Reflective Essay- Nursing profession
Directions:Imagine or be sure to ask your nurse to be specific
and provide examples and stories. 300 words per questions
below:
Reminder: Respond to the following questions below.
1. Why did you choose nursing as a profession?
1. What was nursing school like for him or her? Ask them:
1. How they managed and balanced work, family and life and
the difficulties.
1. The level of commitment to school required to be successful
(hrs. required for studying, social life, workload)
1. What their clinical and lab experiences were like.
1. How they prepared for examinations and the NCLEX.
1. Describe their top three patient memories and why they are
memorable.
1. What does the phrase “Nurse-Life” mean to this nurse?
1. What is the hardest thing about being a nurse?
1. Reflect and discuss what your thoughts are about the
interview. Did the interview change your perspective on
nursing, on nursing school or life?
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 11, No. 1,
2011, pp. 300--313
This paper is part of an ASAP special collection on Social
Psychology and Contemporary

Immigration Policy
Economic Dynamics and Changes in Attitudes
Toward Undocumented Mexican Immigrants
in Arizona
Priscila Diaz,∗ Delia S. Saenz, and Virginia S.Y. Kwan
Arizona State University
Mexican immigration to the United States comprises an
important social issue
in contemporary public policy debate, particularly given the
recent passage of
Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070). The current study
investigated how indi-
viduals’ sentiments toward undocumented Mexican immigrants
shifted between
2006 and 2009 in Arizona, and also examined economic
concomitants to these
shifts. Participants included 3,195 culturally diverse students
attending a state
university in Arizona. They reported their attitudes toward
undocumented Mex-
ican immigrants regarding housing, employment, values, social
welfare, citizen-
ship, health care, and education issues. Results show less-
positive attitudes as
each year progressed among European and Latino Americans, as
well as other
ethnic minorities. Further, anti-undocumented immigrant
sentiment increased as
unemployment increased and gross domestic product real
growth rate decreased.
Ethnic differences emerged in the relative negativity toward
undocumented immi-
grants such that European Americans were less positive towards

undocumented
Mexican immigrants than Latinos over 4 years. These findings
suggest that eco-
nomic dynamics may beget anti-immigrant sentiment, leading to
contentious leg-
islation, such as Arizona’s recent immigration law.
“America has constantly drawn strength and spirit from wave
after wave of immigrants. . .They
have proved to be the most restless, the most adventurous, the
most innovative, the most
industrious of people.” – Bill Clinton, 42nd U.S. President
Nearly all U.S. citizens have roots in other countries from
which they, their
parents, or one of their ancestors from 300 years ago departed
with the intent
∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Priscila Diaz, Department of
Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287–1104
[e-mail: [email protected]].
We would like to thank the following for their feedback and
contributions in preparing the
manuscript: Anna Berlin, Andrea Fessler, Benjamin Lozada,
Jose Alba, and Megan Leonhardt.
300
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01255.x C© 2011 The Society
for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
Economic Dynamics and Changes in Attitudes 301

to make the United States their new home. Although
immigration to the United
States is historically integral to the development of the nation,
as former president
Bill Clinton highlighted, large-scale U.S. immigration has long
been an unsettling
issue for many, particularly when economic conditions have not
favored increases
in population (Glick, 2005). Today, it is possible that
controversial political restric-
tions have brewed in order to deflect dissatisfaction from the
economic instability
of American society.
Mexican immigration to the United States has been a pervasive
social topic
in public policy with the passing of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070
(SB 1070; 2010).
A shift has transpired across the nation, with a push for similar
legislation from
a number of immigration restrictionists who argue that states
need to take care
of what the federal government has failed to handle. By
contrast, many social
activists have protested the bill and related measures, warning
that this is a first
step toward apartheid (Archibold, 2010). Because of the
potential to influence
policy and legislative momentum, it is the focus of the present
work to consider
the social psychological roots that have led to the passage of
this controversial
immigration law.
Mexicans constitute 60% of the estimated 11.6 million

undocumented im-
migrants in the United States and represent the largest single
immigrant group
in Arizona (Hoefer, Rytina, & Baker, 2009). As this large group
has become the
focal point of discussion during the recent economic downturn,
attitudes toward
undocumented Mexican immigrants may increase in negativity
and instigate new
policies, such as Arizona’s recent immigration law.
In this article, we begin by briefly reviewing the U.S. history of
opposition to
immigrant groups and the current politics of immigration. Then,
we discuss the
literature on attitudes toward immigrants within the social
psychological frame-
work of intergroup relations. In an illustrative study, we
examine how individuals
in Arizona felt toward undocumented Mexican immigrants over
the course of
4 years leading up to the passage of SB 1070 and how these
attitudes are related
to key economic factors. We conclude by discussing future
research directions of
our work, both in the context of the current contentious political
climate and in
terms of scholarly implications.
History of Opposition to Immigrant Groups in the United States
The debate on SB 1070 is not an issue isolated in time, but
reflects one
example of the complex reactions toward immigration in the
United States. The
pattern suggests that history repeats itself. Over the course of

four centuries,
tens of millions of immigrants from many countries comprise
what the United
States is today. The influx of numerous immigrants from
various cultural back-
grounds has, at times, presented challenges to the nation’s
residents. A long
history of oppression exists for some large immigrant groups
partly because of
302 Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan
xenophobic reactions or desires to protect American cultural
values. Moreover,
newcomers are easy scapegoats during financial crisis.
The Irish Catholics were the first wave of immigrants that
alarmed many
Protestant, native-born Americans. In 1843, this antipathy
initiated an influen-
tial political group, the Know Nothings, who strongly opposed
Irish immigration
(Billington, 1963). This reaction was among the earliest
examples of nativism, or
the strong preference for favoring indigenous U.S. residents
over incoming immi-
grants. As nativism continued throughout generations,
immigrants were often a
chosen scapegoat for hard times (Glick, 2005). Blame was also
put on Italian and
Chinese immigrants during economic downturns. The industrial
development of
the United States sparked the need for cheap labor by means of
recruiting foreign

immigrants (Billington, 1963). A large number of contracted
Italian laborers filled
the spots of the U.S. workers on strike and, in turn, U.S.
workers felt very nega-
tively towards these Italian immigrants. During the gold rush
period in California,
many U.S. citizens complained in response to the small wave of
Chinese immi-
grants in the West brought in to fill the construction and
railroad labor gap (Buck
et al., 2003). Chinese immigrants created competition with
those residing in the
West and looking for gold. This competition soon turned
Chinese immigrants into
the targets of negative sentiment and instigated the only
legislation that restricted
immigration policy to a particular group, the Chinese Exclusion
Act of 1882 (Buck
et al., 2003). This restriction continued into the early 1920s.
The United States
only complicated immigration policy by setting quotas based on
national origins
(Zinn, 2003). This policy, the National Origins Act of 1921,
essentially gave pref-
erence to individuals from Northern and Western European
nations. Before the
turn of the century, the largely Irish and German immigrant
population was slowly
dominated by immigrants from Eastern and Southern European
descent, including
many Jews. The previous wave of Irish immigrants competed
against the Jewish
immigrants, which fragmented the working class (Zinn, 2003).
There is a pattern in U.S. history in which presence of economic
competition is

associated with greater negativity toward certain groups, even
when immigration is
not relevant. Between 1882 and 1930, for example, the number
of lynchings in the
Deep South increased as the price of cotton decreased,
demonstrating that southern
Whites singled out Blacks for the blame when they experienced
a decline in
financial well-being (Beck & Tolnay, 1990). Similarly, anti-
immigration sentiment
and extreme immigration policy may arise from the desire to
blame outsiders for
poor economic conditions. As demonstrated with immigrant and
minority groups,
attitudes as well as policy regulations are tied to economic
competition.
Now in the early 21st century, the United States once again
finds itself locked
in a debate over the role of immigrants in America. To some,
new immigrants seem
too committed to maintaining their transnational connections,
have not assimilated
into American society, and are too removed from core American
values. As in past
eras, some critics of contemporary immigrants believe that the
newcomers take
Economic Dynamics and Changes in Attitudes 303
jobs away from Americans and put undue burdens on the
educational, welfare,
and health care systems. Many participants in the debate
consider a large number

of illegal immigrants to pose a threat to the society’s basic
structure and safety.
However, there are advocates who point out that the initial
concern and skepticism
about every prior large influx of immigrants was not warranted
(Williams, 2003).
Immigrants did not lead to the demise of this country. Quite the
contrary, supporters
of immigration argue that immigrants have built the richness
and diversity of the
United States, which has contributed to the nation as a whole
from colonial times
to the present day.
Currently, public opinion polls show mixed attitudes over
immigrants and
immigration policy, particularly because of the inability for
citizens to distinguish
between documented and undocumented immigrants (Segovia &
Defever, 2010).
However, roughly half of Americans are greatly concerned
about illegal immi-
gration, and their concern has escalated since 2001 (Segovia &
Defever, 2010).
A majority of Americans believe that immigrants are hard
workers, that they
contribute to the United States, and that immigration is
beneficial for the coun-
try (Segovia & Defever, 2010). However, Americans do worry
about the impact
of costs due to use of public resources by immigrants, such as
educational and
medical services, as well as how immigrants drive wages down
for many citizens
(Segovia & Defever, 2010). The nation’s division and
ambivalence in immigration

opinion polls may reflect the difficulty of determining legal
status of an immigrant.
Because of this difficulty, proposals for everyone to carry
national identification
cards have been initiated since 1942, and nearly 66% of
Americans approved of
requiring some form of identification in 2001 (Segovia &
Defever, 2010).
In April 2010, Arizona passed a new law requiring police to
make an attempt
during a “lawful stop, detention or arrest,” to determine a
person’s immigration
status if there is reasonable suspicion that he or she is illegal.
The individual in
question is not released without confirmation of his or her legal
immigration status
(SB 1070, 2010). A week after SB 1070 was announced,
Arizona House Bill 2162
(2010) clarified that officials “may not consider race, color or
national origin in
implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the
extent permitted by
the United States or Arizona Constitution.” Both the U.S. and
Arizona supreme
courts have held in court cases that race alone is not a sufficient
basis to stop
or arrest. Nevertheless, race has been considered in courtroom
decisions con-
cerning immigration law, for example, “Mexican appearance is
a relevant factor”
(United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 1975) and “enforcement of
immigration laws of-
ten involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors” (State v.
Graciano, 1982).
A number of individuals seeing that racial profiling may

