ORIGINAL PAPER

Perceived Discrimination Among Three Groups of RefugeesResettled in the USA: Associations With Language, Timein the USA, and Continent of Origin

Craig Hadley Æ Crystal Patil

Published online: 3 February 2009

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract The objectives of this study were to assess the

prevalence and predictors of discrimination among a

community-based sample of refugees resettled in the USA.

We sought to test whether language, gender, time in the

USA and country of origin were associated with the

experience of discrimination among individuals resettled

in the USA as part of the refugee resettlement program.

Perceived discrimination was assessed among individuals

from East Africa (n = 92), West Africa (n = 74), and from

Eastern Europe (n = 112) using a multi-item measure of

discrimination. Bivariate associations revealed statistically

significant associations between experiences of discrimi-

nation and time in the USA, language ability, and sending

country. A logistic regression model revealed that refugees

from African sending countries were more likely than

Eastern European individuals to experience discrimination,

even after controlling for potentially confounding factors.

We interpret this finding as evidence of racism and discuss

the implications for population health and resettlement

practice.

Keywords Racism � Poverty � Segmented assimilation �Immigration � Health disparities � Somalia � Liberia �Meskhetian Turk

Increasingly discrimination is understood to be a source of

variation in population health [1]. Discrimination occurs

when an individual or a group of individuals is distin-

guished unfavorably from others. It operates through both

structural and inter-personnel pathways and can affect

health by restricting access to critical health resources or by

amplifying the negative effects of stress, which in turn

results in a cascade of negative mental and physical health

outcomes [1]. These negative effects are observed in the

relationship between minority status of an individual and

social status, access to resources, health and wellbeing and

nearly all other health and economic outcomes. For newly

arrived refugees, discrimination potentially counteracts the

very purpose of resettlement in the USA because, to

varying degrees, discrimination also acts to restrict

opportunities for health and general wellbeing. The aim of

this paper is to assess the extent to which different refugee

groups experience discrimination and to test whether dis-

crimination is predicted by ‘‘visible minority’’ status (i.e.,

skin color) or phenotypic categorization [2].

As Krieger [3] and others [4–6] point out, the experience

of discrimination is patterned along many biosocial lines,

although in the USA ‘‘race’’ is perhaps the most dominant

or visible characteristic. Yet, gender, language ability,

sexual orientation, country of origin and religion are also

important characteristics that often predict the extent to

which an individual suffers from discrimination. These

varied characteristics are salient because they delineate the

subordinate status of distinct groups of individuals through

culturally-constructed notions of inferiority which can be

reified by members of politically, numerically, and eco-

nomically dominant individuals. Refugees who have been

resettled in the USA are at a particularly high risk of

discrimination because they show many outward signs of

their minority status, including dress, skin color, language,

C. Hadley (&)

Department of Anthropology, Emory University, 1557 Dickey

Drive, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

e-mail: chadley@emory.edu

C. Patil

Department of Anthropology (BSB 2102, MC 027), University

of Illinois at Chicago, 1007 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL

60607, USA

e-mail: cpatil@uic.edu

123

J Immigrant Minority Health (2009) 11:505–512

DOI 10.1007/s10903-009-9227-x

neighborhood of residence, religion and socioeconomic

status. Upon arrival in the USA, refugees resettled from

varying countries and settings likely share in many of

the listed risk factors for discrimination: however, with

settlement their experiences may begin to diverge consid-

erably [7]. One factor that may promote different

trajectories at both the individual and group levels is that

arrival in the USA exposes individuals to the long history

of tumultuous race relations and racial discrimination.

Many studies have addressed the question of discrimi-

nation among refugees [8–11]. Conclusions from these

studies are that discrimination is present and is experienced

by individuals from all sending countries and this dis-

crimination is a source of considerable stress. For example,

Noh et al. [11] used a single item measure of discrimina-

tion in a study of 647 Asian refugees and reported that 26%

of the respondents experienced discrimination on the basis

of ‘‘race.’’ In a qualitative study of Cuban refugees, several

individuals mentioned experiencing discrimination while

living in the USA [12]. Reflecting the interaction between

US history and skin color, African refugees may experi-

ence heightened levels of discrimination. Although studies

are fewer, this pattern appears to hold true for African

refugees resettled in Europe, Australia, and North America.

