Are Migrants Selected on Motivational Orientations? Selectivity Patterns amongst International Migrants in Europe
Are Migrants Selected on Motivational Orientations? Selectivity Patterns amongst International Migrants in Europe
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/esr/jcy025
复制
发表时间：
2018-10-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Ramos, Maria
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Polavieja, Javier G.;Fernandez-Reino, Marina;Ramos, Maria
移民学者通常认为移民是其母国最有抱负和动机的人。然而，关于动机选择性的研究却很少。我们提出了第一个系统的跨国分析移民的选择性的成就相关的动机取向（ARMOs）。我们使用经过验证的量表来衡量ARMO，该量表结合了社会经济成功，风险和金钱的取向。匹配欧洲社会调查和世界价值调查累积数据集，我们研究最近抵达欧洲的国际移民是否比那些不移民的观察同等移民更注重成就。我们专注于移民从九个不同的起源（法国，德国，英国，波兰，罗马尼亚，土耳其，摩洛哥，巴西和安第斯国家）采样在不同的欧洲目的地不同的国内生产总值，福利国家的类型，和语言的距离。我们的研究结果似乎与社会心理学家提出的关于共同移民性格的论点相矛盾，也与标准经济模型的大多数预测相矛盾。然而，我们确实发现，一些支持福利磁铁假说，以及性别传统主义有利于移民妇女的负面选择性的期望。我们表明，报告的估计是不是由教育的选择性，不太可能是有偏见的目的地效应。
Migration scholars often assume migrants are the most ambitious and motivated individuals of their home countries. Yet research on motivational selectivity is scant. We present the first systematic cross-national analysis of migrants' selectivity on achievement-related motivational orientations (ARMOs). We measure ARMOs using a validated scale that combines orientations towards socioeconomic success, risk, and money. Matching the European Social Survey and the World Value Survey cumulative data sets, we examine whether international migrants recently arrived in Europe are more achievement-oriented than those observational equivalents that do not migrate. We focus on migrants from nine different origins (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Morocco, Brazil, and Andean countries) sampled at different European destinations varying in gross domestic product, type of welfare state, and linguistic distance. Our findings seem to contradict the arguments about a common migrant personality put forward by social psychologists, as well as most of the predictions of standard economic models. We do find, however, some support for the welfare magnet hypothesis, as well as for the expectation that gender traditionalism favours negative selectivity of migrant women. We show that reported estimates are not driven by educational selectivity and are unlikely to be biased by destination effects.