Page 48 - IJPS-7-2

International Journal of
Population Studies Objective and subjective assimilation of migrants

Table 4. Goodness of fit by model and willingness, stemming from their intentional choice
of reference group, could be the main force driving their
Main Alternative Model Alternative
model 1 (Link between Model 2 (Neither outcomes (Chen, 2021; Chen & Fan, 2022; Zhou et al.,
subjective and reference group 2008). However, this process could be overlooked and
objective path nor subjective possibly even omitted if the subjective assimilation process
excluded) path included) is not considered.
Model fit Our results of the effects of subjective and objective
Chi-square 0.188 0.000 0.000 assimilation on subjective well-being also suggest
test meaningful findings in how the migrants’ subjective well-
(P-value) being is formed. The literature suggests that the migrants’
RMSEA 0.026 0.111 0.105 subjective well-being is highly shaped by their relative
CFI 0.986 0.739 0.736 status (for example, relative income), which is affected
N 367 by their choice of reference group (Knight & Gunatilaka,
Note: *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001. Standard errors, P-values, Model 2010). This paper shows that the migrants’ subjective well-
Fit statistics are all based on Satorra–Bentler adjustments. being is mainly influenced by their relative status compared
to the mainstream host residents (in this case, urban
scope of this paper, this argument, as an example, shows residents), despite their relative status compared to their
how the inclusion of the two-path assimilation model can chosen reference group. Therefore, regardless of whether
benefit the study of assimilation in general. or not the migrants choose the mainstream host residents
as their reference group, their subjective well-being will be
4. Discussion affected due to their observations of or interactions with
Using a dataset of rural-to-urban migrants in China, this the mainstream host residents.
study explored whether assimilation is a combination Finally, the empirical findings focus on economic
of both objective and subjective processes, with four assimilation, which may be the most important dimension
specific hypotheses (1) migrants who intend to become of assimilation. The subjective and objective processes may
permanent migrants are willing to choose local residents differ for other dimensions of assimilation. Nonetheless,
as their reference group, (2) economic assimilation into this does not mean that the value of accounting for both
the mainstream is mainly dependent on the economic subjective and objective processes is only restricted to
assimilation into the reference group, (3) there are major economic assimilation. This theoretical framework may
stratification factors that affect economic assimilation into apply to most, if not all, of the assimilation dimensions.
the mainstream through economic assimilation into the For example, with cultural assimilation (acculturation),
reference group, and (4) both economic assimilations into we may expect a stronger subjective process. We have
the mainstream and into the reference group have positive learned that intrinsic acculturation (i.e., acculturation in
impacts on subjective well-being, but the impact of values) could be hard for rural-to-urban migrants (Chen
economic assimilation on the reference group is stronger. & Liu, 2018). Nonetheless, this could be largely due to
Overall, our empirical evidence supports Hypotheses their chosen reference group. In sum, different conclusions
1 to 3, whereas it rejects Hypothesis 4. could have been reached by accounting for the subjective
Specifically, this study shows that assimilation is not acculturation process. To fully understand the assimilation
purely an objective process, as the major assimilation process, researchers must not simply assign a reference
theories have implicitly assumed (Gans, 1973; Gordon, group to a group of migrants and explore whether they
1964; Portes & Zhou, 1993). From the researchers’ are assimilated. Assimilation is a mixture of objective and
perspective, it is important not to simply assign a reference subjective processes.
group to a group of migrants and explore whether they When interpreting our results, following caveats
are assimilated. Nevertheless, although such methodology should be taken into account. First and foremost, there are
can provide insight on objective assimilation outcomes – about half of the heads of the sample households and their
whether migrants are truly assimilated into the reference spouse who did not answer the question on subjective
group selected by the researchers, this approach will well-being, which may bias our results. Nevertheless,
blur the process of assimilation. As shown in this paper, we expected such biases might not be substantial in that
the objective assimilation outcomes depend on the their profiles in other key study variables are more or less
subjective assimilation process – migrants assimilating the same as those who answered the question. Second,
into their chosen reference group. Migrants’ aspiration relatedly, even if all samples answered the subjective well-

Volume 7 Issue 2 (2021) 42 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.v7i2.346