A qualitative study of Somali immigrants living in Norway

found fairly high levels of perceived discrimination [10]. A

recent study from Australia compared labor market expe-

riences of Bosnian, African, and Middle Eastern refugees

and showed that the gap between qualifications and

employment was largest in those groups that have the most

visible minority status (i.e., African and Middle Eastern

groups [13]. In another study of 263 Sudanese refugees

living in Nebraska, USA [14], 53% reported that they had

experienced racism and 20% reported that racism was a

barrier to adequate health care. These statistics underscore

the pervasiveness of racism and the importance of racism

for health and health seeking. They also suggest that dif-

ferent study designs, methods of data collection and

analyses have potentially limited our ability to assess the

impact of discrimination on distinct refugee groups.

As far as we know, no studies have reported on per-

ceived discrimination among African and non-African

refugees living in North America within the same study

while utilizing a multi-item instrument [15]. Yet, under-

standing the extent to which different refugee groups

experience or perceive different levels of discrimination

may have important implications for understanding popu-

lation level disparities in health, well-being, and economic

outcomes. Our goal in this analysis is to assess the extent to

which refugees resettled in the USA experience discrimi-

nation, identify the areas in which refugees perceive

discrimination stemming from, and assess how these

experiences vary by sending region. We sought to explore

the possible contribution that differential discrimination

may have on creating opportunities and obstacles for

refugees from different sending countries. First, we

hypothesized that language difficulties would be associated

with greater perceived discrimination because English

speakers with whom study participants are interacting may

perceive poor language as sign of poor education, immi-

gration status, poverty, or a marker of lower social status.

Studies of other refugee groups suggest that this is a

plausible source of discrimination [12]. On the other hand,

difficulty with language could protect against discrimina-

tion because individuals with language difficulties might

selectively spend time with others who speak a language or

languages with which they are familiar. Given the long

history of racial discrimination in the USA we also

hypothesized that continent of origin would be a significant

predictor of the experiences of discrimination in the USA.

Specifically, we hypothesized that individuals from African

sending countries would report experiencing higher levels

of discrimination than those from Eastern Europe simply

because of skin color. To test these hypotheses, we draw on

data from an anthropological study with three refugee

groups resettled in the USA.

Study Communities and Methods

A brief overview of the diverse migration histories of the

three study groups is provided below.

Meskhetian Turks

Since the 1940s, Meskhetian Turks have struggled with

extreme discrimination, violence and harassment, which

resulted in forced and intentional migration movements

throughout Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyz-

stan. The Meskhetian Turks were considered to be a

stateless group living in Russia without legal status. This

group most recently settled in the Caucasus region of

Russia where they continue to struggle to gain basic rights

including property ownership, employment, education,

healthcare, social services and passports. As a result of

recent and increased acts of violence toward this group, the

Meskhetian Turks became part of the refugee relocation

process. In 2002, the USA listed Meskhetian Turks among

those eligible for asylum in the USA. Nearly 12,000 were

relocated to the USA by 2007 [16].

Somali Bantu

Somali Bantu are described as a collection of ‘‘tribes’’ who

approximately 200 years ago were brought to Somalia as

servants and slaves. Despite sharing a common religion

506 J Immigrant Minority Health (2009) 11:505–512

123

(Islam) and language (Somali) and being freed from ser-

vitude, the Somali Bantu were ill-treated in Somalia due to

their minority status in several domains in addition to their

lack of affiliation with traditional Somali clans [17]. After

civil war and famine, many Somali civilians fled to nearby

Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania in the early 1990s. For more

than a decade, Somalis and Somali Bantu have been living

in refugee camps in East Africa. In the early 2000s,

resettlement of fairly large number of Somali Bantu began.

