Volume 70 Number 4Editor-in-ChiefNigel W BondAustralianJournal ofPsychology305—REVIEW: Evaluation of existing experimental evidence for treatment of depression in indigenous populations: A systematic review Justyna Pollok, Joseph van Agteren, Alwin Chong, Kristin Carson-Chahhoud, and Brian Smith 318—ORIGINAL ARTICLES: The work motivations of the health practitioner who stays for a substantial time in the very remote Indigenous community workplace Michael S. Tyrrell, Timothy A. Carey, and John Wakerman 330—A new paradigm of youth recovery: Implications for youth mental health service provision Sean Rayner, Monica Thielking, and Richard Lough 341—Work, stress, and relationships: The crossover process model Paula Brough, Wendy Muller, and Mina Westman 350—Working for a better future: Social mobility beliefs and expectations of Filipino migrant workers in Macau Allan B. I. Bernardo, Jose Antonio R. Clemente, and Tulips Yiwen Wang AJPY_70-4Cover.indd 1 27/10/18 6:34 PM

Australian Journal of PsychologyKelly-Ann Allen, The University of Melbourne, AustraliaBrock Bastian, The University of Melbourne, AustraliaPeter Caputi, University of Wollongong, AustraliaAnnabel Chen, Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeGuy Curtis, Murdoch University, AustraliaJohn Dunn, University of Western Australia, AustraliaHelen Fung, Chinese University of Hong Kong, SAR PR ChinaRachel Grieve, University of Tasmania, AustraliaJason Mazanov, Australian Army Research Centre, AustraliaAllison Waters, Griffi th University, AustraliaAims & Scope: Australian Journal of Psychology is the premier scientifi c journal of the Australian Psychological Society. It covers the entire spectrum of psychological research and receives articles on all topics within the broad scope of the discipline. The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles with reviewers and associate editors pro-viding detailed assistance to authors to reach publication.The journal publishes reports of experimental and survey studies, including reports of qualitative investigations, on pure and applied topics in the fi eld of psychology. Articles on clinical psychology or on the professional concerns of applied psychology should be submitted to our sister jour-nals, Australian Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist. The journal publishes occasional reviews of specifi c topics, theo-retical pieces and commentaries on methodological issues. There are also solicited book reviews and comments.Annual special issues devoted to a single topic, and guest edited by a specialist editor, are published. The journal regards itself as international in vision and will accept submissions from psychologists in all countries.Australian Journal of Psychology uses ScholarOne Manu-scripts for online submissions and peer review. The URL is http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tajp. For submission and copyright queries, please contact tajp.eo@wiley.com.Editorial correspondence should be addressed to: Emeri-tus Professor Nigel Bond, Australian Journal of Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Australia. Email: n.bond@uws.edu.auPublication frequency: Four issues per year.Australian Journal of Psychology is indexed by Web of Science (Thomson ISI). For a full list of Abstracting and Indexing services the journal appears in, please refer to the journal’s homepage at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ajpy. Disclaimer: The Publisher, Australian Psychological Society and Editors cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information contained in this journal; the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily refl ect those of the Publisher, Australian Psychological Society and Editors, neither does the publi-cation of advertisements constitute any endorsement by the Publisher, Australian Psychological Society and Editors of the products advertised.Access to this journal is available free online within insti-tutions in the developing world through the AGORA ini-tiative with the FAO, the HINARI initiative with the WHO and the OARE initiative with UNEP. For information, visit www.aginternetwork.org, www.healthinternetwork.org, www.oaresciences.orgCopyright © 2018 Australian Psychological Society.For submission instructions, subscription and all other information visit:http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ajpyThis journal is available online at Wiley Online Library. Visit wileyonlinelibrary.com to search the articles and register for table of contents and email alerts.ISSN 0004-9530 (Print)ISSN 1742-9536 (Online)APJY.JEB.Jun15Editorial BoardEditor-in-ChiefNigel W. Bond, Western Sydney University, AustraliaAssociate EditorsAJPY_70-4Cover.indd 2 27/10/18 6:34 PM

PUBLISHERAustralian Journal of Psychology is published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd42 McDougall Street,Milton, QLD 4064 Australia (PO Box 1226, Milton, QLD 4064 Australia).Tel: +61 (0)7 3859 9755JOURNAL CUSTOMER SERVICESFor ordering information, claims and any enquiry concerning your journal subscription please go to www.wileycustomerhelp.com/ask or contact your nearest offi ce.Americas: Email: cs-journals@wiley.com; Tel: +1 781 388 8598 or +1 800 835 6770 (toll free in the USA & Canada).Europe, Middle East and Africa: Email: cs-journals@wiley.com; Tel: +44 (0) 1865 778315.Asia Pacifi c: Email: cs-journals@wiley.com; Tel: +65 6511 8000.Japan: For Japanese speaking support, Email: cs-japan@wiley.com; Tel: +65 6511 8010 or Tel (toll free): 005 316 50 480. Visit our Online Customer Get-Help available in 6 languages at www.wileycustomerhelp.comPRODUCTION EDITORShivapriya Kalaivanan (email: ajpy@wiley.com)JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION RATESAustralian Journal of Psychology is published in 4 issues per year. Institutional subscription prices for 2018 are: Print & Online: US$515 (US), US$515 (Rest of World), €410 (Europe), £309 (UK). Prices are exclusive of tax. Asia-Pacifi c GST, Canadian GST and European VAT will be applied at the appropriate rates. For more information on current tax rates, please go to www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/tax-vat. The price includes online access from current content and all online back fi les to January 1st 2014, where available. For other pricing options, including access information and terms and conditions, please visitwww.wileyonlinelibrary.com/accessBack issues: Single issues from current and prior year volumes are available at the current single issue price from cs-journals@wiley.com. Earlier issues may be obtained from Periodicals Service Company, 351 Fairview Avenue – Ste 300, Hudson, NY 12534, USA. Tel: +1 518 822-9300, Fax: +1 518 822-9305, Email: psc@periodicals.com Wiley’s Corporate Citizenship initiative seeks to address the environmental, social, economic, and ethical challenges faced in our business and which are important to our diverse stakeholder groups. Since launching the initiative, we have focused on sharing our content with those in need, enhancing community philanthropy, reducing our carbon impact, creating global guidelines and best practices for paper use, establishing a vendor code of ethics, and engaging our colleagues and other stakeholders in our efforts. Follow our progress at www.wiley.com/go/citizenship DELIVERY TERMS AND LEGAL TITLEWhere the subscription price includes print issues and delivery is to the recipient’s address, delivery terms are Delivered at Place (DAP); the recipient is responsible for paying any import duty or taxes. Title to all issues transfers FOB our shipping point, freight prepaid. We will endeavour to fulfi l claims for missing or damaged copies within six months of publication, within our reasonable discretion and subject to availability.PRINTING AND DESPATCHPrinted in Singapore by C.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd. All journals are normally despatched direct from the country in which they are printed by surface air-lifted delivery.OffprintsC.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd, 9 Kian Teck Crescent, Singapore 628875. Fax: +65 6265 9074. Email: offprint@cosprinters.comCOPYRIGHT AND COPYING Copyright © 2018 Australian Psychological Society. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Authorization to photocopy items for internal and personal use is granted by the copyright holder for libraries and other users registered with their local Reproduction Rights Organisation (RRO), e.g. Copyright Agency Ltd (http://www.copyright.com.au/), provided the appropriate fee is paid directly to the RRO. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works or for resale. Special requests should be addressed to:permissions@wiley.comONLINE OPENAustralian Journal of Psychology accepts articles for Open Access publication. Please visit http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-406241.html for further information about OnlineOpen.CROSSCHECKThe journal to which you are submitting your manuscript employs a plagiarism detection system. By submitting your manuscript to this journal you accept that your manuscript may be screened for plagiarism against previously published works.Access to this journal is available free online within institutions in the developing world through the AGORA initiative with the FAO, the HINARI initiative with the WHO and the OARE initiative with UNEP. For information, visit www.aginternetwork.org, www.healthinternetwork.org, www.oaresciences.org AJPY.PI.Jun15AJPY_70-4Cover.indd 2 27/10/18 6:34 PM