essentially be imple-
mented began protests of the immigration law and boycotts of
Arizona businesses
(Thousands in Phoenix protest, 2010). As history repeats itself,
it is imperative to
understand how, over the years, attitudes towards certain
immigrant groups have
evolved.
304 Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan
Literature on Attitudes and Immigration
Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy have
psychological un-
derpinnings driven by social and environmental motives
(Allport, 1954; Citrin,
Green, Muste & Wong, 1997; Esses, Jackson & Armstrong,
1998). More specifi-
cally, one facet of social, environmental motives in attitudes
toward immigration
is the role of intergroup competition and hostility. According to
Allport (1954),
categorizing people into groups is an adaptive function that
simplifies our complex
social world. We assign individuals in groups on the basis of
shared characteristics
and in doing so, gain information of the individual based on
their group member-
ships. Although a necessary strategy, this categorization leads
to biases for our
own group, or ingroup, and those not in our group, or outgroup
(Tajfel, 1982).
Generally, individuals in our ingroup generate positive feelings

and outgroups may
be viewed as inferior, leading to negative consequences such as
ethnocentrism,
prejudice, and discrimination (Allport, 1954).
This phenomenon, termed ingroup–outgroup bias (Brewer,
1979), is a prime
determinant in the formation of most individuals’ attitudes
toward immigrants.
Along with this bias that favors one’s own group, the realistic
threat theory posits
that actual intergroup competition over scarce resources
provokes conflict be-
tween groups (Blalock, 1967). This conflict makes salient
potential threats from
the outgroup and, consequently, amplifies group protection
mechanisms such as
the formation of exclusionary, anti-outgroup attitudes. This
pattern is determined
by cognitively appraising events to have consequences for the
ingroup (and the
self), which in turn elicits explicit preferences for denying
“individuals or groups
of people equality of treatment which they may wish” (Allport,
1954, p. 51).
Previous empirical research clearly supports the assumption that
perceived real-
istic threat increases anti-outgroup attitudes and increases
unfavorable attitudes
toward immigrant groups (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006;
Stephan, Renfro, Esses,
Stephan, & Martin, 2005).
Other researchers have considered broader contextual and
environmental
factors that foment negative outgroup attitudes. For instance,

the size of the
immigrant group is associated with greater perceived threat and
more negative
attitudes towards immigrants (Schlueter & Scheepers, 2010).
Hostile stances to-
ward immigrants are also influenced by the state of the economy
(Citrin et al.,
1997; Esses et al., 1998). The declining economy signals
perceived competi-
tion for resources. Perceived zero-sum competition between
groups, or the be-
lief that the outgroup gains at the expense of one’s ingroup,
strongly influences
negative attitudes toward immigrants (Esses et al., 1998). The
media presen-
tations of the success of immigrants in a difficult economic
market can in-
duce perceptions of competition with immigrants and, thus, lead
to unfavorable
immigration attitudes (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong,
2001). This lit-
erature also finds that personal financial circumstances are
weaker predictors
Economic Dynamics and Changes in Attitudes 305
of opposition to immigration than broader concerns related to
the state and national
economic trends, and tax anxiety (Citrin et al., 1997). Surges in
anti-immigrant
sentiment in Europe have also coincided with economic decline
(O’Connell,
2005) and high unemployment rates (Meuleman, Davidov, &
Billiet,

2009).
Threats also vary depending on certain characteristics and
elicited emotions
of the outgroup (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). When comparing
oneself with the
outgroup, individuals who highlight similarities in work-related
traits perceive
greater realistic economic conflict and feel more negative
toward Mexican im-
migrants (Zarate, Garcia, Garza, & Hitlan, 2004). In other
words, equivalent job
skills produce greater prejudice. From a threat-based
perspective, anger reactions
toward Mexican immigrants relate to stricter immigration policy
attitudes, above
and beyond general prejudice (Cottrell, Richards & Nichols,
2010).
However, the Common Ingroup Identity Model (see Gaertner &
Dovidio,
2000) predicts otherwise, particularly in cases where ethnic
minorities share a
“common identity” based on their immigrant background status,
their minority
status in the United States, or lack of being perceived as the
American prototype
(Dovidio, Gluszek, John, Ditlmann, & Lagunes, 2010). The
American prototype
prominently is known to be “White” and ethnic minorities are
less likely to be
associated with being American (Devos & Banaji, 2005). This
pattern, in turn,
may differentiate immigrants and ethnic group attitudes (rooted
in shared social
categories or interdependence between minorities) from the

European American
majority. Although the perceived realistic threat model would
predict less favor-
able attitudes toward immigrants, based on the common identity
model, Latino
Americans and other ethnic minorities may rather have more
favorable attitudes
toward immigrants due to a shared background.
Overall, the research cited above has strong implications for
how these social
and environmental conditions exacerbate anti-immigrant
attitudes. Immigrants,
who are socially perceived as outsiders, generally elicit hostile
reactions from
U.S. citizens as seen throughout history, opinion polls, and the
empirical literature.
Although these reactions have several determinants, one
considerable factor is the
idea that immigrants pose an economic threat, which creates
intense emotions of
fear and anxiety followed by strong negative sentiment. By and
large, the empirical
literature addresses how economic dynamics account for
perceived realistic threat
and some studies have addressed the specificity of perceptions
of immigrant
outgroups. Nevertheless, the literature has not addressed the
dynamic influences
of economic conditions on attitudes towards undocumented
Mexican immigrants
over time. Presented here is one illustrative study that will be
the first to report
data on attitudes toward this group by Arizona residents over
the 4 years leading
up to SB1070, a time characterized by an economic recession

and high U.S.
unemployment rates.
306 Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan
An Illustrative Study: Attitudes Toward Undocumented Mexican
Immigrants
This study utilizes a unique design to investigate how
individuals in Arizona
felt toward undocumented Mexican immigrants over the past 4
years. Specifi-
cally, we aim to address three questions. First, did attitudes
toward undocumented
Mexican immigrants change over time? Second, did different
ethnic groups evince
differential attitude patterns? Third, were there economic
markers that were related
to attitude change? To address these questions, we surveyed
state university stu-
dents in Arizona attending one fall semester of 2006, 2007,
2008, or 2009. Partic-
ipants reported their feelings toward undocumented Mexicans
regarding housing
laws, employment, values, social welfare, citizenship, health
care, and education.
We predicted that attitudes toward undocumented Mexican
immigrants would be-
come less positive as national and statewide unemployment
rates increased over
the years. We also expected to see differential patterns among
the different ethnic
groups such that those most likely to share some attributes with
undocumented

immigrants (i.e., Latinos) would show less bias. Finally, we
hypothesized that as
yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) real growth rate
decreased in the United
States, positive attitudes would likewise decrease.
Method
Participants
Participants were 3,195 students (female = 1,632) attending a
large state
university in Arizona in the fall semester of 2006 (N = 743;
women = 384), 2007
(N = 1,047; women = 529), 2008 (N = 740; women = 364), and
2009 (N =
665; women = 355). All students were recruited from
introductory psychology
classes in a mass testing questionnaire at the beginning of each
fall semester. The
sample consisted of 2,131 European Americans, 288 Latinos,
and 776 other ethnic
minorities (e.g., African American, Asian, Native American,
Middle Eastern).
Other ethnic minorities did not differ from each other in the key
variables of
interest and thus were combined into one group in the analyses
to be reported. The
age of participants ranged from 18 to 49 years old (M = 18.83).
Measures
Attitudes Toward Undocumented Mexican Immigrants.
Originally developed
by the first two authors, the 11-item scale assesses how
participants feel toward cer-

tain issues dealing with immigration, such as housing laws,
employment, values,
social welfare, citizenship, health care, and education [5-pt
scales: 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree.]. Sample items were “All
undocumented Mexican
Economic Dynamics and Changes in Attitudes 307
immigrants living in the United States should adopt the
language and traditions
of Americans” and a reverse coded item “Undocumented
Mexican immigrants
provide the United States with a valuable labor resource.” The
alpha was .86, and
the scale scores ranged from 11 to 51, with a mean of 27.36 (SD
= 8.6); the higher
the scores, the less positive the attitudes were. The distribution
of the scale is
slightly skewed towards the lower end of the scale, indicating
that few participants
reported strong negative attitudes toward this group. This
relatively positive bias
in attitudes may be attributable to the use of explicit measures
in a large university
classroom, where some individuals are reluctant to admit their
negative attitudes
toward a particular group. Sex differences may also contribute
to the positivity of
the attitudes. To address this possibility, we tested whether
there are significant sex
differences in the mean attitude scores. Our analyses showed
that women reported
more-positive attitudes than men (men = 28.09 vs. women =

26.67), F (1, 3175) =
21.57, p < .05. Importantly, the pattern of results for each of the
following analyses
remained the same when controlling for sex differences.
Economic Dynamics. National and state unemployment as well
as GDP for
each year (2006–2009) was used to assess the fiscal state. These
indices were
taken from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analyses (BEA)
Factbook (2010) and
from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Factbook (2010).
Results
A 4 × 3 time (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) by ethnicity (European
American,
Latino, Other) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to test
the hypotheses. In
line with predictions, there was a main effect of time, F (3,
3,183) = 300.31, p <
.001 and a main effect of ethnicity, F (2, 3,183) = 126.58, p <
.001, with no
significant interaction, F (6, 3,183) = .76, p > .05 (see Figure
1). A Games–Howell
post hoc analysis with an alpha level of .05 for each analysis
was conducted for
both time and ethnicity.
Six pair wise comparisons over time showed no significant
mean difference
between 2006 (M = 23.32) and 2007 (M = 23.53, p > .05),
between 2006 and 2008
(M = 23.7, p > .05) or between 2007 and 2008. However, there
was a significant
mean difference between 2006 and 2009 (M = 32.57, p < .001)

with less-positive
attitudes in the year 2009. Further, the remaining two pair wise
comparisons
between 2007 and 2009, as well as between 2008 and 2009,
were significantly
different from each other (p < .001). Together, these findings
suggest that attitude
shifts towards undocumented Mexican immigrants became less
positive and were
particularly pronounced from fall 2008 to fall 2009.
Did ethnic groups show different attitudes toward
undocumented Mexican
immigrants? Pair wise comparisons across the different ethnic
groups showed that
less-positive attitudes towards undocumented Mexican
immigrants were
308 Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan
Fig. 1. Attitudes Toward Undocumented Mexican Immigrants by
Ethnic Group and Year.
significantly greater overall for European American participants
(M = 28.69,
p < .001) than for Other (M = 25.85, p < .001) or Latino (M =
22.56, p < .001)
participants. Participants from Other ethnic minority groups,
further, showed less
positivity toward undocumented Mexican immigrants than
Latino participants (p <
.001). Notably, all ethnic groups showed a similar pattern of
decrease in positive
attitudes as years progressed (Figure 1).