West African

West Africa, and in particular Liberia and Sierra Leone, have

had a tumultuous recent past. A seven-year Liberian civil war

briefly came to a close in 1996. However, instability, infra-

structure destruction, personal insecurity and death for many

Liberians resulted [18, 19]. There were least 150,000 people

killed with another 1.5 million displaced. In 2003, more civil

war resulted which produced another 105,000 refugees

bringing the total near 250,000. In the early 2000s, Liberians

started arriving in the USA as part of the resettlement pro-

cess. Given the new Liberian government and recent

stability, many Liberians are returning home. Large numbers

of Liberian refugees live in the USA today [20].

An exploratory ethnographic approach was adopted for

the larger refugee wellbeing project. We interviewed

individuals and conducted focus group interviews to ensure

that the data collection instruments used in the baseline

survey were appropriate for and acceptable to the various

populations. We interviewed members of the resettlement

agency staff including management and caseworkers (who

were also refugees), community leaders, and newly arrived

refugees from Liberia, Ivory Coast, Burundi, Somalia, and

Russia. During recorded interviews and focus groups,

topics were loosely identified and open conversation was

encouraged but health was a primary theme. This process

led to the creation and piloting of a questionnaire, which

was then administered in face-to-face interviews by trained

interviewers who were of the same gender and spoke the

same language as the interviewee. Data were collected on

several domains but centered on social, physical, mental,

and economic wellbeing.

Issues of racism and discrimination emerged repeatedly

during the course of qualitative formative work in our

study of food insecurity, dietary acculturation and well-

being. Signs of discrimination are indicated by the

following statement made by an Ethiopian refugee:

At my work, you know, I gave them some ideas about

the broken machines, but they don’t accept me. They

assume I don’t know nothing. I was a naval com-

mander in Ethiopia, but they think themselves are

better than me.

The theme of discrimination was also found among

Liberian men, one of whom mentioned the following

experience:

When I was working we had some white guys and

Black Americans—they feel like we are from Africa

and they were born in the United States and are cit-

izens, ‘I was born here’. They think they are better.

They look down on us, ‘you people back home you

don’t have anything’. They don’t like Africans, we

Africans, and they don’t like us. I don’t know why or

why when they see us they look down.

In comparison, we were struck by the reports of the high

levels of discrimination faced by Meskhetian Turks while

in their sending country which was often sharply contrasted

with their descriptions of treatment while now living in the

USA. While discussing issues of discrimination a case-

worker, also a refugee, working with Meskhetian Turks

told us this:

At home they are called…um, [expletive], you know

or black, so they are so relieved to be here and not

experience.

Consistent with other studies, these ethnographic tidbits

suggest that a high level of discrimination exists for

some, but that there is certainly differential exposure to

discrimination in the USA.

Survey Recruitment and Participants

Male and female refugees were recruited through a local

resettlement agency located in a mid-sized city in the

Midwest into a mixed-method refugee health study. Each

participant was asked to nominate other individuals who

met the inclusion criteria which included having refugee

status and being over the age of 18. With this recruitment

strategy, we were able to recruit 112 Meskhetian Turk, 92

Somali Bantu and 74 West African (predominantly from

Liberia, but also several from the Ivory Coast and Sierra

Leone) refugees to participant in the survey component of

the larger research project. These groups represented the

most recent resettlement waves at the time of enrollment

(2006). All procedures were approved by the appropriate

review boards and each individual provided consent.

For the statistical analysis, we retained the following

variables which were used to examine how discrimination

experiences differ for African and non-African refugees

(continent of origin). Variables included time in the USA,

language competence, gender, continent of origin, and

whether the respondent was currently working and partici-

pating in the federal Food Stamp Program (FSP), the latter

was used as a proxy for income because of the income

requirements for eligibility. Time spent in the USA was

J Immigrant Minority Health (2009) 11:505–512 507

123

calculated as the difference between the date of arrival and

date of the interview and rounded to the nearest month. To

capture language competence, we specifically asked indi-

viduals whether they had difficulty understanding people in

the USA because of language (yes or no). We elected to use

this functional form of language competence rather than

asking refugees if they speak or know English; this allowed

us to identify those respondents with current difficulty

understanding and communicating with native English

speakers. The interviewers noted gender during the inter-

view. Food stamp participation was collected by asking

whether the respondent was currently receiving food stamps.