361—Exploring the association between adolescent sports participation and externalising behaviours: The moderating role of prosocial and risky peers Alexander W. O’Donnell and Bonnie L. Barber 369—Aesthetic salience and fl ow in young athletes: Exploring the moderating role of personality, gender, and age Melanie J. Coleman, Bonnie L. Barber, and Ngaire Donaghue 378—Cognitive dysfunction under emotional exposure: When participants with depression symptoms show no cognitive control Paul Williams, Zachary Howard, Rachel Ross, and Ami Eidels 388—Does accuracy and confi dence in working memory performance relate to academic achievement in NAPLAN, the Australian national curriculum assessment? Kerry A. Chalmers and Emily E. FreemanAJPY_70-4Cover.indd 1 27/10/18 6:34 PM

Australian Journal of PsychologyVolume 70 · Issue 4 · December 2018CONTENTSREVIEW Evaluation of existing experimental evidence for treatment of depression in indigenous populations: A systematic reviewJustyna Pollok, Joseph van Agteren, Alwin Chong, Kristin Carson-Chahhoud, and Brian Smith 305ORIGINAL ARTICLESThe work motivations of the health practitioner who stays for a substantial time in the very remote Indigenous community workplaceMichael S. Tyrrell, Timothy A. Carey, and John Wakerman 318A new paradigm of youth recovery: Implications for youth mental health service provisionSean Rayner, Monica Thielking, and Richard Lough 330Work, stress, and relationships: The crossover process modelPaula Brough, Wendy Muller, and Mina Westman 341Working for a better future: Social mobility beliefs and expectations of Filipino migrant workers in MacauAllan B. I. Bernardo, Jose Antonio R. Clemente, and Tulips Yiwen Wang 350Exploring the association between adolescent sports participation and externalising behaviours: The moderating role of prosocial and risky peersAlexander W. O’Donnell and Bonnie L. Barber 361Aesthetic salience and fl ow in young athletes: Exploring the moderating role of personality, gender, and ageMelanie J. Coleman, Bonnie L. Barber, and Ngaire Donaghue 369Cognitive dysfunction under emotional exposure: When participants with depression symptoms show no cognitive controlPaul Williams, Zachary Howard, Rachel Ross, and Ami Eidels 378Does accuracy and confi dence in working memory performance relate to academic achievement in NAPLAN, the Australian national curriculum assessment?Kerry A. Chalmers and Emily E. Freeman 388AJPY_12185.indd fm_303 27/10/18 6:32 PM

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raup20Australian Journal of PsychologyISSN: 0004-9530 (Print) 1742-9536 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raup20Working for a better future: Social mobility beliefsand expectations of Filipino migrant workers inMacauAllan B. I. Bernardo, Jose Antonio R. Clemente & Tulips Yiwen WangTo cite this article: Allan B. I. Bernardo, Jose Antonio R. Clemente & Tulips Yiwen Wang (2018)Working for a better future: Social mobility beliefs and expectations of Filipino migrant workers inMacau, Australian Journal of Psychology, 70:4, 350-360, DOI: 10.1111/ajpy.12209To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12209Published online: 20 Nov 2020.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 19View related articles View Crossmark dataCiting articles: 1 View citing articles

Working for a better future: Social mobility beliefs andexpectations of Filipino migrant workers in MacauAllan B. I. Bernardo ,1 Jose Antonio R. Clemente ,1,2 and Tulips Yiwen Wang11Department of Psychology, University of Macau, Taipa, Macau and 2University of the Philippines Diliman, QuezonCity, PhilippinesAbstractObjective: Household theory of labour migration assumes that the decision to work in another country is a family’s strategy toimprove prospects of socio-economic mobility. We inquired into the social cognitive processes associated with this goal byapplying model of pathways to socio-economic mobility, but extending the types of causal conceptions related to social mobilitythat are considered important in the Philippine context. Method: We surveyed 246 Filipino migrant workers in Macau, whoanswered questions about perceptions of the socio-economic status of their family (before they worked abroad, presently, and10 years after), socio-economic mobility causal conceptions (merit, luck, faith in God, social networks), and goal-attainmentstrategies (goal engagement, goal disengagement). Results: Migrant workers expect improved socio-economic status of theirfamilies compared to before, and they expect further improvement after 10 years. They endorsed faith in God and meritocracy asimportant causal factors to mobility. Path analysis indicated two pathways to socio-economic mobility expectations: (1) engage-ment-promoting pathway—involving faith in God and meritocracy as causal conceptions related to goal engagement, and highersocio-economic mobility expectations and (2) disengagement-promoting pathway—involving luck as causal conception relatedto goal disengagement, and lower socio-economic mobility expectations. Conclusion: Although working abroad is fraught withuncertainties, Filipino migrant workers aspire for upward socio-economic mobility for their families, which they seek to attainby working hard and persistence, which in turn relate to causal conceptions of mobility that involve controllable factors.Key words: causal conceptions, goal-attainment strategies, migrant workers, socio-economic mobility, subjective social classWhat is already known about thetopic?• Economic theories assume that migrant labour deci-sions are family strategies to improve prospects ofsocial mobility.• A general social cognitive model suggests engagement-promoting and disengagement-promoting pathwaysto social mobility expectations that involve causal con-ceptions and goal attainment strategies.• Although there is research on mental health concernsof migrant workers, not much is known about theirpsychological processes associated with their socialmobility expectations.What this topic adds?• The results provide evidence for the applicability ofthe general social cognitive model to the case ofmigrant workers.• The results suggest the Filipino migrant workers whobelieve in meritocracy and faith in God as causes ofsocio-economic mobility tend to engage and persist intheir goals, and to hold higher socio-economic mobil-ity expectations—indicating an engagement-promoting pathway.• The results provide evidence for social cognitive pro-cesses that may support the assumptions of econo-mists’ household theory of migrant labour.Most recent estimates by the International Labour Orga-nisation (ILO, 2015) suggest that there are about 150.3 mil-lion migrant workers in different parts of the world.Household theory of labour migration (Massey, 1994; Stark,1984) assumes that the decision to migrate is actually astrategy adopted by families or the household unit toincrease the flow of income. This theory has been applied tounderstand Filipino labour migration, which has steadilyincreased since the 1970s. The most recent governmentCorrespondence: Allan B. I. Bernardo, Department of Psychology,University of Macau, E21-3060, Humanities and Social SciencesBuilding, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau.Email: allanbibernardo@umac.moReceived 24 June 2017. Accepted for publication 20February 2018.© 2018 The Australian Psychological SocietyAustralian Journal of Psychology 2018; 70: 350–360doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12209

