The patterns in subjective well-being measures are less
clear.
Figure 1. Framework of assimilation of rural-to-urban migration
The results with unstandardized coefficients from
structural equation modeling are shown in Table 2, and the
of direct impact being canceled out by the two forces. results with standardized coefficients are shown in Table 3.
In either case, it is important to consider this subjective While both standardized and unstandardized coefficients
choice in the process. The subjective path of economic are shown, because they present different and mutually
assimilation is reflected by economic assimilation into exclusive information, this research focuses on the
the reference group, while the objective path of economic unstandardized coefficients, given its purpose. Specifically,
assimilation is reflected by economic assimilation into the the goal is not to compare the size of the effects, but mostly
mainstream. The link between economic assimilation into to test whether the effects are significant or not. The model
the reference group and economic assimilation into the provides a good fit for the data (Chi-square test, P = 0.188;
mainstream is where the two paths intertwine and show CFI = 0.986; RMSEA = 0.026). However, alternative
the percentage of objective outcomes explained by the models may exist. These may include 1) the exclusion of
subjective process. The link between the reference group the link between the subjective and objective path and 2)
and subjective well-being was included since the reference the traditional model, in which neither the reference group
group is shown to have a strong effect on subjective well- nor the subjective path is considered.
being (Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010). Some of the impacts of
exogenous factors on the objective path are reflected in the A comparison of the three models on the basis of the
subjective path. Finally, the theory of subjective well-being goodness of fit resulted in the following outcomes, as shown
was combined and tested. The results show differential in Table 4: proposed model (Chi-square test, P = 0.188;
impacts on subjective well-being from each path. CFI = 0.986; RMSEA = 0.026); alternative model 1 (Chi-
square test, P = 0.000; CFI = 0.739; RMSEA = 0.111); and
The working model for this analysis is tested using the alternative model 2 (Chi-square test, P = 0.000; CFI = 0.736;
maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation RMSEA = 0.105). These results suggest that the proposed
modeling in Stata 17. However, the multivariate normality model is the best fit for these data. This also indicates that
assumption should be satisfied to apply the maximum- it is important to account for both subjective and objective
likelihood estimation. Mardia’s multivariate normality paths in the assimilation process since the proposed model,
tests (skewness and kurtosis) were applied to test the based on the theoretical framework, fits much better than
multivariate normality assumption. The results show that the traditional assimilation models.
the multivariate normality assumption is not satisfied.
The analysis of the proposed structural equation
Therefore, the Satorra–Bentler estimation was applied to modeling results is described below. The coefficients for
adjust for the non-normality (Satorra & Bentler, 1994).
age (β = −0.202), education (β = 0.114), and intention
d/t
d/t
The goodness of fit of models was evaluated using the to permanently migrate (β = 0.290) on the reference
d/t
Satorra–Bentler scaled Chi-square test, the Satorra–Bentler group indicate that the reference group choice is highly
scaled comparative fit index (CFI), and the Satorra–Bentler subjective and intentional. This is because the intention to
scaled root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). permanently migrate has the strongest impact on choosing
A CFI > 0.95 and an RMSEA less than 0.05 are considered a reference group that is closer to the mainstream urban
a good model fit. residents. These results support Hypothesis 1 that migrants

Volume 7 Issue 2 (2021) 39 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.v7i2.346