The primary outcome variable was perceived discrimi-

nation, which was measured with a modified version of the

Williams Everyday Discrimination Scale [6, 21]. This

module contained 8 items that asked about various forms of

discrimination. Based on the results of our qualitative work

and that of others [10], we added an additional item asking

about humiliation (Table 1). Possible responses for each

item were ‘‘experienced daily’’ (coded 3), ‘‘experienced

once a week’’ (coded 2), ‘‘experienced a few times each

month’’ (coded 1), and ‘‘never experienced’’ (coded 0).

Scores were then summed for a minimum score of 0 (no

discrimination experienced) and a maximum score of 24

(discrimination experienced daily in every category).

Because few respondents reported frequent discrimination,

we collapsed responses to each item into ‘‘ever’’ ([0) and

‘‘never’’ (0) experienced. Responses were then summed

resulting in a score between 0 (no discrimination) and

8 (discrimination experienced in each domain). We also

dichotomized the summed discrimination variable into

those that had experienced discrimination (summed

score [ 0) and those that had not (summed score = 0). For

those who reported experiencing any discrimination, we

then assessed how participants categorized the motivations

behind their discrimination experiences. Respondents

selected from 9 suggested reasons and/or offered their own

reasons to explain the underlying rationale for their dis-

crimination experience.

Results

Characteristics of the study sample are shown in Table 1.

From the total sample there were 276 complete interviews:

112 participants were Meskhetian Turk (MT), 91 were

Somali Bantu (SB) and 73 were from West Africa (WA).

The average age of study participants was 35 years (SD 14)

with a range from 18 to 84 years. On average, respondents

had been in the USA for 45 months (SD 24) with a range

from 3 to 210 months. Approximately 61% of respondents

were employed and 53% were participating in the Food

Stamp Program at the time of the interview. Importantly,

MT reported the highest level of language difficulties and

lower levels of participation in the FSP than Somali Bantu

(but the same as West Africans).

The discrimination scale had acceptable internal con-

sistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87. The Cronbach’s

alpha was acceptable in all three ethnic groups (MT

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72; SB = 0.82; WA = 0.88). Using

a principal component analysis, we confirmed that this

scale tapped a single construct as evidenced by a single

factor that explained 51% of the variation in the items.

We therefore summed across items to create a measure of

perceived discrimination that ranged from 0 (no experi-

ences of discrimination) to a maximum of 8 (experienced

discrimination in all 8 areas).

The overall levels of discrimination experience appeared

high with 52% of the sample reporting at least some

experience of discrimination (Table 2). The most fre-

quently endorsed items on the discrimination scale related

to being treated with less kindness or courtesy than other

people (32% endorsing), people acted as if they are better

than you [the respondent] (28%), being treated with less

respect than other people (25%). Fewer people endorsed

the following: people acting as if you [the respondent]

Table 1 Selected characteristics of the study sample by sending

region

Age

years

(SD)

Time in

USA,

months

(SD)

FSP

(%

yes)

Language

difficulties

(% yes)

Religion

(%

Muslim)

Meskhetian

Turk

37. (15.2) 12.9 (5.2) 47 85 99

Somali

Bantu

32.5 (14.7) 29.35 (8.9) 64 30 98

West

African

36.0 (11.6) 29.5 (10.3) 47 59 20

Table 2 Percent of respondents endorsing each item on the dis-

crimination scale and the percent endorsing at least one item

Since coming to America, how often have you Ever

experienced (%)

Been treated with less courtesy or kindness than

other people?

32

Been treated with less respect than other people? 25

Received poorer service than other people at

restaurants or stores

17

Felt as though people acted as if they think you are

stupid?

21

People acted as if they were afraid of you? 18

People acted as if they are better than you? 28

Been called names, threatened, or harassed 19

Felt humiliated? 23

Endorsing at least one of the above items 52

508 J Immigrant Minority Health (2009) 11:505–512

123

were stupid (25%), feeling humiliated (21%), being called

names (19%), having people act as though they were afraid

of the respondent (18%), and receiving poorer service than

others at restaurants (17%). Next we examined whether

endorsement of particular items were associated with the

covariates of interest.