To address the relationships between economic conditions and
attitudes to-
ward undocumented Mexican immigrants, we examined
bivariate correlations
among relevant variables (GDP, national and state
unemployment, attitudes to-
ward undocumented Mexican immigrants). As predicted, as
GDP real growth rate
decreased, participants had less positive attitudes towards
undocumented Mexican
immigrants (r = –.41, p < .001). Also as predicted, negative bias
was positively
correlated with national unemployment rates (r = .48, p < .001)
and statewide
unemployment rates (r = .44, p < .001), indicating that as
unemployment in-
creased, participants had less-positive attitudes towards
undocumented Mexican
immigrants. These correlations were consistent across ethnic
groups, whether
considered independently or in combination.
To examine the relative contribution of resource threat to
nonresource threat
in the changing attitudes toward undocumented immigrants, we
compared the
Economic Dynamics and Changes in Attitudes 309
Table 1. Mean Correlations Between Attitudes Toward
Undocumented Mexican Immigrants and
Economic Factors

GDP real National State
Measures growth rate unemployment unemployment
All 11 items of the attitudes toward Mexican
immigrants scale
−.41∗ ∗ .48∗ ∗ .44∗ ∗
Five resource-related items from the attitudes
toward Mexican immigrants scale
−.44∗ ∗ .50∗ ∗ .47∗ ∗
Six nonresource-related items from the attitudes
toward Mexican immigrants scale
−.33∗ ∗ .41∗ ∗ .37∗ ∗
∗ ∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
mean correlations of the five attitude items relating specifically
with resources
(labor, welfare, health care, education) and the mean
correlations of the six items
relating to cultural assimilation or equal rights. As can be seen
in Table 1, the
mean correlations for items dealing with resource threat are
significantly higher
with the three indicators of economic conditions than those for
items that do not
involve resource threat (p’s < .05) (as calculated by Preacher,
2002). This indicates
attitudes specifically regarding the resources taken and given by
undocumented
Mexican immigrants strongly relate to the fluctuations in the
economy. These

findings suggest that current economic conditions may be one of
possibly multiple
factors that lead to the less-positive sentiments against
undocumented immigrants.
Discussion
This illustrative study is the first to document the parallels
between a growing
economic crisis over a recent 4-year period and attitude shifts
toward a specific,
controversial immigrant group in Arizona, where SB 1070 was
passed. As years
progressed closer to 2010, positive attitudes toward
undocumented Mexican immi-
grants decreased for all ethnic groups. This decreased positivity
was significantly
pronounced between the fall of 2008 and the fall of 2009, the
latter of which was
related to a marked decline in the economy, generally, and a
severe housing crisis
in Arizona, in particular. As local and national unemployment
rates increased and
GDP real growth rate decreased (particularly in 2009), attitudes
also increased in
relative negativity. Also noteworthy is the fact that attitudes
remained relatively
constant as the economy slowly declined from 2006 to 2008, but
a strong shift
occurred when a national recession was declared after fall of
2008. These find-
ings illustrate a manner in which immigrants may become
scapegoats of social
discontent and thus be seen as potential usurpers of
governmental and private
resources.

Consistent with past empirical literature that has examined
economic fac-
tors and anti-immigrant sentiment, these findings theoretically
substantiate that
310 Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan
perceived economic threat is associated with less-positive
immigration attitudes
(Citrin et al., 1997; Esses et al., 1998; Riek et al., 2006;
Stephan et al., 2005). The
current work extends previous findings to a specific immigrant
subgroup that may
be seen as posing a threat for individuals residing in Arizona.
As jobs are restricted
and individuals experience financial losses due to the state of
the economy, indi-
viduals will be less likely to want to share resources and will
have less-favorable
feelings toward a group that may pose a threat (Stephan et al.,
2005). Thus, shifts
in decreased positivity toward a large immigrant group may be
the impetus for
policies concerning immigration.
Although positive attitudes decreased for all ethnic groups over
time, there
were significant mean differences. Compared to other ethnic
groups, Latinos
showed more-positive attitudes toward undocumented Mexican
immigrants. The
recent, July 2010, CNN opinion research poll inquiring about
endorsement views

on the new SB 1070 bill parallels the current findings. A great
majority of Latinos
(71%) reported opposition to the bill. By comparison, 50% of
African American
and 34% of European American respondents did so. The
ingroup–outgroup bias
accounts for the interesting pattern of mean differences,
substantiating the role
of ethnicity in determining citizens’ attitudes toward a specific
group of undoc-
umented immigrants. The ingroup–outgroup bias explains how
Latinos are more
likely to see undocumented Mexican immigrants as part of their
ingroup on the
basis of their culture of origin, whereas other ethnic groups may
not share this
identification (De La Garza, 1998).
As the ingroup–outgroup bias and the common identity model
would predict,
European Americans show a less positive attitude than other
ethnic minorities,
perhaps based on a magnified sense of not identifying
commonalities with the
outgroup (e.g., nationality, language, racial distinctions, less
contact). Research
on policy indicates that Latinos are less likely to endorse
immigration policy than
European Americans, such as 1994 California Proposition 187,
which eliminates
illegal immigrants from any type of social service (e.g.,
education, emergency
medical care, welfare) and requires teachers, enforcement
officers, and welfare
officials to report illegal immigrants for deportation (Lee Ottati,
& Hussain, 2001;

Lee & Ottati, 2002). Latinos and other ethnic minorities may
have greater sym-
pathy with Mexican immigrants as a result of a shared
background, whereas
European Americans may not evaluate this group as favorably
because of lack
of shared identity. Overall, the current results have implications
for considering
the relevant social and environmental psychological
determinants in immigration
policy.
Although our study focuses on the relationships between
economic dynamics
and attitudes toward undocumented immigrants, other concerns
about social and
cultural issues may also contribute to the changes in attitudes.
For example, the
radical rightward movement pressed on by the Tea Party after
the 2008 presi-
dential elections, and even health concerns, such as H1N1 (also
termed Mexican
Economic Dynamics and Changes in Attitudes 311
swine flu; Sunnucks, 2009), occurred during the same period of
time and may have
contributed to the increase in negative sentiment against
undocumented immigrant
between 2008 and 2009.
Furthermore, the media has focused on immigration during
these past few
years, making salient this target outgroup and, perhaps,

contributing to decreases
in positivity towards immigrants. In particular, use of certain
linguistic terms
might have intensified the negative sentiments against this
group. “Undocumented
worker” (similar to the “undocumented immigrant” term used in
the current study),
for example, has been found to invoke less perception of threat
and prejudice
than the term “illegal alien” (Pearson, 2010). The latter term is
associated with
greater perception of realistic and symbolic threat. This issue
has been highlighted
in the arena of term usage in media, particularly with the
presentation of SB
1070. Future studies (and political rhetoric) should take into
consideration the
specific terminology used and how different labels may elicit
different emotions
and varying levels of hostility/acceptance.
As immigration issues continue to be heightened by economic
anxieties, it
is critical to recognize that Americans may be adding yet
another group to the
database of scapegoats in this country’s immigration historical
record. Economic
struggles may once again instigate staunch anti-immigrant
sentiment, which in
turn may prompt the creation of laws that pin the evils of
society on a low
power outgroup—undocumented immigrants. It is imperative for
researchers to
continue building an understanding of the social and
environmental determinants
of opposition to groups and individuals whom our former

president Bill Clinton
regarded as the “strength and spirit” of America.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Archibold, R. C. (2010, April 23). Arizona enacts stringent law
on immigration. The New York
Times. Retrieved on September 28, 2010 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/
24immig.html?_r=1.
Arizona Senate Bill 1070, S. 1070, 49th Legislature, 2nd Sess.
(2010).
Arizona House Bill 2162, H. 2162, 49th Legislature, 2nd Sess.
(2010).
Beck, E.M., & Tolnay, S.E. (1990). The killing fields of the
deep South: The market for cotton and the
lynching of Blacks, 1882–1930. American Sociological Review,
55, 526–539.
Billington, R. A. (1963). The Protestant Crusade, 1800–1860: A
Study of the Origins of American
Nativism, Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith.
Blalock, H. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group
relations. New York: Wiley.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup
situations: A cognitive motivational
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.
Buck, B., Hobbs, M., Kaiser, A., Lang., S., Montero, D.,
Romines, K., & Scott, T., (2003). Immigration

and immigrants: Trends in American public opinion, 1964–
1999. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural
Diversity in Social Work, 12, 73–90.
Citrin, J., Green, D., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (1997). Public
Opinion Toward Immigration Reform: The
Role of Economic Motivation. The Journal of Politics, 59, 858–
881.
CNN opinion research poll (2010, July). Retrieved on
September 28, 2010 from http://
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/27/cnnopinion-research-
poll-july-16–21-arizona-law/.
312 Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan
Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional
reactions to different groups: A socio-
functional threat-based approach to ‘prejudice.’ Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
88, 770–789.
Cottrell, C. A., Richards, D. A. R., & Nichols, A. L. (2010).
Predicting policy attitudes from general
prejudice versus specific intergroup emotions. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 46,
247–254.
De la Garza, R.O. (1998). Interests Not Passions: Mexican-
American Attitudes toward Mexico,
Immigration from Mexico, and Other Issues Shaping U.S.-
Mexico Relations. International
Migration Review, 32, 401–422.

Devos, T., & Banaji, M. (2005). American = White? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
88, 447–466.
Dovidio, J. F., Gluszek, A., John, M., Ditlmann, R., & Lagunes,
P. (2010). Understanding bias toward
Latinos: Discrimination, dimensions of difference, and
experiences of exclusion. Journal of
Social Issues, 66, 59–78.
Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998).
Intergroup competition and attitudes toward
immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group
conflict. Journal of Social Issues,
54, 699–724.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M. & Armstrong, T. L.
(2001). The immigration dilemma: The
role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and
national identity. Journal of Social
Issues, 57, 389–412.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup
bias: The common ingroup identity
model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Glick, P. (2005). Choice of scapegoats. In J. F. Dovidio, P.
Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.). On the
nature of prejudice: 50 years after Allport (pp. 244–261).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hoefer, M., Rytina, N., & Baker, B. C. (2009). Estimates of the
unauthorized immigrant population
residing in the United States: January 2008. Washington, DC:
Department of Homeland
Security Office of Immigration Statistics.