estimates (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2017) indicatethat 2.2 million Filipinos (more than 2% of the nationalpopulation) are working overseas, and studies indicate thatthe decision to migrate is a family strategy to improve theirfinancial status (Lauby & Stark, 1988). In particular, forlabour migrants from low-income families, migration wasdone in the hopes of providing for subsistence of their rela-tives, but more generally for most other labour migrants,migration is undertaken in the hopes of increasing thefamily’s social mobility (Tacoli, 1996). But how do Filipinomigrant workers think about the pathways towards theirfamilies’ better socio-economic future? In this study, weinquire into Filipino migrant workers’ beliefs and expecta-tions related to their families’ socio-economic mobility. Inparticular, we surveyed a sample of Filipino migrantworkers in Macau to examine how their beliefs about thecauses of social mobility relate to either goal engagement ordisengagement and their socio-economic mobility expecta-tions for their families.PATHWAYS TO UPWARD SOCIO-ECONOMIC MOBILITYEconomists have suggested that there is evidence that workingoverseas does lead to upward socio-economic mobility for theFilipino workers’ families. Studies indicate that there areobservable improvements in the standard of living of families ofFilipino migrant workers (Semyonov & Gorodzeisky, 2008)and also reduction in the incidences of poverty among thesefamilies (Orbeta, Jr., 2008). There are also indications that fami-lies of Filipino migrant workers spend more on education ofchildren, engage in more hours of self-employment, and aremore likely to start small businesses (Yang, 2008)—all indica-tors of future social mobility. But some studies show thatincreased income flow to families of Filipino migrant workersdoes not have an impact on overall poverty gap, and mightactually contribute to further income inequality (Ravanilla &De Pano Robleza, 2005; Rodriguez, 1998). That is, theimproved socio-economic status of families of Filipino migrantworkers is limited to those families in the higher income range;those from lower income ranges remain poor. A Filipino decid-ing to work abroad is likely to know these uncertainties relatedto gaining social mobility by working abroad.Though not specifically referring to migrant workers,Shane & Heckhausen (2013) propose two pathways toachieve the goal of upward socio-economic mobility: thegoal engagement-promoting pathway and the goaldisengagement-promoting pathway. Their model derives pri-marily from attribution theory and underscores the roles of(1) perceptions of current socio-economic status (SES),(2) causal conceptions of SES attainment, and (3) goal attain-ment strategies. Perception of current SES refers to an individ-ual’s self-definition or personal judgement of his/her statusrelative to others; a person may have lower subjective socialstatus in the sense that they perceive to have less-wealth, less-advanced education, and/or hold less-prestigious jobs com-pared to others (Côté, 2011). Shane and Heckhausen’s modelassumes that it is the subjective social status that is importantin the pathways towards socio-economic mobility, primarilybecause the extent to which people perceive themselves to beof lower or higher social status influences their willingness toengage in causal belief systems that either emphasise theirown control or lack thereof in social mobility. These causalsystems refer to causal conceptions of SES attainment that are“beliefs in the importance of causal factors for status attain-ment in general, and how influential they feel these causalfactors are for them personally” (Shane & Heckhausen, 2013,p. 13). They distinguish between meritocratic- and luck-oriented beliefs that differ in terms of the degree to which theperson has control over the causal factors. Persons whoendorse meritocracy believe that their social class standing isprimarily determined by their personal skills, qualities andabilities, which are within their control. On the other hand,luck-oriented beliefs attribute SES attainment to factors suchas fate and bad luck, which are not within their control.Finally, goal pursuit strategies refer to the types of controlstriving processes that an individual engages in during goalattainment (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010). Goalengagement strategies attempt to change the world so that itfits one’s needs and desires (e.g., persistence in goal striving),and these attempts may involve thoughts and actions of theindividual (i.e., selective primary and secondary control) andseeking out help from others or other unusual means(i.e., compensatory primary control) to attain one’s goals. Incontrast, goal disengagement strategies attempt to changethe individual’s inner world, emotion, motivations, andthoughts (i.e., compensatory secondary control; e.g., loweringexpectations).The relationships among the three factors described abovedetermine the type of pathway to upward mobility, andboth pathways are influenced by individuals’ perceptions oftheir current status. An engagement-promoting pathway isa more proactive strategy towards upward mobility whereinmeritocratic-oriented beliefs associated with increased goalengagement tendencies are linked to higher expected sub-jective social status. The assumption is that individuals whoperceive themselves to have good or high social status aremore likely to endorse meritocracy and to believe thatupward mobility is within their control, and this belief posi-tively motivates their own social mobility attitudes andexpectations and they proceed accordingly by modifying theexternal world to suit their purposes (Shane & Heckhausen,2017). In contrast, in a disengagement-promoting pathway,individuals who perceive themselves to have lower socialstatus may be more likely to endorse luck-oriented causalbeliefs are associated with enhanced goal disengagementtendencies linked to decreased expected subjective social© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society351Aust J Psychol