In bivariate tests, gender was not associated with the

experience of any of the measures of discrimination (all

P [ 0.05). Language difficulties, which were negatively

associated with time lived in the USA (P \ 0.0001), were

associated with all measures of discrimination. Individuals

who self-reported having no difficulty understanding peo-

ple reported experiencing discrimination more often than

those who reported that they did have language difficulties.

Time lived in the USA was positively associated with

perceptions of discrimination (r = 0.33, P \ 0.001).

Next we examined the association between continent of

origin and perceived discrimination. To do this we divided

the sample into originating continent (Eastern Europe and

Africa) and used the summed discrimination score and

examined the endorsement of individual items. Comparing

mean values on the discrimination scale using a Wilcoxon

test showed a highly significant difference on overall

levels of discrimination based on continent of origin

(P \ 0.0001). Next we compared across specific items

of the discrimination scale. Eastern Europeans reported

experiencing significantly lower levels of discrimination on

every item (all P \ 0.05). To evaluate the extent to which

this result was driven by one of the African samples, we

next compared all three ethnic groups separately and then

the two African samples (Somali Bantu and West African)

against one another. This assessment revealed no or limited

differences in the prevalence of endorsement of specific

items on the discrimination scale between the two African

samples and no difference in the mean score on the dis-

crimination scale (East African 2.6 vs. West African 2.7;

P = 0.70). For both African groups, 63% of respondents

reported experiencing some form of discrimination. While

differences between the African samples were minimal

both African samples differed significantly from the East-

ern European sample (Table 3).

Next we fit a logistic regression model with the outcome

variable coded as ‘‘ever experienced discrimination.’’ This

variable was used to assess the independent associations

between measures of ethnicity, gender, language ability

and time in the USA. The results of this model, shown in

Table 4, underscore what we have already shown. First, the

African samples were statistically indistinguishable and

second, continent of origin was the only measure signifi-

cantly associated with perceptions of discrimination.

Finally, we examined the selected and/or provided rea-

sons that those experiencing discrimination nominated as

explanations. For all groups, language was the most com-

monly reported reason for experiences of discrimination.

Among Eastern Europeans who reported discrimination,

over half (51%) identified language as a reason for this

experience. Fewer than a quarter of African refugees

nominated language as a reason (22%). Education was

selected by 22% of African respondents but was not

mentioned at all by Eastern Europeans. Religion was

nominated by 15% of the Eastern European respondents

and 5% of African respondents. Other items tapping

acculturation stress were similar between groups. ‘‘Because

I am new’’ was mentioned by 12% of African respondents

Table 3 Percent of individuals in three groups reporting experiencing discrimination in different ways

Since coming to America, how often have you Meskhetian Turk Somali Bantu West African

Been treated with less courtesy or kindness than other people? 19.6 38.5 44.9

Been treated with less respect than other people? 9.8 29.7 43.5

Received poorer service than other people at restaurants or stores 2.7 31.9 18.8

People acted as if they think you are stupid? 4.5 35.2 31.9

People acted as if they were afraid of you? 2.7 29.7 27.5

People acted as if they are better than you? 11.6 34.1 49.3

Been called names, threatened, or harassed 9.8 28.6 22.1

Felt humiliated? 7.1 30.8 38.2

Endorsed any of the above items (%) 35 65 65

Table 4 Logistic regression parameter estimates for the probability

that an individual experienced any discrimination

B S.E. P

Time in USA, months -0.01 0.02 0.90

Age, years 0.02 0.01 0.08

Language difficulties -0.21 0.31 0.49

Meskhetian Turk -1.20 0.44 0.01

Somali Bantu -0.18 0.37 0.51

West African – Ref –

Gender, female -0.25 0.29 0.52

Gender, male – Ref –

Constant -33.02 19.22 0.09

J Immigrant Minority Health (2009) 11:505–512 509

123

and 7% of Eastern European respondents while ‘‘Where I

am from’’ was reported by 12% of African respondents

and 10% of Eastern European respondents. One Eastern

European refugee mentioned income as a cause of dis-

crimination; however, 11% of African respondents felt they

were discriminated against because of socioeconomic sta-

tus. Race was identified by 8% of African respondents and

only 1 Eastern European respondent. Gender was nomi-

nated by 5% of individuals in both the European and the

African samples.

