Notes

^1.

The subjective well-being literature is immense, with large bodies of research generated in a variety of disciplinary fields (e.g., cross-cultural psychology, neurology, social capital and economics). Our review is intended to identify the major approaches, but is far from exhaustive.

^2.

Individuals who applied and landed from within Canada were excluded from the survey, becausethey may have been in the country for a considerable length of time before landing and may therefore demonstrate different integration characteristics than those of individuals arriving more recently. Refugees claiming asylum from within Canada were also excluded from the survey. Interviews were conducted in 1 of 15 languages covering approximately 93% of the new immigrant population in Canada and were conducted face-to-face or by telephone, when a face-to-face interview was not possible. For more information on the LSIC, see Statistics Canada (no date).

^3.

The LSIC sample was created using a two-stage stratified sampling method. The first stage involved the selection of Immigrating Units (IU) , using a probability proportional to size method, and the second stage involved the random selection of 1 member within each IU. Only the selected member was followed throughout the survey. Individuals aged 15 or older in each IU were eligible to be selected a s a respondent.

^4.

Marital status and the presence of children were included in earlier versions, but were not significantly associated with immigrants' assessments of life in Canada, and were subsequently dropped. Also, measures of self-assessed competence in English and French were included in earlier versions, but results varied widely depending on the specification used. The variables were dropped because of this volatility and associated difficulties in interpreting the results.

^5.

In our analysis we aggregated the bottom two categories ("poor" and "fair") into a single group, with "good,""very good," and "excellent" retained as the other response categories.

^6.

Veenhoven (1996, p. 26–27) argues that the psychological traits associated with subjective well-being often 'boil down' to "…personal capability in dealing with the problems of life,""psychological resilience," and "ability to control ones' environment." These themes are echoed in the LSIC question regarding self-assessed capacity to cope with everyday tasks.

^7.

The category 'other' includes business immigrants, provincial nominees, and other immigrants landed from abroad.

^8.

Personal and household income were alternatively included in the multivariate models. Personal income was more strongly correlated—at higher levels of statistical significance than household income—and hence was retained.

^9.

In Wave 2, the specific questions read: "In terms of your material well-being, that is, things like a car, home, disposable income, etc., how do you consider you and your family's situation compared to before you came to Canada? Would you say its better, about the same, or worse?" And,"In terms of your quality of life, that is, things like safety, freedom, pollution, etc., how do you consider you and your family's situation compared to before you came to Canada? Would you say its better, about the same, or worse?"

^10.

GDP per capita figures (at purchasing power parity) are taken from Penn World Tables and the World Bank. Of the respondents in our sample, 78% report that their last country of residence was their country of birth.

^11.

Of particular note is the fact that in Wave 3, the question on satisfaction with life in Canada was preceded by a battery of questions regarding the greatest difficulties respondents had to deal with since coming to Canada. This emphasis on negative experiences may have a negative impact on satisfaction responses. In Wave 1, the question on satisfaction with life in Canada was placed at the beginning of the survey module.

^12.

The loss of a respondent over the course of the LSIC may have occurred for many reasons, of which return and onward migration are only two. Respondents could also have been lost from the sample because they had moved within Canada and could not be relocated, or if they were found, because they were unable or unwilling to answer the LSIC questionnaire a second or third time. Hence, the retention rates reported in this section should not be interpreted as indicators of return or onward migration.

^13.

The attrition rate of 37% is based on a weighted estimate (using the Wave 1 weight) and hence does not correspond to the unweighted counts of survey respondents.

^14.

Readers should note that the population weight that is used in all analyses of the LSIC takes into account variations in sample attrition across variables such as sex, age and immigration category.

^15.

In addition to the downturn of the high-technology sector, the experiences of the LSIC landing cohort may have also been shaped by policy changes in the early 2000s. For example, opportunities to migrate onwards, particularly to the United States, may have been constrained by changes in security and immigration policies enacted in the wake of 9/11.

^16.

Throughout this discussion we focus on the combined predicted probabilities of respondents saying they are satisfied, or very satisfied, with life in Canada, and that life in Canada is somewhat better, or much better, than expected.

^17.

Only about 12,000 of the 157,600 respondents represented in the LSIC were aged 55 or older. This may account for the lack of a significant difference between 'middle aged' and older respondents on these measures.

^18.

Marital status and the presence of children were included in earlier models, but were not significant and were excluded from the final model.

^19.

In an earlier version of the analysis, participation in ethnic or immigrant association was included in the model with the expectation that it would be positively correlated with favourable assessments of life in Canada. This was not the case however, and the variable was subsequently included in the organizational participation variable shown in Table 4.

^20.

More specifically, 35% of immigrants in the skilled worker category said their material well-being in Canada is better, 31% said it is about the same, and 34% said it is worse. Responses did not vary significantly between principal applicants and spouses and dependents. The figures for family-class immigrants are 58%, 29% and 13% respectively, while for refugees they are 69%, 17% and 13% respectively.

^21.

The figures range from 84% of immigrants in the skilled worker category to 92% of refugees.