Lee, Y. T., & Ottati, V. (2002). Attitudes toward U.S.
immigration policy: The roles of in-group-
out-group bias, economic concern, and obedience to law.
Journal of Social Psychology, 142,
617–634.
Lee, Y. T., Ottati, V., & Hussain, I. (2001). Attitudes towards
Illegal Immigration into the United States:
California Proposition 187. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 23, 430–443.
Meuleman, B., Davidov, E., & Billiet, J. (2009). Changing
attitudes toward immigration in
Europe, 2002–2007: A dynamic group conflict theory approach.
Social Science Research, 38,
352–365.
O’Connell, M. (2005). Economic forces and anti-immigrant
attitudes in Western Europe: A paradox
in search of an explanation. Patterns of Prejudice, 39, 60–74.
Preacher, K. J. (2002, May). Calculation for the test of the
difference between two independent
correlation coefficients [Computer software]. Available from
http://quantpsy.org.
Pearson, M.R. (2010). How “undocumented workers” and
“illegal aliens” affect prejudice toward
Mexican immigrants. Social Influence, 5, 118–132.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E.W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup
threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta
analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10,
336–353.

Schlueter, E. & Scheepers, P. (2010). The relationship between
outgroup size and anti-outgroup
attitudes: A theoretical synthesis and empirical test of group
threat and intergroup contact
theory, Social Science Research, 39, 285–295.
Segovia F., & Defever R. (2010). American public opinion on
immigrants and immigration policy,
Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 375–394.
State v. Graciano, 653 P.2d 683, 687 n.7 (Ariz. 1982).
Stephan, W., Renfro, C., Esses, V. M., Stephan, C., & Martin,
T. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened
on attitudes towards immigrants. International Journal of
Intercultural relations,29, 1–19.
Sunnucks, M. (2009, April 24). Health officials caution about
Mexican swine flu. Phoenix Business
Journal.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/04/20/daily81
.html.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Economic Dynamics and Changes in Attitudes 313
Thousands in Phoenix protest against SB 1070, thousands of SB
1070 supporters rally in Tempe (2010,
May 29). KVOA.com. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from
http://www.kvoa.com/news/thousands-
in-phoenix-protest-against-sb-1070-thousands-of-sb-1070-

supporters-rally-in-tempe/.
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886–87 (1975).
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Factbook (2010). Retrieved
September 28, 2010, from
http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analyses (BEA) Factbook (2010).
Retrieved September 28, 2010, from
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp.
Williams, M.E. (2003). Immigration: Opposing view points. San
Diego: Greenhaven Press.
Zarate, M. A., Garcia, B., Garza, A. A., & Hitlan, R. T. (2004).
Cultural threat and perceived realistic
group conflict as dual predictors of prejudice. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 40,
99–105.
Zinn, H. (2003). A people’s history of the United States. New
York: Harper Colophon.
PRISCILA DIAZ is a NIMH Prevention Research Training
Fellow in the De-
partment of Psychology at Arizona State University. She is a
2006–2007 APA
Minority Fellowship recipient and a 2007–2010 NSF Graduate
Research Fellow-
ship recipient. Her main research interests include intergroup
attitudes, and the
societal and intrapersonal challenges facing minority and
immigrant groups.
DELIA S. SAENZ is a professor in the Social Psychology
program at Arizona

State University. She received her training at Princeton
University and taught
at the University of Notre Dame prior to her current
appointment. Her research
interests include tokenism, intergroup processes, acculturation,
and social identity.
Her work, funded by the National Science Foundation, NIMH,
and the Ford
Foundation, has been published in the Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology;
the Journal of Experimental Psychology; Social Cognition; and
Developmental
Psychology. She currently serves as Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Education at
ASU.
VIRGINIA S. Y. KWAN, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of
Psychology at
Arizona State University. Social perception at multiple levels—
self-perception,
interpersonal perception, and group perception—is central to
her work. One of
her research programs examines how self-perception processes
and individuation
help capitalize on the value of diversity on group performance.
Another aim of her
research is to examine the content of Asian-American
stereotypes and to identify
factors that help to break the persistence of these stereotypes. A
key feature of her
work is the integrative use of multiple methods and diverse
samples.
Copyright of Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy is the

property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
sojo.net32 sojourners DECEMBER 2017
We decided to talk
together across the
political divide.
The apocalypse
didn’t ensue.
Ge
tty
Im
ag
es
DECEMBER 2017 sojourners 33
THE UNEXPECTED CONVERSATION happened near the end
of
church coffee hour. As I headed toward the kitchen to drop off

my
cup and a small plate dotted with crumbs of coffee cake, I found
myself in a brief exchange with some fellow parishioners.
Perhaps
something in the sermon that Sunday prompted it; I don’t recall.
I do remember the clear revelation that this conversation some-
how had to continue, because for the first time I was talking
about
a dicey political situation with fellow parishioners far more
con-
servative than me.
Fed up with avoiding these conversations, I suggested: “We
need to continue this.”
They agreed.
An Experiment in
Neighborly Love
by K AT H A R I N E M . P R E S TO N
a tapestry of different strands, held together
within a beautiful, affirming border. Can
we all live with that image?
The conversation remains civil, respect-
fully searching to understand each other.
We do not attempt to resolve the issue. We
have simply walked down a path together.
People leave very satisfied with the
shared experience, deciding to discuss cli-
mate change at the next meeting.

Hearing the range of fears
Two weeks later, a few new people who
heard about the success of the opening ses-
sion join us; a few from the first group are
unable to come.
Although nobody seems to doubt the
reality of climate change, there is still a
range of opinion: “I fear for the future of
the planet and most especially for the poor,
who are experiencing the killing effects of
climate change right now.” “I am just here
to listen. I don’t know enough about the
topic.” “Climate change is simply too all-
encompassing. Just not the first thing on
my agenda each day.” “I fear not only for
humans, but for all the other species that
are being killed.” “People really don’t want
to change their habits. They don’t want cer-
tain comforts of living taken away.”
I know a lot about climate change,
viewpoints other than one’s own; seek com-
mon concerns and values; steer away from
trying to “educate” on the issue; everyone
should have a chance to talk; stay on the
subject for the day. No partisan politics.
I and a more-conservative neighbor
and friend lightly facilitate the group dis-
cussion. We start by working around the
circle, each voicing our fears and feelings
about the topic at hand.

First up: immigration. Although vivid
in the national spotlight, this topic is
removed for most of us in rural northern
New York. Those who show up for the dis-
cussion are white, well-off, educated, mostly
middle-aged, Christian or nonaligned. We
are unlikely to witness deportations, and
we live far from urban areas where terror-
ism is more likely to strike. Our fears are
detached, in no way immediate, but none-
theless very heartfelt and real.
One woman fears sharia law could
spread across the country. Another, that
terrorists will slip in over the border from
Canada (just 56 miles to our north) with
immigrants and harm us. Others fear
the net that Immigration and Customs
Enforcement has thrown out will catch
innocent people, tear families apart, and
trample on constitutional rights. Someone
is anxious about the economic conse-
quences if there is no one to pick apples in
our local orchards each year. Another wor-
ries that immigrants take jobs away from
Americans and drive wages down. Someone
wonders how much of our tax money
underwrites services for immigrants.
I am pleased that people feel free to
express themselves, but astonished at the
breadth of the fears expressed. Some, from
my perspective, are unfounded or unlikely
to unfurl into reality. But we carefully avoid
getting into a discussion of facts, alterna-
tive facts, and fake news, because that will

simply take us to the bottom of the swamp,
where we will not see each other.
Instead, we find ourselves moving into
a conversation about what it is to be an
American, what is most sacred to us. The
Constitution is frequently mentioned.
Some say the Pledge of Allegiance should
be required of all. Also, learning English.
We talk about immigrant assimilation and
diversity. Can we have both? Perhaps we are
not a melting pot of homogeneity but rather
As in many rural areas in the U.S., we
find ourselves deeply divided politically.
Our president continues to promise to save
America from what he deems wrong, which,
he assures us, is most everything, especially
from the last eight years. He keeps us busy
chasing the rabbits he releases from his
tweets, running all over the place. Some,
opposing his views, march, write myriad
letters to our representatives, sign petitions,
and flood our newspapers with commentary.
Others who support the president write let-
ters to the editor praising his leadership and
thanking him for following through with his
promises, even when thwarted by the courts
or an uncooperative Congress.
At times the divide is breathtaking.
Although we live in a small town, we
tend to remain isolated from some of our
neighbors as we move in different social
circles, attend different events. For those

who do politics, loyalty to different parties
is strong.
But to our credit, and thanks to a great
deal of grace, our small Episcopal church
houses a broad spectrum of opinion.
Usually, hot topics are not broached.
We recognize the polarization, and nobody
likes it. But we are also neighbors who care
for and about each other. We want to try to
love through the gaps, to move beyond the
subtle demonization of each other’s views.
So as an experiment, working together with
others outside of our church, we decide
to start a series of conversations we call
“Different Voices,” inviting other towns-
people to join us.
Entering uncharted territory
We meet on a Sunday afternoon at our lit-
tle town library—neutral territory—seated
in a circle of folding chairs between the
stacks. Refreshments for later are on a big
table pushed to one side. Twenty-one of us
attend this trial meeting, a mix of differing
views. I am delighted at the turnout, but
anxious. In this experiment in neighborly
love, we step into uncharted territory.
Our statement of purpose emphasizes
that we will not seek to change each other’s
minds or to find solutions to problems, but
to understand each other, to find a path for
communication through turbulent waters.

We agree to rules of engagement: Listen
actively; try to understand and respect
sojo.net34 sojourners DECEMBER 2017
We need civic dialogue, following the biblical admonition to
love all neighbors, including those who disagree with us.
do—coal mining, manufacturing, farming,
oil and gas refining—pressures from out-
side present a threat. Fears for your future
hit you in the gut. And anyone who tells
you they will defend you from changes
looks like a savior.
In my community, the identity poli-
tics of the Right are not quite as visceral,
often relating more to bedrock loyalty to
the Republican Party and to a conserva-
tive agenda they feel was sidelined for
eight years. Last Nov. 8, many of them
weighed the disgust they felt at the can-
didate’s actions and messaging against the
hope that he could bring the country back
to another era.
At the core, our fears are not all that dif-
ferent. “My country is changing so much
that I no longer feel a part of it.” One per-
son fears sharia law will take over, another
fears fascism will. One fears that her grand-
children will not experience “home” in the
same way due to climate changes, another
fears “home” has already changed due to the

exit of mining or industry from the com-
munity. Everyone fears “fake news” will
destroy the credibility of our constitution-
ally protected media, but each has a different
opinion about which sources “fake” it.
I wonder: Maybe all these fears are
irrational, given the deeper goodness and
integrity we share in the American
spirit. Those people who gathered for
these discussions in our little town
library leave with two valuable expe-
riences: 1) at least some recognition of
nuances on the issue being discussed,
and 2) a new feeling of empathy and under-
standing for those we thought to be on the
other “side.”
Because people gather as communi-
ties of faith for reasons that transcend (at
least ideally) the politics of the day, our
places of worship can offer opportunities
to start new conversations, seeking to love
each other through our fears of oppos-
ing political positions. Knowing that God
accompanies us all—no matter what the
path—can mitigate these fears. The impor-
tant invitation is to ask neighbors to walk
alongside. n
Katharine M. Preston is an ecumenical lay
preacher and writer, concentrating on issues
of social justice and climate change.