status. The individual believes that uncontrollable externalforces are at play in one’s goal pursuit and this leads theperson to renegotiate expectations so as to minimise failure.The general assumption is that the attainment of highersocial status is a function of one’s goal-pursuit and per-ceived control over the goal process (Shane & Heckhau-sen, 2013).SOCIAL MOBILITY PATHWAYS IN THE PHILIPPINESShane and Heckhausen’s (2013) model could be used tostudy Filipino migrant workers’ socio-economic mobilityexpectations. Indeed, quantitative (Bernardo, 2013) andqualitative studies (Clemente, Daganzo, Bernardo, & Pan-gan, 2017; Tuason, 2008) on Filipino’s conceptions ofcauses of poverty, wealth, and socio-economic mobilityaffirm the factors related to meritocracy and luck. But thetwo qualitative studies suggest other causal factors that mayneed to be considered in applying the Shane and Heckhau-sen’s model. For example, faith in God was a typicalresponse of Filipinos who were born poor, when askedabout ways of coping with their indigence (Tuason, 2008);faith in God was also a common response in a sample ofadolescents’ responses related to questions about socio-economic mobility (Clemente et al., 2017). Some mightthink that faith in God indicates a causal belief that relatesto some uncontrollable factor, and as such, represents sec-ondary control strivings. However, the qualitative studiessuggest that the act of believing may be seen as a controlla-ble factor, as the researchers suggest that “…some responsesindicate that it is the act of believing and trusting in God’swill that would move one up the socioeconomic ladder”(Clemente et al., 2017; p. 137). This causal belief could beinterpreted as indicating that an individual’s own resourcesare not adequate to attain the socio-economic mobilitygoals, and that one has to take on external resources(i.e., God’s help) to attain the goal. As such, faith in Godcould be seen as a causal belief that indicates a form of com-pensatory primary control (i.e., seeking out help from apowerful supernatural force) in this particular cultural con-text where people put a very high level of trust on God’scapacity to fulfil one’s goals. In this cultural context, faith inGod is seen as complementing one’s own goal-directedefforts and not a sign of giving up on one’s agency andefforts; and this perspective is expressed in a very commonFilipino saying, “Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gawa,”which translate into English as “God gives mercy to thosewho help themselves.”Another causal factor that seems to indicate compensa-tory primary control relates to asking help from others andalso giving help to others to cope with their indigence,which is mentioned in the qualitative studies of Filipinoswho were born poor (Tuason, 2008). Asking for help to liftone’s socio-economic status aligns with discourses related tosocial networks as a specific form of social resources thatpoor families use to cope (Hill, Jobling, Pollet, & Nettle,2014; Reyes & Yujuico, 2014). Again, there seems to be anacknowledgement that one’s personal resources are not suf-ficient to move oneself towards higher social mobility, andhelp from other people could be recruited for this purpose.Working with such social networks to improve one’sfamily’s social resources reflects a primary compensatorycontrol of the social mobility goals.We wish to underscore, however, that the two causal fac-tors could also represent secondary control strivings in othercontexts. That is, the causal roles of social networks andbelief in God could be seen as uncontrollable, and as such,belief in these factors might promote compensatory second-ary control (Heckhausen et al., 2010). Our assumption thatboth causal factors involve primary compensatory control isbased on the notion that these two beliefs are premised onthe acknowledgement of the insufficiency of one’s personalresources. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to assume that Fili-pino migrant workers would perceive that their personalresources towards social mobility are insufficient. The deci-sion that they and their families made about working in aforeign land indicates that they sense that their social mobil-ity goals are not within reach in the Philippines if they sim-ply rely on their current personal resources. Thus, causalconceptions that faith in God and social networks helptowards upward social mobility represent primary controlbeliefs that involve a compensatory strategy on their part.Interestingly, both social-oriented coping and belief in Godare important factors in how Filipino migrant workers dealwith stress (van der Ham, Ujano-Batangan, Ignacio, & Wolf-fers, 2014), suggesting that the factors are salient in theminds of Filipino migrant workers.THE CURRENT STUDYIn this study, we adopt and extend Shane and Heckhausen’s(2013) model of socio-economic mobility expectations tostudy Filipino migrant workers’ beliefs, strategies andexpectations. We study a sample of Filipino migrantworkers in Macau, comprised mainly of low-skilledworkers. Consistent with assumptions of household theoryof labour migration (Massey, 1994) we first hypothesizethat the migrant workers would expect upward socialmobility for their families in the Philippines. That is, weassume that the decision to work abroad represents themigrant worker’s family’s strategy to improve prospects ofsocio-economic mobility, and thus, the migrant workerwould expect that their work abroad would result inupward social mobility after a period of time. We operatio-nalise this hypothesis as follows:© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society352 A.B.I. Bernardo et al.

Hypothesis 1: Expected SES ratings 10 years later wouldbe higher than SES rating for the present time and for thetime before they started working abroad.We also hypothesised that the migrant workers would bemore likely to believe that the causes of social mobility relateto factors within their control, and these refer to meritocracy(selective primary control), social networks and faith in God(both compensatory primary control). We base this hypothe-sis on the assumption that the strategic decision to workabroad to help improve the socio-economic status of theirfamilies (Lauby & Stark, 1988) reflects a belief that that goalis controllable and within their reach. Thus we expect that:Hypothesis 2: Agreement on the causal role of meritoc-racy, social network, and faith in God would be higherthan agreement on the causal role of luck.Finally, and consistent with Shane and Heckhausen’s(2013) model, we hypothesised that subjective social status,causal conceptions of SES attainment and goal pursuit strat-egies predict expectations of upward socio-economic mobil-ity. As their model indicates, causal beliefs and goal pursuitstrategies are all influenced by the individuals’ perceivedstatus, as perceived status affects perceptions of the adap-tiveness of the beliefs and strategies. As such the distal pre-dictors in the model are the individuals’ past and currentsubjective social class. As explained earlier, the model thenhighlights how the control-related causal beliefs about socialmobility are closely tied to goal engagement and disengage-ment, and as such these links between beliefs and goal pur-suit strategies are the more proximal predictors of expectedsocial mobility. However, we contextualised this model byextending the causal conceptions of SES attainment toreflect more culturally relevant causal conceptions of socio-economic mobility by adding two other causal factors: socialnetworks and faith in God. We propose that social networksand faith in God both represent compensatory primary con-trol processes, and hypothesize that both would be part ofthe engagement-promoting pathways. That is, the two fac-tors relate to goal engagement strategies, and indirectly tosocio-economic mobility expectations. The extended modelwe test is summarised in Figure 1, and we summarise thespecific hypotheses related to the model as follows:Hypothesis 3: The Filipino migrant workers’ past and cur-rent subjective social class, causal conceptions of SES attain-ment, and goal pursuit strategies predict their expected SESfor their families in the future; and in particular:Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between past family SES(prior to doing migrant work) and expected future familySES will be mediated by current family SES, causal con-ceptions of SES attainment, and goal pursuit strategies;Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between current familySES and expected future family SES will be mediated bycausal conceptions of SES attainment and goal pursuitstrategies;Hypothesis 3c: Consistent with an engagement-promotingpathway, the relationship between meritocracy, socialnetworks, and faith in God as causal conceptions of SESattainment and expected future family SES will be medi-ated by goal engagement;Hypothesis 3d: Consistent with a disengagement-promoting pathway, the relationship between luck as acausal conception of SES attainment and expected futurefamily SES will be mediated by goal disengagement.METHODSample and participant selectionThe sample comprised of 246 Filipino migrant workers inMacau (61% females) who were recruited through snow-ball sampling. Data from another six participants wereexcluded because they did not provided complete data onthe key variables, thus ensuring that the statistical analysisFigure 1 Pathways relating subjectivesocial class perceptions, causal concep-tions of socio-economic mobility, andgoal-pursuit strategies© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society353Aust J Psychol