Discussion

What are we to conclude from this study? First, levels of

discrimination appear to be high with more than half of the

sample reporting at least one experience of discrimination.

On the other hand, the frequency with which individuals

experienced these behaviors was rare. Second, in the

multivariable model continent of origin was the only pre-

dictor of whether an individual experienced discrimination

or not. This analysis suggests that gender, language, and

religion are not consistently associated with discrimination

experiences, as measured herein. In fact, Muslims were

represented by nearly the entire Somali Bantu (98%) and

Eastern European (99%) sample, yet these two groups

experienced dramatically different levels of perceived

discrimination. We interpret the continent of origin effect

as evidence that African refugees experience greater levels

of discrimination because of their skin color.

In bivariate models, the discrimination measure was

associated with time in the USA. This association makes

sense because, to the extent that time exposes individuals

to situations that might result in discrimination, it is

expected that longer amounts of time in the USA will lead

to greater exposure. However, in the multivariate model,

the variable for time in the USA was no longer significant.

This means that the variable for ‘‘time in the USA’’ was

simply capturing the differing amounts of time that Eastern

European and African refugees have been living in the

USA (as shown in Table 1). This raises an important

methodological issue. In this sample there were relatively

few recent African arrivals and few Eastern Europeans who

had been in the USA for long periods of time. This his-

torical difference might suggest that the continent effect

observed is simply capturing longer residence in the USA,

and not differences in visible minority status. While pos-

sible, this explanation is unlikely because within ethnic

groups there was no association between time and

discrimination experience. Collectively, the most parsi-

monious explanation of the results we report is that

individuals in the USA respond or react towards a refugee

based on their skin color and this visual assessment may be

responsible for the associations observed in this study

whereas language (accent), gender, and religion appear to

matter less.

The implications of our findings are that individuals and

families that enter into the USA with similar sets of

resources may experience very different levels of health and

wellbeing (including stress) following resettlement because

of the interaction between skin color and existing cultural

norms in the receiving country. This puts an interesting twist

on refugee and immigration studies that often focus on the

cultural norms and attitudes that migrants bring with them

and not on the cultural norms of the receiving country. When

seen in this light, our findings suggests that the notion that

refugees arrive in the USA with broadly similar resources

only holds true if skin color is not counted as a resource or a

liability. This is borne out in many studies that show

remarkably different patterns of health and wellbeing when

comparing whites and blacks in the USA; even when

socioeconomic status is controlled for, these black and white

pattern differences remain [1]. The residual may be signal-

ing unmeasured threats to mental and physical health, such

as discrimination. Our findings are entirely consistent with

the theoretical writings of Warner and Srole [22] who

highlighted the import of institutional factors such as social

class and racism in determining which groups assimilated

more quickly than others; that is, the mechanisms underly-

ing segmented assimilation [7]. In the case of resettled

refugees, it appears that phenotypic ranking systems, as well

as other barriers already present in the host country, can

unevenly enhance or limit future social mobility of whole

groups of people who share phenotypic characteristics.

These potential benefits or limitations can translate into

unexpected or contradictory health effects, suggesting a

need for a conceptual model that will accommodate such

interactions (for example, see [23]).

A surprising finding of our research lies in the reasons

nominated by respondents as the cause of discrimination

experienced. While some mentioned race, many mentioned

language as a principal source. For example, the Eastern

Europeans reported poorer language ability than the Afri-

can groups so we had expected that they would experience

more discrimination because of language, but they did not.