Predictably, a subsequent discussion, on
federalism, reveals some disagreement on
what issues should remain with the states
versus the federal government. But there is
broad agreement that the responsibilities
should be shared. Some self–deprecating
amusement bubbles up about how views
on federalism quickly shift according to
who holds political power at the federal
level. With the help of the historian in our
midst, we all find a new appreciation for
the complexity facing the framers of the
Constitution and for their wisdom.
Neighbors help neighbors
This kind of discussion might seem hope-
lessly passive, naïve, and a waste of time,
given the severity of the threat on social
justice felt by some these days. But the
polarization did not start with the election
of President Trump. Both conservatives and
progressives know what it feels like to expe-
rience alienation and frustration at the state
of the country. Talking exclusively with
those with whom we agree simply hardens
our positions and makes us angrier.
We desperately need civic dialogue, fol-
lowing the biblical admonition to love all
neighbors, including those who disagree
with us. After all, neighbors help neigh-
bors, regardless of their fears or political
leanings. If neighbors experience a fire, a
flood, a job loss, or the death of a loved one,
no one asks how they feel about immigra-

tion, climate change, or even abortion. And
no one asks them how they voted in the last
election. We simply help.
The fundamental challenge facing peo-
ple of faith—conservative and progressive
alike—is to not sit on our high horse of
moral righteousness and dismiss the other
as uninformed or simply wrong.
As re c e nt b o ok s ( Hillbilly E leg y,
Strangers in Their Own Land) have shown,
deep fears concerning personal identity
persist in our times, as in other times in our
history. When your family and your com-
munity have been defined for generations
by the work that you and your neighbors
having worked in and about the envi-
ronmental field for more than 40 years.
Some others around the circle are as
well-informed. We bite our tongues over
misconceptions because our rule is to “not
educate” during these discussions. The lack
of knowledge on climate change among
some surprises me, but I am encouraged
by their desire to know more. The meet-
ing makes clear to all the urgent need,
in another setting, for more information
about the causes of climate change and the
effects, present and future, on our immedi-
ate environment. For now, we have heard
the range of each other’s fears.
We decide our third meeting will be on
the media. A consensus is reached almost

immediately on several issues: a critical
attitude toward social media (except by the
one 20-something in our midst); the effi-
cacy of the internet to spread fake news;
and the importance of a discerning public,
no matter what newspaper or newsfeed you
read or program you watch.
During our fourth meeting, we have
some fun: Working together, we answer
the 100 questions about our government
that people applying for citizenship must
be prepared to answer. We are pleased that,
collectively, it was easier than we expected
to answer most of the questions.
DECEMBER 2017 sojourners 35
We need civic dialogue, following the biblical admonition to
love all neighbors, including those who disagree with us.
I’m astonished at the breadth
of the fears expressed.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction
prohibited without permission.
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL
CHILDREN 17

YEC
DOI: 10.1177/1096250607311932
http://yec.sagepub.com
© 2008 Division for Early Childhood
Katherine M. McCormick, PhD
University of Kentucky
Sarintha Stricklin, PhD
Louisiana State University Health Sciences
Center
Theresa M. Nowak, PhD
Eastern Kentucky University
Beth Rous, EdD
University of Kentucky
Using Eco-Mapping to Understand
Family Strengths and Resources
As professionals and familieswork together to identifyand
celebrate the strengths
and resources unique to each family,
new and innovative ways to describe
and discuss family characteristics are
needed. The eco-map, borrowed
from social science disciplines, is
one method used to describe family
strengths and resources. The eco-
map was developed in 1975 by
sociologist Hartman (1978) to help
social workers in public child
welfare practice better understand

the needs of the families with whom
they worked. An eco-map is a
graphic representation or
visualization of the family and
linkages to the larger social system,
including informal (e.g., friends,
extended family members) and
formal (e.g., early care and
education providers, early
intervention providers) supports. It
illustrates how the family exists
within the context of its
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Vol. 11, No. 2, March
200818
“
”
relationships with other individuals
and institutions with which the family
has contact. Utilizing an ecological
model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the
eco-map provides a visual display of
any group of interconnections and
relationships, providing a graphic
image of the family system within the
larger social matrix.
Eco-maps have been used in
multiple ways by early intervention

providers and rehabilitation
specialists and within the clinical
practice of social workers,
psychologists, and other mental
health professionals (Bailey &
Simeonsson, 1988; Mattaini, 1995).
Originally developed as a schematic
“thinking tool” (Hartman, 1978,
p. 117) for the social worker to use
as a visual representation of the
family system at the beginning of
intervention, clinicians quickly came
to value its use as a mechanism to
(a) foster collaboration between
families and professionals and
(b) jointly organize and depict
information. More recently,
eco-mapping has been used in
clinical practice to evaluate
outcomes and to measure change
and monitor progress by completing
an eco-map at multiple points in
time (Chatters & Taylor, 1994;
Horton & Bucy, 2000).
In short, practitioners use eco-
maps as a mechanism to establish
rapport with families (Cox, 2003),
learn more about the perceptions of
the family at their initial meeting
(Hartman, 1978), organize
information and facts (Hanson &
Boyd, 1996), set goals in
intervention (Horton & Bucy,
2000), and monitor progress
(Mattaini, 1995). For each purpose,

the primary value of the eco-map is
in its visual impact and simplicity.
That is, the eco-map provides
a unique method to organize and
present concurrently factual
information and the relationships
between variables in the family’s
current ecology.
Given the positive history of
eco-maps within the area of social
work, its usefulness as a technique
to increase early interventionists’
awareness of the family within its
community, assist in the assessment
and planning phase of intervention,
and evaluate the effectiveness of
services (Swanson & Niles, 1997)
holds great promise for the field of
early intervention, specifically, the
family needs assessment component
of Part C of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,
2004). The eco-map provides an
opportunity to visually represent
the family’s perspectives about the
absence or presence, and nature and
strength, of linkages to friends,
coworkers, religious or spiritual
institutions, schools, social service
agencies, community groups,
recreational activities, health care
networks, legal systems, and
volunteer or advocacy organizations
(Cox, 2003). The eco-map provides

an opportunity to initiate early
intervention services and
Individualized Family Service Plan
(IFSP) processes in a family-centered
manner, respectful of the diversity
and individual resources and needs
of families. The purpose of this
article is to (a) provide a brief
overview of the eco-map process,
(b) describe the key steps in
completing eco-maps with families,
and (c) share implications for
early intervention practice. The
eco-mapping process will be
illustrated through the use of a family
vignette.
The eco-map provides a
unique method to
organize and present
concurrently factual
information and the
relationships between
variables in the family’s
current ecology.
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL

CHILDREN
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
19
“
”
The Eco-Map Process
The eco-map is a simple paper-
and-pencil simulation that was
developed as an assessment,
planning, and intervention tool
(Hartman, 1995). It maps in a
dynamic way the ecological systems
in which the family lives and
interacts. The eco-map facilitates
an informal, conversational
approach to family information
gathering, including identification
of immediate and extended family
members, friends, and neighbors;
recreational, employment, and
community supports; and formal
resources accessed by the family.
Simple strategies are used to
diagram identified resources and
supports and relationships
between the family and these
other systems.
In most instances,
interventionists sit with the family

and introduce the activity as a way
of identifying the family’s current
members, friends, and supports.
Together with the family, they begin
the process by putting a circle in the
middle of the page with the child’s
name in it. The eco-map can be
designed simply with circles, or
multiple symbols can be used to
denote differences (e.g., circles for
females, squares for males). In
addition, metaphoric symbols or
faces can be used to represent
people or agencies (Van Treuren,
1986). It also helps to document
who is completing the eco-map by
putting a symbol such as a star in
the respondent’s circle. The steps in
the process include identifying
informal supports, identifying
strengths of relationships, and
identifying formal supports.
Identifying Informal Supports
The interventionist should first
describe how supports are defined
and then ask the family members to
think about the informal supports
currently available to them. An
example script of this initial step
follows:
I would like for us to work
together to identify all the
different types of people who

currently provide support or
help to your child and you.
This could include family
members, friends, and
members of your church or
neighborhood as well as
people from your community.
Support comes in many forms.
For example, friendship, child
care, spiritual support, and a
listening ear are all types of
support. Let’s start with your
immediate family and more
informal supports. First, I am
going to put a circle in the
middle of the page with your
child’s name in it. Now, I will
draw a circle with your name
in it. Then, I will draw a circle
for each of the informal
supports you identify.
Early intervention service
providers also might be interested in
the type of supports each person
provides as well as the frequency of
the support. Therefore, each of the
circles may be labeled and additional
information may be solicited about
how each person relates to the child
and family, the type of support each
person provides, and how often the
child and family receive the support.
For example, below the circle,
an R could indicate the relationship

The steps in the process
include identifying informal
supports, identifying
strengths of relationships,
and identifying formal
supports.
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Vol. 11, No. 2, March
200820
of this person with the child and
family (e.g., “R = neighbor”). An
S might indicate the type of support
provided (e.g., “S = babysitting”).
Information about the frequency of
the support provided by this person
(e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, as
needed, once a year) also can be
documented. An example script of
this step follows:
For each of the circles we have
drawn, we need to add some
information about how each
person relates to your child,
the type of support he or she
provides, and how often your

child and you receive the
support. Let’s start with
grandparents. First, we will
note their relationship as
maternal or paternal
grandparents, then list the type
of supports they provide to
you and your child.
Figure 1 shows the first stage in
the development of an eco-map of
the Theriot family. Judi, the mom, is
sharing information about her
family, including her husband, Jodi;
son, Paul; and daughter, Allie. Allie,
in the center of the map, is an
incredibly engaging, 35-month-old
little girl, who was diagnosed with
cerebral palsy at 7 months of age.
Providing informal supports in her
care and development are extended
family members, friends, and
neighbors. Each of these individuals
or groups is represented by a circle
on the map.
Figure 1
First stage of an eco-map
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL
CHILDREN
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.