involved no missing data. The participants were approachedin their places of work, residence, or worship. Researchersand their assistants informed them about the nature andscope of the study, and assured them of full confidentiality.Only those who gave their informed consent were giventhe questionnaire and answered the survey during their freetime and, whenever possible, in the presence of theresearch assistants. Respondents received a supermarketvoucher as a token for their participation.We inquired about some personal information, but pro-viding these details was made optional because of privacyconcerns on the part of some participants. As such, thedescription of our sample is based on only on whatever datawere supplied. Among those who indicated their age, theaverage was 35.4 years (standard deviation (SD) = 8.8). Ofthose who indicated their highest educational attainment,26.9% had secondary education or less, and 73.1% hadsome post-secondary (vocational, university) education. Ofthose who indicated their civil status; 33.8% were single,52.6% married, 9.4% separated, and 4.3% widowed.We also inquired about the participants’ work experience,including the number of years they have been workingoverseas. Eight did not provide a response, but of thosewho did, 16.1% have been working for 1 year or less,48.3% for over 1–6 years, 19.5% for 7–11 years, and16.1% for more than 12 years. Seven did not indicate theircurrent work, and one was currently unemployed (waitingfor the next job); of those who indicated their work, 53.0%were employed as domestic helpers, 15.3% restaurantworkers, 12.3% security guards, 11.9% store assistants, andthe rest had various jobs like car washer, dog groomer, andso on. All participants possessed a “Non-resident Worker’sIdentification Card” (also called, blue card) and wereauthorised to stay in Macau as long as they were working.MeasuresAll the scales used in this study were presented in Filipino,the national language of the Philippines. To ensure concep-tual equivalence with the original English items, the instru-ments underwent translation and back-translationprocedures (Brislin, 1970). The original English scales weretranslated into conversational Filipino by a Filipino-Englishbilingual graduate student who had an understanding of per-tinent constructs and scales. Another Filipino-English bilin-gual graduate student was asked to translate the Filipinotranslation into English. The two then met to discuss anydivergences in the back translation, and made minor adjust-ments in the Filipino items when deemed necessary. A thirdFilipino-English bilingual research reviewed the Filipinotranslations in comparison the original English versions. Inaddition to the scales described below, the participants alsoanswered scales on hope, acculturative stress, social support,and life satisfaction, but these were not analysed in the cur-rent study as they were not pertinent to the specific modelbeing tested (i.e., the other scale data are part of a largerdatabase that would be used for future studies).Socio-economic mobility expectationsSubjective social class standing was assessed using a modi-fied version of the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Sta-tus (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000), a pictorialmeasure that represents social class as a ladder. Participantswere asked to choose a rung based on where they standcompared to other Filipino families in terms of education,income, and occupation. They answered the measure thrice,indicating their perceptions of their families’ past(i.e., before they left the Philippines to work abroad), cur-rent (i.e., at the time of the survey), and future (i.e., after10 years) social class standing.Causal conceptions of SES attainmentParticipants’ beliefs about the causal factors that determineone’s position in the social class hierarchy were measuredusing a 12-item scale consisting of four subscales: meritoc-racy, luck, faith, and social network. The social class ladderwas used as a reference in the items; each item started withthe clause “where I end up on the ladder will be largelybecause of…” The meritocracy and luck subscales wereadopted from Shane and Heckhausen’s (2013) causal con-ceptions about SES; however, in the current study, eachsubscale had three items, whereas, Shane and Heckhausen’smeritocracy and luck subscales had four and two items,respectively. Meritocracy underscored the role of personalability and effort as determinants of social class standing(e.g., “…how good I am at work”), while luck focused onexternal and uncontrollable causes (e.g., “…my destiny inlife”). New items were for the faith and social networkcausal factors were generated by the researchers based onresponses given in an earlier study on Filipino’s socialmobility beliefs (Clemente et al., 2017). Faith items attrib-uted social class attainment to belief in a supreme being(e.g., “…my trusting in God.”); social network items empha-sised social connections that benefit the self (e.g., “…theinfluential and powerful people I know”). Participantsresponded from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Theinternal consistency of the subscales (computed from thecurrent sample’s data) were mostly adequate: meritocracy,α = .75; faith, α = .77, and social network, α = .67. The lucksubscale had lower internal consistency (α = .56) but wasstill included in the analysis for completeness.Goal engagement and disengagementGoal engagement and goal disengagement subscalesassessed general goal attainment strategies that represent© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society354 A.B.I. Bernardo et al.

primary and secondary control striving, respectively(Shane & Heckhausen, 2013) and did not refer specificallyto strivings towards socio-economic mobility. An exampleof goal engagement was persistence in goal striving(e.g., “When I encounter problems, I don’t give up until Isolve them”); goal disengagement includes lowering aspira-tions (e.g., “To avoid disappointments, I don’t set my goalstoo high”). Each subscale consisted of five items that wererated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).The internal consistency of the scales (computed using thecurrent sample’s data) were both adequate (engagement,α = .79; disengagement, α = .72).Data analysisTo test the first hypothesis (H1) regarding upward socialmobility expectations, we compared past, present andfuture SES perceptions using paired sample t-tests. To testthe second hypothesis (H2) regarding the four causal con-ceptions of socio-economic mobility, we conducted arepeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test thedifferences among the causal conceptions, and then fol-lowed this with a post hoc pairwise comparison of meanstests using Bonferroni correction. To test the third hypothe-sis (H3, see Figure 1), we conducted path analysis usingAMOS (for SPSS 24). In specifying the model to be tested,the error terms of the four causal conceptions were allowedto covary with each other, and the errors terms of the twostrategies were also allowed to covary.RESULTSThe descriptive statistics and the correlations among themain variables (socio-economic status ranks, causal concep-tions of social mobility, and strategies) are summarised inTable 1. The results pertaining to the three hypotheses arepresented in the following subsections.Social mobility expectationsDo the participants expect upward social mobility for theirfamilies back home? The results summarised in Figure 2support the first hypothesis: the migrant workers’ expectedSES of their families in the future was significantly higherthan their perceptions of their families’ SES before they leftthe country to work abroad, t(242) = 22.50, p < .001,Cohen’s d = 1.44. Participants also report significantimprovements in their families’ current social class standingcompared to their condition before they started workingabroad. Their current SES perceptions of their families werealso higher than their past SES, t(243) = −11.70, p < .001,Cohen’s d = 0.75, and their expected subjective social statusTable 1 Descriptive statistics of SES ratings, causal conceptions, and strategiesCorrelations (r)SES ratings M SD (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)1. Expected SES 7.93 1.85 .31** .66** .12 .22** .16* .02 .08 −.21**2. SES before 4.80 1.83 .64** .05 .12 −.05 .03 −.08 −.093. SES now 5.93 1.75 .12 .17** .05 .04 .02 −.13*Causal conceptions4. Meritocracy 4.21 0.76 .35** .29** .33** .58** .22**5. Social network 3.10 0.88 .09 .45** .15* .106. Faith 4.52 0.73 .28** .34** .19**7. Luck 2.93 0.82 .18** .38**Strategies8. Goal engagement 4.32 0.65 .36**9. Goal disengagement 3.17 0.80*p < .05, **p < .01.Figure 2 Mean subjective socio-economic status ratings for threetime points© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society355Aust J Psychol