In the multiple regression model language was not a sig-

nificant factor predicting discrimination. It is possible that

the responses ‘‘language,’’ ‘‘where I am from,’’ and ‘‘that I

am new,’’ all capture the same concept - simply being

different. It is also possible that when minority status is

signaled by a suite of traits, that distinguishing among them

and selecting one as the principal reason for discrimination

is a cognitively difficult task. Unstructured discussions

suggest that this unlikely to be the case.

This study raises numerous questions about the impact

of discrimination on population wellbeing. How long does

510 J Immigrant Minority Health (2009) 11:505–512

123

it take to recognize racial discrimination from an outsider’s

perspective? Will historical experiences with discrimina-

tion heighten or dilute sensitivity to discrimination based

on color? Will this remain constant over time? For exam-

ple, our qualitative work with Meskhetian Turk population

indicated that they were relieved that they were able to

‘‘blend in.’’ In other words, they saw themselves as

‘‘white’’ whereas in Russia, they were not considered

‘‘white.’’ Does this explain why their scores are lower than

those of the African populations?

Resettlement agencies should be aware (and many cer-

tainly are) of the vastly differing experiences of ‘‘white’’

and ‘‘black’’ refugees. Colic-Peisker (24: 621) reports an

Australian caseworker saying:

Whether Africans would be more exposed to pre-

judice and discrimination?… Oh yeah, they would

for sure…absolutely… because if someone from

ex-Yugoslavia walks down the street, or applied for

rental accommodation…they are close in their colour

and they cannot be picked out.

Results suggest that refugees from Africa are unfairly

placed in subordinate positions because of the unique and

lamentable history of slavery, civil rights abuses, and

continued discrimination in the USA. If case workers and

others sense that African refugees experience greater

struggles and fewer successes, they should be cautious

about causal attribution. For example, the underlying and

dominant ideology of individualism and self-motivation

found in the USA could potentially lead individuals and

institutions to wrongly characterize certain groups as ‘‘lazy,

less patriotic, or less intelligent’’ [3] when in actuality the

playing fields are uneven. At least one study suggests that

this plays out in lower rates of job success for refugees

from Africa and the Middle East. Colic-Peisker and col-

leagues [13, 24] showed that unemployment rates in

Australia were greater than 30% for Black Africans and

Middle Easterners whereas rates for those white individuals

from the former Yugoslavia were less than 15%; this

despite the fact that those from ex-Yugoslavia had less

education. Our results are broadly similar to Colic-Peisker

and Tilbury’s [13]: despite reportedly poorer English skills,

Eastern Europeans experienced lower levels of discrimi-

nation, and comparable levels of employment despite being

in the USA for significantly less time than the populations

from Africa.

There are several limitations to our study and the central

one is that we do not rigorously explore the relationship

between discrimination and measures of health and

wellbeing. Rather, we assume that experiencing more dis-

crimination is worse for health, and simply focus here on

discrimination as an outcome. The body of evidence on the

health impacts of discrimination is fairly consistent on this

point. Our hope is to encourage other researchers to rig-

orously assess discrimination across multiple groups within

the same study design and collect equally as rigorous

empirical data on health and wellbeing. We hope in the

near future to have constructed integrated measures of

wellbeing using data from this study in order to position

ourselves to examine the relationships between health and

wellbeing and the experience of discrimination.

A strength of this study is that we used the same

research design among the three ethnic groups including

the same multiple-item instrument to measure the primary

outcome variable. The fact that African refugee groups had

statistically indistinguishable experiences of discrimination

but were consistently higher than the Eastern European

group strongly suggests that racism and not aspects of the

study methodology explain these differences. Thus these

data underscore the biocultural nature of wellbeing: when

African immigrants arrive in a place with a history of racial

discrimination they experience a very different situation

than their non-African counterparts. In future studies, we

hope to further explore the potential biosocial conse-

quences of the differential discrimination we identified.

References

1. Williams DR. Race, socioeconomic status, and health. The added

effects of racism and discrimination. Ann NY Acad Sci.

1999;896:173–88. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08114.x.

2. Maddox KB. Perspectives on racial phenotypicality bias. Pers

Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(4):383–401. doi:10.1207/s15327957

pspr0804_4.

3. Krieger N. Discrimination and health. In: Berkman L, Kawachi I,

editors. Social epidemiology. New York: Oxford; 2000. p. 36–75.

4. Borrell LN, Kiefe CI, Williams DR, Diez-Roux AV, Gordon-

Larsen P. Self-reported health, perceived racial discrimination,

and skin color in African Americans in the CARDIA study.

Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(6):1415–27. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.

04.008.

5. Schulz AJ, Gravlee CC, Williams DR, Israel BA, Mentz G, Rowe

Z. Discrimination, symptoms of depression, and self-rated health

among African American women in Detroit: results from a lon-

gitudinal analysis. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(7):1265–70. doi:

10.2105/AJPH.2005.064543.

6. Williams DR, Yu Y, Jackson JS, et al. Racial differences in

physical and mental health: socioeconomic status, stress and

discrimination. J Health Psychol. 1997;2:235–51. doi:10.1177/

135910539700200305.

7. Zhou M. Segmented assimilation: issues, controversies, and

recent research on the new second generation. Int Migr Rev.

1997;31(4):975–1008. doi:10.2307/2547421.

8. Phan T. Life in school: narratives of resiliency among Viet-

namese-Canadian youths. Adolescence. 2003;38(38):151.

9. Ruppenthal L, Tuck J, Gagnon AJ. Enhancing research with

migrant women through focus groups. West J Nurs Res.

2005;27(6):735–54. doi:10.1177/0193945905277157.

10. Fangen K. Humiliation experienced by Somali refugees in Nor-

way. J Refug Stud. 2006;19(1):69–93. doi:10.1093/jrs/fej001.

J Immigrant Minority Health (2009) 11:505–512 511

123

11. Noh S, Beiser M, Kaspar V, Hou F, Rummens J. Perceived racial

discrimination, depression, and coping: a study of Southeast

Asian refugees in Canada. J Health Soc Behav. 1999;40(3):193–

207. doi:10.2307/2676348.

12. Barnes DM, Aguilar R. Community social support for Cuban

refugees in Texas. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(2):225–37. doi:

10.1177/1049732306297756.

13. Colic-Peisker V, Tilbury F. Integration into the Australian labour

market: the experience of three ‘‘visibly different’’ groups of

recently arrived refugees. Int Migr (Geneva, Switzerland).

2007;45(1):59–85. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2007.00396.x.

14. Willis M, Nkwocha O. Health and related factors for Sudanese

refugees in Nebraska. J Immigr Minor Health. 2006;8(1):19–33.

doi:10.1007/s10903-006-6339-9.

15. Krieger N, Smith K, Naishadham D, Hartman C, Barbeau EM.

Experiences of discrimination: validity and reliability of a

self-report measure for population health research on racism

and health. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(7):1576–96. doi:10.1016/

j.socscimed.2005.03.006.

16. IOM IOfM.IOM assistance to the US Refugee Resettlement

Program. Migration in the Americas 2006; 4.

17. Besterman C. Unraveling Somalia: race, violence, and the legacy

of slavery. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1999.

18. Gershoni Y. War without an end and an end to a war: the

prolonged wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Afr Stud Rev.

1997;40(3):55–76. doi:10.2307/524966.

19. Moran MH. Liberian: the violence of democracy. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press; 2006.

20. UNHCR. Trends in displacement, protection, and solution.

Geneva: UNHCR; 2005.

21. Williams DR, Yu Y, Jackson JS. Racial differences in physical

and mental health. J Health Psychol. 1997;2(3):335–51. doi:

10.1177/135910539700200305.

22. Warner W, Srole L. The social systems of American ethnic

groups. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1945.

23. Beiser M. The health of immigrants and refugees in Canada. Can

J Public Health. 2005;96(Suppl 2):S30–44.

24. Colic-Peisker V. At least you’re the right colour: identity and

social inclusion of Bosnian refugees in Australia. J Ethn Migr

Stud. 2005;31(4):615–38. doi:10.1080/13691830500109720.

512 J Immigrant Minority Health (2009) 11:505–512

123