21
Identifying Strengths of
Relationships
At the heart of the eco-map are
the relationships between the family
and other systems, which are
represented by various types of
sketched lines. Hodge (2005)
suggests the following conventions:
Thicker lines represent stronger
or more powerful relationships.
A dashed line represents the
most tenuous relationship,
while a jagged line denotes a
conflicted one. An arrow is
drawn on the line to indicate
the flow of supports, energy,
resources, or interests. (p. 320)
Supports can go one way, such as
babysitting services offered by
a neighbor or assistance provided by
a friend. Often, supports go both
ways, such as between a parent and
grandparent. Arrows are drawn
between the circles to show whether
the relationships benefit or help one
or both people (e.g., one-way or two-
way arrow). Hodge also suggests that
short descriptions, important dates,
or other symbols be written to clarify

the relationships. In addition to
seeing a quick, available-at-a-glance
picture of a family and its
interactions, families are able to use
the eco-map to confirm their feelings
of isolation or stress (e.g., “So this is
why I’m so overwhelmed; I don’t
have many supports or people to
help me.”).
Figure 2 shows the Theriot
family’s eco-map with relationship
Figure 2
Relationship lines
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Vol. 11, No. 2, March
200822
lines drawn. The map shows that
Judi and Jodi provide primary care
for Allie, but it also shows that Allie
spends many of her days with her
Maw Maw and Paw Paw Theriot.
They are retired and have taken an
active role with Allie, bringing her
to most of her special activities. Paw
Paw is good with his hands and has
built or adapted trays, standing
frames, wagons, and many other
toys and furnishings. Allie’s
maternal grandparents are older.

Judi worries about them and
regularly helps them with household
chores, doctor visits, and medical
needs. Judi’s sister, Connie, also
helps her parents and, over the
years, has been a huge support for
Judi. Connie often babysits for Allie
and Paul and always is available for
Judi to “talk things over.” These
relationships are represented by the
lines between Connie and Judi,
Allie, and Paul.
Although Judi worries about
Paul, the family has a good friend
and neighbor, Kevin, who takes
Paul to many of his baseball
practices and games. Judi and Jodi
still worry that they are not giving
Paul enough time or attention. The
family relies on their faith and
church for guidance and support.
They attend services and have other
families from their church at their
home for barbeques and picnics.
Most of these families have young
children close in age to Allie and
Paul. There also are lots of young
children in the Theriots’
neighborhood.
Identifying Formal Supports
Finally, family members are
asked to identify all of the formal

supports they currently receive, and
separate circles for these supports
are drawn. Examples of these
supports might include physicians,
therapists, and other professionals
from community agencies. Formal
support comes in many forms. For
example, information, child care,
housing, financial assistance, early
intervention services, medical care,
and counseling are all types of
support. The steps needed to label
and denote family relationships with
these formal supports are then
repeated. That is, the interventionist
asks, “What is the relationship or
association of this person with your
child? With you? What type of
support does this person provide?
And what is the frequency of this
support?”
Figure 3 illustrates a completed
eco-map for the Theriot family. This
map shows Allie’s favorite activities,
horseback riding and swimming. It
also shows her numerous doctors
and therapies, including clinic-based
speech and physical therapy, home-
based special instruction, and
occupational therapy. A family
service coordinator also meets with
the family monthly and has helped
them access early intervention
services and supported them in
obtaining a wheelchair for Allie.

Currently, Allie’s providers are
discussing her need for an
augmentative communication
device. Judi and Jodi are confused
about these devices, and they are
having a difficult time trying to
discuss this with the speech-
language pathologist because of her
busy schedule. They are frustrated
that Allie’s therapists do not have
time to communicate with each
other. Jodi also is frustrated with
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL
CHILDREN
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
23
their health insurance agency’s slow
determination and payment process.
Summary of the Eco-Map
Process
During the process, family
members are encouraged to take
the lead in the identification of
informal and formal supports and
strengths of relationships. When
a stopping point nears, the service
provider, if needed, might ask

about specific supports not
addressed by the family (e.g.,
community, intervention services,
medical or health), requesting that
the family identify and describe
these supports. These additional
supports may then be added to the
eco-map. Some families might need
additional structure as they
complete this activity. For example,
a parent might have difficulty
thinking independently of the
various types of supports the child
and family receives and would
benefit from a listing of sources and
examples of support. If this is the
case, Table 1 lists categories and
Figure 3
Completed eco-map
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Vol. 11, No. 2, March
200824
examples of supports to share with
the family.
Once all informal and formal
supports and their relationships are
documented, the family and
provider jointly review the eco-map

and reflect on the usefulness of these
supports in meeting the child’s and
family’s identified concerns and
priorities. The early interventionist
then closes with, “Thank you for
working with me to identify your
family’s supports. Let’s review your
map regularly as we consider the
effectiveness of these supports in
meeting your family’s needs. Here is
a copy for you to keep.”
Implications of the
Eco-Map Process for
Early Intervention
Practice
Some advantages of using an
eco-map in early intervention service
planning and provision include
(a) establishing rapport with families
to build a foundation for the
provision of family-centered
services, (b) appropriateness for
families of culturally diverse
backgrounds and families with
limited literacy, (c) organizing
information and facts and linking to
the IFSP, (d) facilitating services in
natural environments, and (e)
maximizing utilization of informal
resources.
Family-Centered Early
Intervention Services

When used in initial meetings
and information gathering with
families, the eco-map facilitates a
family-centered approach to assist
families in identifying resources
currently available to meet their
needs. It is a tool to elicit from
family members their own
perceptions of their family’s
functioning and organization
around their children and their
concerns, priorities, and resources.
A well-constructed and in-depth
eco-map can provide the family and
early intervention provider valuable
information that formal family
assessment instruments might miss.
For example, as noted in Figure 2,
the Theriot family’s eco-map not
only shows a large informal
support system but points out those
supports (i.e., maternal
grandparents) that also are
stressors for the family. Hartman
and Laird (1983) suggest that the
joint completion by provider and
family in a side-by-side process is
an important feature of the eco-
map. This shared activity and
perspective is congruent with other
recommendations for
family–professional partnerships
(Woods & McCormick, 2002).
Table 1

Categories and Examples of Potential Family Supports
Example of Type(s) of
Category Example of Person(s) Support
Family Grandparent Financial assistance,
emotional support
Friends Friend of yours Friendship
Neighborhood Next door neighbor Child care
Church Church member Transportation
Community Case worker Housing, financial assistance
Child care Teacher Child care, parent education
Intervention services Physical therapist Early intervention
services
Mental health Counselor Emotional support, parent
education
Medical/health Physician Medical care
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL
CHILDREN
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
25
“
”
The family’s cultural
heritage and values

become more transparent
as the family and
professional work
together.
Use With Families of
Diverse Backgrounds
Because the eco-map process
asks the family to identify family
members and community resources,
it is useful across families of
culturally diverse backgrounds. The
eco-map has been used widely with
families of diverse backgrounds and
to map diverse components of
family systems (Hodge & Williams,
2002). The family’s cultural heritage
and values become more transparent
as the family and professional work
together to identify the family’s
various linkages, which are unique
to its culture and how the family
interacts with the world. For
example, Chatters and Taylor
(1994) report that approximately
70% of African Americans attend
church or a place of worship. It
would not, therefore, be surprising
to see church and church-related
supports included in an eco-map for
an African American family.

In addition, the eco-map
provides a way to reconceptualize
the complex needs of families of
children with significant disabilities
(Imber-Black, 1988; Imber-
Coppersmith, 1983, 1985).
Morawetz and Walker (1984)
suggest that this also is true for
high-poverty, high-risk families:
“Frequently a family will be
involved with many helping systems
and the relationships of these
systems with each other in respect to
the family will resemble the
relationships of a group of angry
and rivalrous relatives” (p. 333).
These interactions and relationships
can be seen readily in an eco-map.
Working together, families and
interventionists will not overlook
powerful significant-other
relationships that uniquely can
assist and support the family (Cox,
Keltner, & Hogan, 2003). The
completion of the eco-map can
confirm or challenge the perception
about a family and its interactions
in the multiple communities in
which the family lives (e.g., school,
work, neighborhood, family).
Another form of diversity that is
sometimes overlooked is the
educational level of families.

Eco-map construction is conducted
through verbal interaction between
the family and interventionist.
This interaction eliminates the
necessity for advanced reading
levels, and thus is useful for
families with low literacy levels or
those for whom English is not their
first language.
Linkage to the IFSP
Family information gathering is
essential to the development of
individualized early intervention
services for children and families.
The specific resources and needs
of each family must be
considered in the development and
implementation of the IFSP. The
eco-map facilitates (a) identification
of sources of family support that
can be utilized during service
provision, (b) identification of
information that will empower
families and assist them in obtaining
needed services for their child and
family, and (c) decision making
regarding currently used and needed
resources—time and resources
required of the family for services
and supports (e.g., the Theriot
family has to take off work early to
pick up Allie and drive her to
therapy). It provides a simple visual
that depicts gaps in resources or

Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Vol. 11, No. 2, March
200826
relationships as well as identifies
conflicting or stressful relationships.
In short, the eco-map provides a
comprehensive picture and summary
of information that easily fits and
supports the IFSP process.
Support Services in Natural
Environments
The activities and routines in
which young children participate are
influenced by the resources, time,
interests, and settings of the family
(Dunst, Hamby, Trivette, Raab, &
Bruder, 2000). The eco-map is
designed to facilitate the
identification of these prominent
family resources and interactions
first, setting the stage for the
provision of supports and services
within environments in which the
child is already participating. For
example, Allie Theriot (Figure 2)
spends much of her time at Maw
Maw and Paw Paw’s house.
Mapping of this important resource
for the Theriot family sets the stage

for interventions incorporating
Allie’s typical activities at Maw
Maw and Paw Paw’s house. The
eco-map then moves to other, more
formal resources and visually
diagrams the connections, or lack of
connections, across these agencies or
organizations. The sketched lines
and arrows, as shown in the
Theriots’ eco-map, depict how
different individuals,
interventionists, and agencies
interact with one another. This
helps to highlight the type of
communication across family
members, interventionists, and
providers—a critical component of
the provision of services in natural
environments.
Review of Informal and
Formal Resources
When the eco-map is used with
families already receiving early
intervention services, it can serve as
a mechanism to facilitate a review of
the family’s use of informal and
formal resources. The eco-map can
be a concrete tool for assessing,
developing, and coordinating
natural or informal resources and
more formal networks (Flashman,
1991). Often professionals overlook
informal resources, immediately
arranging for formal programs or