in the future was also higher than their current SES, t(242) = 21.09, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.35. These resultssuggest that the participants already perceive improvementsin their family’s SES and continue to expect further upwardsocio-economic mobility.Causal conceptions of social mobilityWhich among the four causal conceptions of SES attain-ment did the participants endorse more strongly? Themeans for the causal beliefs are summarised in Figure 2.The Mauchly’s test in the ANOVA indicated that theassumption of sphericity was violated, χ2(5) = 27.78,p < .001, therefore degrees of freedom were corrected usingHuynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity (ε = .94). The resultsshow that particular causal beliefs of SES attainmentwere more highly endorsed than others, F(2.82,687.64) = 353.97, p < .001, ηp2 = .59 (see Figure 3). Posthoc comparisons revealed that causal conceptions related tofaith in God were endorsed the highest, followed by meri-tocracy, social network, and luck. All pairwise comparisondifferences were significant at p < .001, except for the differ-ence between social network and luck, which were signifi-cant at p = .022.Pathways to expected social mobilityThe initial path analysis indicated a bad fit between the dataand the model: χ2(16) = 172.43, p < .0001, χ2/df = 10.78,CFI = .74, TLI = .42, RMSEA = .20 (90%CI:.17, .23). But themodification indexes on the original model suggested thatincluding a direct path from current family SES and expectedfamily SES would improve the model, so this path wasadded. The results of the analysis in the revised model aresummarised in Figure 4, and there was an adequate fit withthe data: χ2(15) = 36.00, p = .002, χ2/df = 2.40, CFI = .97,TLI = .92, and RMSEA = .08 (90%CI:.04, .11). A χ2-difference test was conducted to compare the two models,and the results indicate that the more constrained model isbetter: χ2diff(1) = 136.42, p < .0001. For good measure wealso tested a model that included direct paths from past fam-ily SES to causal beliefs, among others. The path analysis ofthis full model indicated a poor fit with the data:χ2(14) = 150.45, p < .0001, χ2/df = 10.75, CFI = .77, TLI =.42, and RMSEA = .20 (90%CI:.17, .23). A χ2-difference testwas conducted to compare the full model and the retainedmodel, and the results indicate that the more retained modelshown in Figure 4 is better: χ2diff(1) = 114.45, p < .0001.As shown in Figure 4, the path linking perceived currentSES with meritocracy was marginally significant, but thelink with luck was not significant; these results are generallyconsistent with Shane and Heckhausen’s (2013) model.Also consistent, there was a goal engagement-promotingpathway linking meritocracy, engagement, and expectedfamily SES, and a goal disengagement-promoting pathwaylinking luck, disengagement, and negatively with expectedFigure 3 Mean agreement for four causal conceptions of socio-economic mobilityFigure 4 Results of path analysis,with unstandardised coefficients andstandard errors presented for eachpathway. Solid lines and bolded coeffi-cients represent significant pathways atp < .05; except for ap = .060. Dashedlines and un-bolded coefficients repre-sent non-significant pathways. Covari-ances are not presented. Note:SES = socio-economic status© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society356 A.B.I. Bernardo et al.

family SES. As regards the two additional causal factorsadded in the current study, current family SES was posi-tively associated with belief in social network as a causalfactor in socio-economic mobility, but social network wasnot related to either engagement or disengagement. On theother hand, faith in God was not associated with currentfamily SES, but was positively associated with goalengagement.The indirect effects were tested using 10,000 bootstrappedsamples. Collectively, current family SES, causal beliefs ofsocio-economic mobility, and goal attainment strategiesmediated the relationship between family SES before doingmigrant work and expected family SES, standardised indi-rect effect = .42 (95%CI:.34, .50). Collectively, causal beliefsof socio-economic mobility, and goal attainment strategiesmediated the relationship between current family SES andexpected family SES, standardised indirect effect = .03(95%CI:.002, .06); but we should note that there was also alarge direct effect of current family SES on expected familySES, standardised direct effect = .64 (95%CI:.56, .71). Therelationship between meritocracy and expected family SESwas mediated by engagement strategies (fitting theengagement-promoting pathway), standardised indirecteffect = .07 (95%CI:.01, .14). The same was true with therelationship between luck and expected family SES medi-ated by disengagement strategies (fitting thedisengagement-promoting pathway), standardised indirecteffect = −.07 (95%CI:−.12, −.03]. Regarding the two newcausal conceptions we tested in the model the results weremixed. The relationship between faith in God and expectedfamily SES was mediated by engagement strategies, standar-dised indirect effect = .02 (95%CI: .002, .07), but the rela-tionship between social networks and expected family SESwas not, standardised indirect effect = −.004 (95%CI:−.03, .01).Although not part of the hypotheses, it was conceivablethat social mobility expectations are associated with demo-graphic or background characteristics of the participants.Unfortunately because the provision of personal back-ground information was made optional because of partici-pants’ privacy concerns, we did not have complete data onthese demographic variables, and as such, we could notinclude demographic variables in the path analysis. How-ever, we explored the correlations between several demo-graphic variables and the main variables (causal beliefs,motivational strategies, and subjective social status ranks),excluding cases pairwise when values were missing. Theonly consistent correlate was education (high school or lessvs college education), which positively correlated with sub-jective social status ratings (rs from .21 to .25) and nega-tively with goal disengagement (r = −.14); goaldisengagement was also correlated with years workingabroad (r = .15) and sex (r = −.22). Sex also correlated withgoal engagement (r = −.14). No demographic variables wereassociated with any of the causal beliefs. These correlationssuggested to us that there were no strong relationshipsbetween the variables and the main criterion variable in thehypothesized model.DISCUSSIONMigrant workers, who leave their families of origin in orderto seek for opportunities abroad, often aspire for upwardsocio-economic mobility and a better life for them and theirfamilies back home. Household theory of labour migration(Lauby & Stark, 1988; Massey, 1994) suggests that sendinga family member to work in a foreign country is a strategyadopted by families to improve the prospects of upwardsocial mobility for the family. This view seems to be sharedby the sample of Filipino migrant workers in Macau whoseperceptions of the current SES of their families have alreadyimproved compared to before they started working abroad,and whose expected SES for their families 10 years after areeven higher. Indeed, even if there are uncertainties as towhether working in a foreign country actually leads toimproved socio-economic status for all types of Filipino fam-ilies who have migrant workers (Rodriguez, 1998), theexpectation of a better future for their families seems to beclearly envisioned among the migrant workers in our sam-ple. And as our results suggest, the expectation of a betterfuture is related to whether they already see improvementsin their family’s current social status.Our results also suggest that these envisaged betterfutures are not mere dreams or hollow expectation. Instead,our results provide some insights as to how the migrantworkers’ expectations of a better future are related to adap-tive goal-pursuit strategies. Consistent with previous models(Shane & Heckhausen, 2013), our results provide evidencefor engagement-promoting and disengagement-promotingpathways towards socio-economic mobility. The migrantworkers’ belief that meritocracy leads to socio-economicmobility tends to be associated with goal engagement strate-gies such as being persistent in working towards their goals,which was associated with higher social mobility expecta-tions. Thus, the migrant workers’ high expectations for theirfamily’s future socio-economic status are driven by theirbelief in the importance of their own efforts and abilities,and their tendency to persevere and to persist in their work.On the other hand, their belief that luck and other uncon-trollable factors are at work in socio-economic mobilitytends to be associated with goal disengagement such as giv-ing up and lowering one’s expectations, which is negativelyassociated with social mobility expectations. Fortunately forthis sample, luck was the lowest rated causal factor(endorsed much less than meritocracy), which suggests thatthe migrant workers in our sample were more likely to be© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society357Aust J Psychol

in the engagement-promoting pathway to higher socio-economic expectations. Beyond the economic assumptionsof household labour migration theory, our results show theapplicability of social cognitive models to understand themotivated cognitive mindsets that are associated with theseexpectations of improved family SES associated with thedecision to work abroad.Interestingly, meritocracy was not the most highlyendorsed causal factor of socio-economic mobility amongthe migrant workers in our sample. We added two causalfactors based on relevant previous studies in thePhilippines—social network and faith in God. Social net-work as a causal factor was not associated with eitherengagement or disengagement strategies, and was thus, notindirectly related to the migrant workers’ socio-economicmobility expectations. However, faith in God was actuallyendorsed more strongly than meritocracy, and it was alsopositively associated with goal engagement and not withgoal disengagement. Even if the causal factor makes refer-ence to an external supernatural agent, it does not seemthat belief in God represents purely uncontrollable causalfactors. Instead, as we hypothesized, the causal factor maybe seen as a form of compensatory primary control that isassociated with recognising that one’s personal resources,which are pushed a lot in working overseas, are not suffi-cient to attain the goal, and that another extraordinaryresource—God’s help—is needed. This result is consistentwith findings in qualitative studies involving Filipino sam-ples (Tuason, 2008), and may reflect a form of spiritualexperience in Philippine society and in other societies withstrong belief in the importance of religious beliefs (Crabtree,2010). Thus, faith in God also fits the engagement-promoting pathway, though its indirect effect is smallerthan that of meritocracy. The idea seems consistent withthe popular Filipino saying, “Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa taoang gawa” (God gives mercy to those who help themselves)and with earlier research showing that among Filipinos,hopeful thoughts regarding the role of spiritual forces ingoal attainment (i.e., external-spiritual locus-of-hope) tendto be associated with the belief that hard work and applica-tion lead to positive outcomes, an association not found inother Asian samples (Bernardo & Nalipay, 2016).However, we wish to note that the causal belief related tofaith in God may not always represent primary control striv-ings in all contexts. It is possible that the causal roles of faithin God could be seen as being beyond one’s control. Viewedin this way, the causal role of faith in God might be under-stood as similar to fatalism or surrendering to the will orworkings of unknown external forces. As such, belief inthese factors might promote compensatory secondary con-trol more likely to be associated with a disengagement-oriented pathway. There is some evidence from Philippinesamples that hopeful thoughts regarding the role of spiritualforces in goal attainment are negatively associated withhelp-seeking intentions of Filipino women who experiencedintimate partner violence (Bernardo & Estrellado, 2017),which is consistent with disengagement-oriented copingeven if not directly related to social mobility goals. Althoughour results are consistent with the assumption that causalbeliefs related to faith in God relate to goal engagement,future research might inquire into other possible concep-tions of this particular causal belief and their implicationsfor social mobility expectations.The hypothesis relating luck, disengagement, and lowerSES expectations was supported by the data, but thehypothesis on social network was not. This was surprisinggiven how this factor was suggested to be a causal factor ina study of Filipino’s social mobility attributions (Clementeet al., 2017), and especially given that social networks arenotable in the experiences of overseas Filipino workers(Hosoda, 2013; Jackson, 2011). But a recent study of Fili-pino migrant workers in Macau noted the negative impactof social network support on migrant workers’ mentalhealth (Mendoza, Mordeno, Latkin, & Hall, 2017). Thisfinding might provide clues to why social networks werenot related to goal strategies of the workers in our sample.Although the results generally support Shane and Hec-khausen’s (2013) model, there is an important differencethat relates to the engagement-promoting pathway’s originsin the participants’ current subjective social status. In thecurrent study, the path from current SES to meritocracywas only marginally significant, and that to faith in Godwas not significant. Thus, the engagement-promoting path-way does not seem to originate from the participants’ cur-rent subjects social status, and does not support the model’sassumption regarding status-related goal engagement. Thedifference may be due to dissimilar current SES measures.In Shane and Heckhausen’s, the current SES measurereferred to a more directly personal reference rating (stu-dents’ compared themselves to other students in their uni-versity); in our study, participants compared their family toother families in the Philippines. Future studies couldinquire into whether different measures of current subjec-tive social class (e.g., compared to families of other knownoverseas workers) would be better predictors of causal con-ceptions and strategies.There are other limitations in the study related to itsmethods, which relied on a cross-sectional design and self-report data. Because of missing data, many factors wereuncontrolled for in the analysis such as the number of yearsas a migrant worker, type of work, among others. The Fili-pino migrant workers in Macau might also have a differentmigrant labour experience compared to those in othercountries. Future research with more diverse samples thatuse longitudinal research designs, and consider other possi-ble causal conceptions of socio-economic mobility would© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society358 A.B.I. Bernardo et al.

help in verifying the generalizability of our researchfindings.Moreover, although we increased the range of factorsthat might represent causal conceptions of socio-economicmobility, it is possible that there are other more importantcausal factors we did not assess. There are other externaland less controllable factors that might be perceived causesof social mobility. Social factors such as job opportunities,government policies, and social conditions of the countrywere mentioned in a study on social mobility conceptions(Clemente et al., 2017). Similar uncontrollable social factorsin the country of migrant work could be salient causal con-ceptions of overseas Filipino workers, particularly as thisrelate to policies on migrant labour (e.g., binding minimumwage, migrant quotas, etc.) that change as a result of politi-cal transitions, shifts in the country’s economic well-being,among others (Castles, 2004). It is possible that for migrantworkers such uncontrollable factors in their country ofwork might relate to disengagement.These limitations in the scope notwithstanding, our studyprovides another level of analysis regarding the householdtheory of labour migration, by presenting evidence thatshows the engagement-promoting pathways to socio-economic mobility that originates from controllable causalconceptions of socio-economic mobility and goal engage-ment strategies. Not only do our results provide further evi-dence for Shane and Heckhausen’s (2013) model ofpathways to socio-economic mobility; the evidence derivesfrom a new population of individuals who have chosen par-ticularly challenging approaches to improve their family’ssocio-economic status. Our results also point to new causalconceptions in these pathways, suggesting a need to contex-tualise such models within the cultural systems of individ-uals and pointing to the possibility of other meaningfulpathways to a seeing a better future for their families.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis research was supported by a grant from the ResearchDevelopment and Administration Office of the University ofMacau (Project Reference No.: SRG014-FSH13-ABIB). Wewould like to acknowledge the valuable assistance of MarioR. Echano in gathering the research data.REFERENCESAdler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000).Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psy-chological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data inhealthy, white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586Bernardo, A. B. I. (2013). Social dominance orientation and atti-tudes towards the poor: Contrasting lower and highersocioeconomic groups in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Psy-chology, 46(1), 39–69.Bernardo, A. B. I., & Estrellado, A. F. (2017). Locus-of-hope andhelp-seeking intentions of Filipino battered women victims ofintimate partner violence. Current Psychology, 36, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9385-zBernardo, A. B. I., & Nalipay, M. J. N. (2016). Social axioms associal foundations of locus-of-hope: A study in three Asian cul-tural groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 110–113.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.046Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301Castles, S. (2004). The factors that make and unmake migrationpolicies. International Migration Review, 38, 852–884. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00222.xClemente, J. A. R., Daganzo, M. A. A., Bernardo, A. B. I., &Pangan, C. A. C. (2017). Filipino adolescents’ conceptions of socio-economic mobility: A consensual qualitative research. Child IndicatorsResearch, 10, 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9370-6Côté, S. (2011). How social class shapes thoughts and actions inorganizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 43–71.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.004Crabtree, S. (2010). Religiosity highest in world’s poorest nations. Retrievedfrom http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosityhighest-world-poorest-nations.aspx (Accessed 13 January 2018).van der Ham, A. J., Ujano-Batangan, M. T., Ignacio, R., &Wolffers, I. (2014). Toward healthy migration: An exploratorystudy on the resilience of migrant domestic workers from thePhilippines. Transcultural Psychiatry, 51(4), 545–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461514539028Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivationaltheory of life-span development. Psychological Review, 117, 32–60.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017668Hill, J., Jobling, R., Pollet, T., & Nettle, D. (2014). Social capitalacross urban neighbourhoods: A comparison of self-report andobservational data. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8, 59–69.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099131Hosoda, N. (2013). Kababayan solidarity? Filipino communities andclass relations in United Arab Emirates cities. Journal of ArabianStudies, 3, 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/21534764.2013.802945International Labour Organization. (2015). ILO global estimates onmigrant workers: Results and methodology. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.Jackson, V. (2011). Belonging against the national odds: Globalisa-tion, political security and Philippine migrant workers in Israel.Global Society, 25, 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2010.522982Lauby, J., & Stark, O. (1988). Individual migration as a family strat-egy: Young women in the Philippines. Population Studies, 42,473–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000143596Massey, D. S. (1994). An evaluation of international migration the-ory. Population and Development Review, 20, 699–751. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137660Mendoza, N. B., Mordeno, I. G., Latkin, C. A., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Evi-dence of the paradoxical effect of social network support: A studyamong Filipino domestic workers in China. Psychiatry Research, 255,263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.05.037Orbeta Jr., A. (2008). Economic impact of international migration andremittances on Philippine households: What we thought we knew, whatwe need to know (No. 2008–32). PIDS Discussion Paper Series.Philippine Statistics Authority. (2017). 2016 Survey of overseas Filipinos.Retrieved from https://psa.gov.ph/content/statistical-tables-overseas-contract-workers-ocw-2016 (Accessed 13 January 2018)Ravanilla, N. M., & de Pano Robleza, E. J. (2005). The contributionof OFW remittances to income inequality: A decomposition anal-ysis. Philippine Review of Economics, 42(2), 27–54.© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society359Aust J Psychol

Reyes, M. L., & Yujuico, I. C. (2014). Psychological distress amongcollege youth as a function of family SES: The mediating effect ofsense of poverty and the mitigating role of family resources. Jour-nal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 8(02), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2014.9Rodriguez, E. (1998). International migration and income distribu-tion in the Philippines. Economic Development and Cultural Change,46, 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1086/452341Semyonov, M., & Gorodzeisky, A. (2008). Labor migration, remit-tances and economic well-being of households in the Philippines.Population Research and Policy Review, 27, 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-008-9084-7Shane, J., & Heckhausen, J. (2013). University students’ causal con-ceptions about social mobility: Diverging pathways for believersin personal merit and luck. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82,10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.08.003Shane, J., & Heckhausen, J. (2017). It’s only a dream if you wakeup: Young adults’ achievement expectations, opportunities, andmeritocratic beliefs. International Journal of Psychology, 52, 40–48.https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12408Stark, O. (1984). Migration decision making: A review essay. Jour-nal of Development Economics, 14, 251–259.Tacoli, C. (1996). Migrating for the sake of the family’? Gender, lifecourse and infra-household relations among Filipino migrants inRome. Philippine Sociological Review, 44, 12–32.Tuason, M. T. G. (2008). Those who were born poor: A qualitativestudy of Philippine poverty. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55,158–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.2.158Yang, D. (2008). International migration, remittances and house-hold investment: Evidence from Philippine migrants’ exchangerate shocks. The Economic Journal, 118(528), 591–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02134.x© 2018 The Australian Psychological Society360 A.B.I. Bernardo et al.