organizations to assist in meeting
families’ needs. The visual display
provided by the eco-map allows
professionals and families to quickly
identify the “got a need—get
a service” phenomenon, which can
drain family time, energy, and
resources.
Sequential Eco-Maps
Additionally, eco-maps can be
used at the onset of intervention, at
transition, or at other points in
time. Hartman (1978)
recommended that eco-maps be
used to monitor the progress of
intervention by completing eco-
maps at multiple points in time.
A comparison of these eco-maps
might help families and
interventionists measure the changes
that have occurred over time.
Mattaini (1995) suggested that
sequential eco-maps can be useful
particularly in family situations
where the interconnected networks
of stressors, supports, resources,
and issues are complicated and a
single measure simply cannot
capture all of the data of
importance.
The eco-map provides
a comprehensive

picture and summary of
information that easily fits
and supports the IFSP
process.
“
”
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL
CHILDREN
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
27
Summary and
Conclusions
As illustrated by the vignette
and the accompanying figures, eco-
maps offer a feasible method for
gathering extensive information
about families and their resources
and supports. It is a fun, easy-to-use
paper-and-pencil simulation that
organizes and objectifies a
tremendous amount of data about
the family system in space and
through time. The family plays a

vital role in bringing pertinent
information to the table and laying
the foundation for a meaningful
IFSP. Van Treuren (1986) suggests
that the eco-map has four
advantages. It (a) is simple to use
and understand, (b) is adaptable to
any size family and can be used with
children as well as adults, (c) is
functional and useful, and (d) allows
for the creativity of the family and
practitioner. The eco-map represents
the family within the context of
significant relationships with other
individuals and institutions (Horton
& Bucy, 2000). It represents the
connections between family and
others—basically, family life. The
authors of the eco-map consider
the tool to be “practical and
parsimonious . . . the usefulness of
this simple diagram becomes
dramatically clear if one considers the
volume of words it would take to
describe the family with words alone”
(Hartman & Laird, 1985, p. 161).
In summary, the use of the term
ecology is purposeful. It describes the
balance that exists between living
things and the environment in which
they function, the mutuality of these
interactions, the flow of resources, the
nature of interactions, and the points
of conflict. It demonstrates both lack
and abundance (Hartman, 1978).

Note
You may reach Katherine
McCormick by e-mail at [email protected]
uky.edu.
References
Bailey, D. B., & Simeonsson, R. J. (1988). Family assessment
in early
intervention. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems
and prospects.
American Psychologist, 34, 844-850.
Chatters, L. M., & Taylor, R. J. (1994). Religious involvement
among older
African-Americans. In J. S. Levin (Ed.), Religion in aging and
health:
Theoretical foundations and methodological frontiers (pp. 196-
230).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cox, R. P. (2003). Health related counseling with families of
diverse cultures:
Family, health and cultural competencies. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Cox, R. P., Keltner, N., & Hogan, B. (2003). Family assessment
tools. In
R. P. Cox (Ed.), Health related counseling with families of
diverse cultures:
Families, health, and cultural competencies (pp. 145-168).
Westport,

CT: Greenwood.
Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., Trivette, C. M., Rabb, M., & Bruder,
M. B. (2000).
Everyday family and community life and children’s naturally
occurring
learning opportunities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 151-
164.
Flashman, M. (1991). Training social workers in public welfare:
Some useful
family concepts. Journal of Independent Social Work, 5(3/4),
53-68.
Hanson, S., & Boyd, S. (1996). Family health care nursing:
Theory, practice,
and research. Philadelphia: Davis.
Hartman, A. (1978). Diagrammatic assessment of family
relationships. Social
Casework, 59, 465-476.
Hartman, A. (1995). Diagrammatic assessment of family
relationships. Families
in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services,
76(2), 111-122.
Hartman A., & Laird, J. (1983). Family-centered social work
practice. New
York: Free Press.
Hodge, D. R. (2005). Developing a spiritual assessment toolbox:
A discussion
of the strengths and limitations of five different assessment

methods. Health
and Social Work, 30, 314-323.
Hodge, D. R., & Williams, T. R. (2002). Assessing African
American
spirituality with spiritual eco-maps. Families in Society: The
Journal of
Contemporary Human Services, 83, 585-595.
Horton, C. B., & Bucy, J. E. (2000). Assessing adolescents:
Ecological and
person-environment fit perspectives. In W. E. Martin & J. L.
Swartz-
Kulstad (Eds.), An introduction to person-environment
psychology and
mental health: Assessment and intervention (pp. 39-47).
Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Imber-Black, E. (1988). Families and larger systems. New York:
Guilford.
Imber-Coppersmith, E. (1983). The family and public service
systems: An
assessment method. In B. Keeney (Ed.), Diagnosis and
assessment in family
therapy (pp. 83-99). Rockville, MD: Aspen System.
Imber-Coppersmith, E. (1985). Teaching trainees to think in
triads. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 61-66.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act,
Amendments of
2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, U.S.C. 20, §1400 et seq. (2004).

Mattaini, M. (1995). Visualizing practice with children and
families. Early
Child Development and Care, 106, 59-74.
Morawetz, A., & Walker, G. (1984). Brief therapy with single-
parent families.
New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Swanson, J., & Niles, M. (1997). Community health nursing.
Philadelphia:
Saunders.
Van Treuren, R. R. (1986). Self-perception in family systems: A
diagrammatic
technique. Social Casework, 67(5), 299-305.
Woods, J. J., & McCormick, K. M. (2002). Toward an
integration of child-
and family-centered practices in the assessment of preschool
children:
Welcoming the family. Young Exceptional Children, 5(3), 2-11.
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Vol. 11, No. 2, March
200828
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051 v2)

/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true
/DetectCurves 0.1000
/ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged
/DoThumbnails false
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false
/ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize false
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveDICMYKValues true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveFlatness true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts true

/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Remove
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
/AGaramond-BoldScaps
/AGaramond-Italic
/AGaramond-Regular
/AGaramond-RomanScaps
/AGaramond-Semibold
/AGaramond-SemiboldItalic
/AGar-Special
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldExIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Ex
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-It
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super
/AlbertusMT
/AlbertusMT-Italic
/AlbertusMT-Light
/Aldine401BT-BoldA
/Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA
/Aldine401BT-ItalicA
/Aldine401BT-RomanA
/Aldine721BT-Bold
/Aldine721BT-BoldItalic
/Aldine721BT-Italic

/Aldine721BT-Light
/Aldine721BT-LightItalic
/Aldine721BT-Roman
/AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular
/AmericanaBT-Bold
/AmericanaBT-ExtraBold
/AmericanaBT-ExtraBoldCondensed
/AmericanaBT-Italic
/AmericanaBT-Roman
/Anna
/AntiqueOlive-Bold
/AntiqueOlive-Compact
/AntiqueOlive-Italic
/AntiqueOlive-Roman
/Arkona-Medium
/Arkona-Regular
/AshleyScriptMT
/AssemblyLightSSK
/AvantGarde-Bold
/AvantGarde-BoldObl
/AvantGarde-Book
/AvantGarde-BookOblique
/AvantGarde-CondBold
/AvantGarde-CondBook
/AvantGarde-CondDemi
/AvantGarde-CondMedium
/AvantGarde-Demi
/AvantGarde-DemiOblique
/AvantGarde-ExtraLight
/AvantGarde-ExtraLightObl
/AvantGarde-Medium
/AvantGarde-MediumObl
/BakerSignetBT-Roman
/BaskervilleBE-Italic
/BaskervilleBE-Medium
/BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic

/BaskervilleBE-Regular
/Baskerville-Bold
/BaskervilleBT-Bold
/BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleBT-Italic
/BaskervilleBT-Roman
/BaskervilleMT
/BaskervilleMT-Bold
/BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleMT-Italic
/BaskervilleMT-SemiBold
/BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold
/BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman
/Baskerville-Normal-Italic
/BauerBodoni-Black
/BauerBodoni-BlackCond
/BauerBodoni-BlackItalic
/BauerBodoni-Bold
/BauerBodoni-BoldCond
/BauerBodoni-BoldItalic
/BauerBodoni-BoldItalicOsF
/BauerBodoni-BoldOsF
/BauerBodoni-Italic
/BauerBodoni-ItalicOsF
/BauerBodoni-Roman
/BauerBodoni-RomanSC
/BauhausITCbyBT-Bold
/BauhausITCbyBT-Heavy
/BauhausITCbyBT-Light
/BauhausITCbyBT-Medium
/Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT
/BellGothicBT-Bold
/BellGothicBT-Roman

/Bembo
/Bembo-Bold
/Bembo-BoldExpert
/Bembo-BoldItalic
/Bembo-BoldItalicExpert
/Bembo-Expert
/Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic
/Bembo-Italic
/Bembo-ItalicExpert
/Bembo-Semibold
/Bembo-SemiboldItalic
/Berling-Bold
/Berling-BoldItalic
/Berling-Italic
/Berling-Roman
/BernhardBoldCondensedBT-Regular
/BernhardFashionBT-Regular
/BernhardModernBT-Bold
/BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic
/BernhardModernBT-Italic
/BernhardModernBT-Roman
/BickhamScriptMM
/BickhamScriptMM-AltI
/BickhamScriptMM-AltII
/BickhamScriptMM-Beg
/BickhamScriptMM-End
/BickhamScriptMM-Lig
/BickhamScriptMM-Or
/BickhamScriptMM-SwCaps
/Bodoni
/Bodoni-Bold
/Bodoni-BoldItalic
/Bodoni-Italic
/Bodoni-Poster
/Bodoni-PosterCompressed
/Bookman-Demi

/Bookman-DemiItalic
/Bookman-Light
/Bookman-LightItalic
/Boton-Italic
/Boton-Medium
/Boton-MediumItalic
/Boton-Regular
/Boulevard
/CaflischScript-Bold
/CaflischScript-Regular
/Caliban
/Carta
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic
/Caslon540BT-Italic
/Caslon540BT-Roman
/CaslonBT-Bold
/CaslonBT-BoldItalic
/CaslonOpenFace
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt
/CastleT-Bold
/CastleT-Book
/Caxton-Bold
/Caxton-BoldItalic
/Caxton-Book
/Caxton-BookItalic
/Caxton-Light

/Century-Bold
/Century-BoldItalic
/Century-Book
/Century-BookItalic
/Century-Light
/Century-LightItalic
/CenturyOldStyle-Bold
/CenturyOldStyle-Italic
/CenturyOldStyle-Regular
/Century-Ultra
/Century-UltraItalic
/ChaparralMM
/ChaparralMM-Ep
/ChaparralMM-It
/ChaparralMM-ItEp
/ChaparralMM-ItSC
/ChaparralMM-Or
/ChaparralMM-SC
/CharterBT-Black
/CharterBT-BlackItalic
/CharterBT-Bold
/CharterBT-BoldItalic
/CharterBT-Italic
/CharterBT-Roman
/CheltenhamBT-Bold
/CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic
/CheltenhamBT-Italic
/CheltenhamBT-Roman
/Christiana-Bold
/Christiana-BoldItalic
/Christiana-Italic
/Christiana-Medium
/Christiana-MediumItalic
/Christiana-Regular
/Christiana-RegularExpert
/Christiana-RegularSC

/Clarendon
/Clarendon-Bold
/Clarendon-Light
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold
/ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman
/CMB10
/CMBSY10
/CMBSY5
/CMBSY6
/CMBSY7
/CMBSY8
/CMBSY9
/CMBX10
/CMBX12
/CMBX5
/CMBX6
/CMBX7
/CMBX8
/CMBX9
/CMBXSL10
/CMBXTI10
/CMCSC10
/CMCSC8
/CMSS10
/CMSS12
/CMSS17
/CMSS8
/CMSS9
/CMSSBX10
/CMSSDC10
/CMSSI10
/CMSSI12
/CMSSI17
/CMSSI8

/CMSSI9
/CMSSQ8
/CMSSQI8
/CMSY10
/CMSY5
/CMTEX9
/ComicSansMS
/ComicSansMS-Bold
/ConcordeNova-Italic
/ConcordeNova-ItalicExp
/ConcordeNova-ItalicOsF
/ConcordeNova-Medium
/ConcordeNova-MediumExp
/ConcordeNova-MediumSC
/ConcordeNova-Regular
/ConcordeNova-RegularExp
/ConcordeNova-RegularSC
/ConduitITC-Bold
/ConduitITC-BoldItalic
/ConduitITC-Light
/ConduitITC-LightItalic
/ConduitITC-Medium
/ConduitITC-MediumItalic
/CooperBlack
/CooperBlack-Italic
/CooperBT-Bold
/CooperBT-BoldItalic
/CooperBT-Light
/CooperBT-LightItalic
/CopperplateGothicBT-Bold
/CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond
/CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy
/CopperplateGothicBT-Roman
/CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond
/Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC
/Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC

/Coronet-Regular
/Courier
/Courier-Bold
/Courier-BoldOblique
/Courier-Oblique
/Critter
/CS-Special-font
/Delta-Bold
/Delta-BoldItalic
/Delta-Book
/Delta-BookItalic
/Delta-Light
/Delta-LightItalic
/Delta-Medium
/Delta-MediumItalic
/DextorD
/DextorOutD
/DINEngschrift
/DINEngschrift-Alternate
/DINMittelschrift
/DINMittelschrift-Alternate
/DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond
/DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light
/Dom-CasItalic
/DomCasual
/DomCasual-Bold
/Dom-CasualBT
/Ehrhard-Italic
/Ehrhard-Regular
/EhrhardSemi-Italic
/EhrhardtMT
/EhrhardtMT-Italic
/EhrhardtMT-SemiBold
/EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic
/EhrharSemi
/ElectraLH-Bold

/ElectraLH-BoldCursive
/ElectraLH-Cursive
/ElectraLH-Regular
/ElGreco
/EnglischeSchT-Bold
/EnglischeSchT-Regu
/ErasContour
/ErasITCbyBT-Bold
/ErasITCbyBT-Book
/ErasITCbyBT-Demi
/ErasITCbyBT-Light
/ErasITCbyBT-Medium
/ErasITCbyBT-Ultra
/Euclid
/Euclid-Bold
/Euclid-BoldItalic
/EuclidExtra
/EuclidExtra-Bold
/EuclidFraktur
/EuclidFraktur-Bold
/Euclid-Italic
/EuclidMathOne
/EuclidMathOne-Bold
/EuclidMathTwo
/EuclidMathTwo-Bold
/EuclidSymbol
/EuclidSymbol-Bold
/EuclidSymbol-BoldItalic
/EuclidSymbol-Italic
/EuroMono-Bold
/EuroMono-BoldItalic
/EuroMono-Italic
/EuroMono-Regular
/EuropeanPi-Four
/EuropeanPi-One
/EuropeanPi-Three

/EuropeanPi-Two
/EuroSans-Bold
/EuroSans-BoldItalic
/EuroSans-Italic
/EuroSansITC-Black
/EuroSansITC-BlackItalic
/EuroSansITC-Bold
/EuroSansITC-BoldItalic
/EuroSansITC-Book
/EuroSansITC-BookItalic
/EuroSansITC-Medium
/EuroSansITC-MediumItalic
/EuroSans-Regular
/EuroSerif-Bold
/EuroSerif-BoldItalic
/EuroSerif-Italic
/EuroSerif-Regular
/Eurostile
/Eurostile-Bold
/Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo
/Eurostile-ExtendedTwo
/ExPonto-Regular
/FairfieldLH-Bold
/FairfieldLH-BoldItalic
/FairfieldLH-BoldSC
/FairfieldLH-CaptionBold
/FairfieldLH-CaptionHeavy
/FairfieldLH-CaptionLight
/FairfieldLH-CaptionMedium
/FairfieldLH-Heavy
/FairfieldLH-HeavyItalic
/FairfieldLH-HeavySC
/FairfieldLH-Light
/FairfieldLH-LightItalic
/FairfieldLH-LightSC
/FairfieldLH-Medium

/FairfieldLH-MediumItalic
/FairfieldLH-MediumSC
/FairfieldLH-SwBoldItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwHeavyItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwLightItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwMediumItalicOsF
/Fences
/Fenice-Bold
/Fenice-BoldOblique
/Fenice-Light
/Fenice-LightOblique
/Fenice-Regular
/Fenice-RegularOblique
/Fenice-Ultra
/Fenice-UltraOblique
/FlashD-Ligh
/Flood
/FontanaNDEeOsF
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Bold
/FontanaNDEeOsF-BoldItalic
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Light
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold
/FormalScript421BT-Regular
/Formata-Bold
/Formata-MediumCondensed
/ForteMT
/FrakturBT-Regular
/FranklinGothic-Book
/FranklinGothic-BookItal
/FranklinGothic-BookOblique
/FranklinGothic-Condensed
/FranklinGothic-Demi
/FranklinGothic-DemiItal
/FranklinGothic-DemiOblique
/FranklinGothic-Heavy
/FranklinGothic-HeavyItal

/FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique
/FranklinGothic-Medium
/FranklinGothic-MediumItal
/FranklinGothic-Roman
/FreestyleScript
/FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold
/FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman
/Frutiger-Black
/Frutiger-BlackCn
/Frutiger-BlackItalic
/Frutiger-Bold
/Frutiger-BoldCn
/Frutiger-BoldItalic
/Frutiger-Cn
/Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn
/Frutiger-Italic
/Frutiger-Light
/Frutiger-LightCn
/Frutiger-LightItalic
/Frutiger-Roman
/Frutiger-UltraBlack
/Futura
/FuturaBlackBT-Regular
/Futura-Bold
/Futura-BoldOblique
/Futura-Book
/Futura-BookOblique
/FuturaBT-Bold
/FuturaBT-BoldCondensed
/FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic
/FuturaBT-BoldItalic
/FuturaBT-Book
/FuturaBT-BookItalic
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlack
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic

/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic
/FuturaBT-Heavy
/FuturaBT-HeavyItalic
/FuturaBT-Light
/FuturaBT-LightCondensed
/FuturaBT-LightItalic
/FuturaBT-Medium
/FuturaBT-MediumCondensed
/FuturaBT-MediumItalic
/Futura-CondensedLight
/Futura-CondensedLightOblique
/Futura-ExtraBold
/Futura-ExtraBoldOblique
/Futura-Heavy
/Futura-HeavyOblique
/Futura-Light
/Futura-LightOblique
/Futura-Oblique
/Futura-Thin
/Galliard-Black
/Galliard-BlackItalic
/Galliard-Bold
/Galliard-BoldItalic
/Galliard-Italic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Bold
/GalliardITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Italic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Roman
/Galliard-Roman
/Galliard-Ultra
/Galliard-UltraItalic
/Garamond-Antiqua
/Garamond-BoldCondensed
/Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic
/Garamond-BookCondensed
/Garamond-BookCondensedItalic

/Garamond-Halbfett
/GaramondITCbyBT-Bold
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Book
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Light
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic
/Garamond-Kursiv
/Garamond-KursivHalbfett
/Garamond-LightCondensed
/Garamond-LightCondensedItalic
/GaramondThree
/GaramondThree-Bold
/GaramondThree-BoldItalic
/GaramondThree-Italic
/GarthGraphic
/GarthGraphic-Black
/GarthGraphic-Bold
/GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed
/GarthGraphic-BoldItalic

/GarthGraphic-Condensed
/GarthGraphic-ExtraBold
/GarthGraphic-Italic
/Geometric231BT-HeavyC
/GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA
/GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA
/GeometricSlab712BT-LightA
/GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA
/GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA
/GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA
/Giddyup
/Giddyup-Thangs
/GillSans
/GillSans-Bold
/GillSans-BoldCondensed
/GillSans-BoldItalic
/GillSans-Condensed
/GillSans-ExtraBold
/GillSans-Italic
/GillSans-Light
/GillSans-LightItalic
/GillSans-UltraBold
/Gill-Special
/Giovanni-Bold
/Giovanni-BoldItalic
/Giovanni-Book
/Giovanni-BookItalic
/Goudy
/Goudy-Bold
/Goudy-BoldItalic
/Goudy-BoldItalicOsF
/Goudy-BoldOsF
/Goudy-ExtraBold
/Goudy-Heavyface
/Goudy-HeavyfaceItalic
/Goudy-Italic

/Goudy-ItalicOsF
/GoudyModernMT
/GoudyModernMT-Italic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold
/GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman
/GoudySans-Black
/GoudySans-BlackItalic
/GoudySans-Bold
/GoudySans-BoldItalic
/GoudySans-Book
/GoudySans-BookItalic
/GoudySans-Medium
/GoudySans-MediumItalic
/Goudy-SC
/GoudyTextMT
/GoudyTextMT-Alternate
/GoudyTextMT-Dfr
/GoudyTextMT-LombardicCapitals
/Helvetica
/Helvetica-Black
/Helvetica-BlackOblique
/Helvetica-Black-SemiBold
/Helvetica-Bold
/Helvetica-BoldOblique
/Helvetica-Compressed
/Helvetica-Condensed
/Helvetica-Condensed-Black
/Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Bold
/Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Light
/Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique