INTEGRATION AND ADAPTATION OFIMMIGRANT YOUTH                  Colleen Ward                  Centre for Applied Cross-cultu...
INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVESTUDY OF ETHNOCULTURAL YOUTH• 13 nations• Over 30 ethnic  groups• 8000 adolescents• 20 researchers
RESEARCH QUESTIONS• HOW do immigrant youth live within and between two  cultures?• HOW WELL do immigrant youth deal with t...
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT• Demographic factors- e.g., gender, ethnicity,  birthplace, citizenship• Intercultural factors- e.g., ...
RESEARCH SAMPLE: INTERNATIONAL Society     Country       % of         Diversity   Diversity                           Immi...
SETTLER SOCIETIESAUSTRALIA Vietnamese    NZ   Chinese          Chinese            Pacific          FilipinoCANADA    Vietn...
FORMER COLONIAL SOCIETIESFRANCE   Vietnamese NETHERLANDS Turkish         Turkish                 Antilleans         Maghre...
RECENT RECEIVING SOCIETIESFINLAND   Vietnamese   PORTUGAL Cape                                Verdeans          Turks     ...
KEY FINDINGS
HOW DO MIGRANT YOUTHLIVE WITHIN AND BETWEENTWO CULTURES?
ACCULTURATION DIMENSIONS                CULTURAL MAINTENANCE                  YES            NO      YES       Integration...
ACCULTURATION PREFERENCES  4 3.5  3 2.5  2                                 Immigrants                                    N...
INTEGRATION ATTITUDES
ACCULTURATION PROFILESPROFILE      %      RANGE- %Integrated   36.4   17.8 - 53.5National     18.7   7.3 - 46.4Ethnic     ...
INTEGRATED (36.4%)• Strong ethnic and national identity• High national language proficiency,  moderate ethnic language pro...
INTEGRATED PROFILE       mean z scores1.5                       Integration                       Separation  1           ...
NATIONAL (18.7%)• Strong national identity and weak ethnic  identity• Strong endorsement of assimilation,  rejection of se...
NATIONAL PROFILE       mean z scores1.5                    Integration                       Separation  1                ...
ETHNIC (22.5%)• Very strong endorsement of separation;  srong rejection of assimilation• Strong ethnic identity, very weak...
ETHNIC PROFILE         mean z scores1.5                         Integration                         Separation  1         ...
DIFFUSE (22.4%)• Strong endorsement of assimilation and  marginalization, moderately strong  endorsement of separarion• Hi...
DIFFUSE PROFILE         mean z scores1.5                         Integration                         Separation  1        ...
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN HOW MIGRANTYOUTHENGAGE IN INTERCULTURALRELATIONS AND HOW WELLTHEY ADAPT?
ACCULTURATION PROFILES AND       ADAPTATION   0.5   0.4   0.3   0.2   0.1                           Psychological     0   ...
Perceived DiscriminationNational Orientation     -.33                                             -.18                    ...
HOW WELL DO MIGRANTYOUTH DEAL WITH THEIRINTERCULTURAL SITUATION?
mean scores  Al    li      m         m                          2.0                                2.5                    ...
mean scores    Al      li             m              m                                       1.0                          ...
mean scores  Al       li            m          m                           2.0                                 2.5        ...
mean scores  Al    li      m         m                          1.0                                1.5                    ...
ACCULTURATION AND ADAPTATION: KEY FINDINGS• Overall, migrant youth adapt well• Both national and migrant youth prefer inte...
HOW DO MACRO FACT   ORS SUCHAS CULTURAL DIVERSITY ANDDIVERSITY POLICIES AFFECTINTERCULTURAL ANDINTRACULTURAL PROCESSES?
MULTIPLE REGRESSION EXAMINING IMPACT OF CULTURALDIVERSITY ON INTERCULTURAL VARIABLES ANDADAPTATION OUTCOMES Dependent Vari...
IN COUNTRIES WITH GREATERCULTURAL DIVERSITY… • Migrant youth report slightly higher levels of   discrimination • Migrant y...
MULTIPLE REGRESSION EXAMINING IMPACT OF CULTURALDIVERSITY POLICY ON INTERCULTURAL VARIABLES ANDADAPTATION OUTCOMES Depende...
IN COUNTRIES WITH POLICIES THATARE MORE SUPPORTIVE OFCULTURAL DIVERSITY… • Migrant youth have a stronger integration   ori...
PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBEMS:                          Cross-level interaction between % of immigrants and                       ...
BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS:                            Cross-level interaction between % of immigrants and                      ...
MACRO-LEVEL FACTORS ANDADAPTATION: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS• Greater diversity is associated with more perceived  discriminatio...
Obviously, the integration strategy can bepursued only in societies that are explicitlymulticultural, in which certain psy...
http://cacr.victoria.ac.nz/
BACKGROUND• Factor analysis of intercultural variables• Resultant factors   • Ethnic orientation   • National orientation ...
Integration & adaptation of immigrant youth
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Integration & adaptation of immigrant youth

2,498

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,498
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Integration & adaptation of immigrant youth"

  1. 1. INTEGRATION AND ADAPTATION OFIMMIGRANT YOUTH Colleen Ward Centre for Applied Cross-cultural Research Victoria University of Wellington
  2. 2. INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVESTUDY OF ETHNOCULTURAL YOUTH• 13 nations• Over 30 ethnic groups• 8000 adolescents• 20 researchers
  3. 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS• HOW do immigrant youth live within and between two cultures?• HOW WELL do immigrant youth deal with their intercultural situation?• What is the relationship between HOW youth engage in intercultural relations and HOW WELL they adapt?• How are these processes influenced by societal factors such as cultural diversity and diversity policies?
  4. 4. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT• Demographic factors- e.g., gender, ethnicity, birthplace, citizenship• Intercultural factors- e.g., language use and proficiency, national and ethnic identity, peer contacts, acculturation preferences, family values• Perceived Discrimination• Adaptation indicators- e.g., school adjustment, behavioural problems, psychological symptoms, life satisfaction
  5. 5. RESEARCH SAMPLE: INTERNATIONAL Society Country % of Diversity Diversity Immigrants Index Policy Settler Australia 24.6 -.08 High Canada 18.9 1.42 High Israel 37.4 .65 Low NZ 22.5 .04 High US 12.4 .10 Medium Former France 10.6 -.51 Low Colonial Germany 9.0 -.85 Low Netherlands 9.9 -.78 Medium UK 6.8 -.21 Medium Recent Finland 2.6 -.65 Low Receiving Norway 6.7 -.97 Low Portugal 2.3 -1.11 Medium Sweden 11.2 -.59 Medium
  6. 6. SETTLER SOCIETIESAUSTRALIA Vietnamese NZ Chinese Chinese Pacific FilipinoCANADA Vietnamese US Vietnamese Korean Armenian South Asian MexicanISRAEL Russian Ethiopians
  7. 7. FORMER COLONIAL SOCIETIESFRANCE Vietnamese NETHERLANDS Turkish Turkish Antilleans Maghrebian Surinamese Portuguese UK South AsianGERMANY Turkish Portuguese Aussiedler
  8. 8. RECENT RECEIVING SOCIETIESFINLAND Vietnamese PORTUGAL Cape Verdeans Turks Angolans Russians South AsiansNORWAY Vietnamese Mozambicans Turks Timorese Chileans SWEDEN Vietnamese Turks Kurds Finns Chileans
  9. 9. KEY FINDINGS
  10. 10. HOW DO MIGRANT YOUTHLIVE WITHIN AND BETWEENTWO CULTURES?
  11. 11. ACCULTURATION DIMENSIONS CULTURAL MAINTENANCE YES NO YES Integration AssimilationPARTICIPATION Separation Marginalisation NO
  12. 12. ACCULTURATION PREFERENCES 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 Immigrants Nationals 1.5 1 0.5 0 Int Assim Sep Margin
  13. 13. INTEGRATION ATTITUDES
  14. 14. ACCULTURATION PROFILESPROFILE % RANGE- %Integrated 36.4 17.8 - 53.5National 18.7 7.3 - 46.4Ethnic 22.5 6.7 - 40.4Diffuse 22.4 7.2 - 40.3
  15. 15. INTEGRATED (36.4%)• Strong ethnic and national identity• High national language proficiency, moderate ethnic language proficiency, balanced language usage• Moderately strong ethnic and national peer contacts• Strong endorsement of integration, rejection of separation, assimilation, marginalization
  16. 16. INTEGRATED PROFILE mean z scores1.5 Integration Separation 1 Assimilation Marginalization0.5 Ethnic identity National identity 0 Ethnic lang prof national lang prof-0.5 National lang use Ethnic peer contacts -1 National peer contacts Family obligations-1.5 Adolescent rights
  17. 17. NATIONAL (18.7%)• Strong national identity and weak ethnic identity• Strong endorsement of assimilation, rejection of separation• High proficiency in national language, frequently used; poor proficiency in ethnic language• Strong national peer contacts and very weak ethnic peer contacts
  18. 18. NATIONAL PROFILE mean z scores1.5 Integration Separation 1 Assimilation Marginalisation0.5 Ethnic identity National identity 0 Ethnic language prof National language prof-0.5 National language use Ethnic peer contacts -1 Natonal peer contats Family obligations-1.5 Adolescent rights
  19. 19. ETHNIC (22.5%)• Very strong endorsement of separation; srong rejection of assimilation• Strong ethnic identity, very weak national identity• Good proficiency in ethnic language; infrequent use of national language• Few national peer contacts and strong ethnic peer contacts
  20. 20. ETHNIC PROFILE mean z scores1.5 Integration Separation 1 Assmilation Marginalisation0.5 Ethnic identity National identity 0 Ethnic language prof National language prof-0.5 National language use Ethnic peer contacts -1 National peer contacts Family obligations-1.5 Adolescent rights
  21. 21. DIFFUSE (22.4%)• Strong endorsement of assimilation and marginalization, moderately strong endorsement of separarion• High proficiency and frequent use of ethnic language; very poor national language proficiency• No strong cultural identity: Moderately weak ethnic identity, somewhat weak national identity• Peer contacts: some tendency towards ethnic contacts and away from national contacts
  22. 22. DIFFUSE PROFILE mean z scores1.5 Integration Separation 1 Assimilation Marginalisation0.5 Ethnic identity National identity 0 Ethnic language prof National language prof-0.5 National language use Ethnic peer contacts -1 National peer contacts Family obligations-1.5 Adolescent rights
  23. 23. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN HOW MIGRANTYOUTHENGAGE IN INTERCULTURALRELATIONS AND HOW WELLTHEY ADAPT?
  24. 24. ACCULTURATION PROFILES AND ADAPTATION 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Psychological 0 Adaptation -0.1 Sociocultural Adaptation -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 Int Eth Nat Dif
  25. 25. Perceived DiscriminationNational Orientation -.33 -.18 .14Ethnic Orientation .40 Ethnic -.24 Contacts Integration .10 -.28 .85 Ethnic Behaviours .13 .06 .17 .04 .11 Psychological Sociocultural Adaptation .28 Adaptation 2 (N = 4767; df = 40 = 7.123; p < 0.13.1 AGFI = .997, NNFI = .995, RMSEA = .013
  26. 26. HOW WELL DO MIGRANTYOUTH DEAL WITH THEIRINTERCULTURAL SITUATION?
  27. 27. mean scores Al li m m 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 ig ra n Au ts st ra lia C an ad a Fi nl an d Fr an G ce er m an y N Is et ra he e l N rl ew and Ze s al an d N or w a Po y rtu gaU Sw l ni te ed d LIFE SATISFACTION en Ki U ng ni do te m d St at N e at s io na ls
  28. 28. mean scores Al li m m 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ig ra n ts Au st ra lia C an ad a Fi nl an d Fr a nc G e er m an y N Is ra et h e l er N la n ew ds Ze al an d N or w ay Po r tu gaU Sw l ni te ed d en Ki U ng ni do te m d St at N e at s io PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS na ls
  29. 29. mean scores Al li m m 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 ig ra 5.0 n Au ts st ra l ia C an ad a Fi nl an d Fr an G ce er m an y N Is et ra he el N rl ew and Ze s al an d N or w a Po y rtu gaU Sw l ni te ed d SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT en Ki U ng ni do te m d St at N e at s io na ls
  30. 30. mean scores Al li m m 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ig ra n Au ts st ra lia C an ad a Fi nl an d Fr an G ce er m an y N Is et ra he e l N rl ew and Ze s al an d N or w a Po y rtu gaU Sw l ni te ed d en Ki U ng ni do te m d St at N e BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS at s io na ls
  31. 31. ACCULTURATION AND ADAPTATION: KEY FINDINGS• Overall, migrant youth adapt well• Both national and migrant youth prefer integration as an acculturation strategy• Four acculturation profiles – Integration associated with better adaptive outcomes – Diffusion linked to poorest outcomes
  32. 32. HOW DO MACRO FACT ORS SUCHAS CULTURAL DIVERSITY ANDDIVERSITY POLICIES AFFECTINTERCULTURAL ANDINTRACULTURAL PROCESSES?
  33. 33. MULTIPLE REGRESSION EXAMINING IMPACT OF CULTURALDIVERSITY ON INTERCULTURAL VARIABLES ANDADAPTATION OUTCOMES Dependent Variable ß R2 F (residuals) Perceived Discrimination .08** .01 19.50** Ethnic orientation -.01 .00 .07 National orientation .23** .05 192.51** Integration .01 .00 .11 Ethnic behaviours .08** .01 21.58** Psychological adaptation -.08** .01 19.56** Sociocultural adaptation .01 .00 .16 **p < .001
  34. 34. IN COUNTRIES WITH GREATERCULTURAL DIVERSITY… • Migrant youth report slightly higher levels of discrimination • Migrant youth have slightly stronger involvement with ethnic peers • Migrant youth have a stronger orientation to the national group • Migrant youth have a slightly lower level of psychological adaptation
  35. 35. MULTIPLE REGRESSION EXAMINING IMPACT OF CULTURALDIVERSITY POLICY ON INTERCULTURAL VARIABLES ANDADAPTATION OUTCOMES Dependent Variable ß R2 F (residuals) Perceived Discrimination .-.03 .00 2.10 Ethnic orientation .04* .00 6.16* National orientation .11** .01 39.60** Integration .07** .01 16.72** Ethnic behaviours .03 .00 2.52 Psychological adaptation -.02 .00 1.99 Sociocultural adaptation .07** .01 15.78* *p < .05, **p <. 01
  36. 36. IN COUNTRIES WITH POLICIES THATARE MORE SUPPORTIVE OFCULTURAL DIVERSITY… • Migrant youth have a stronger integration orientation (stronger national + ethnic orientations) • Migrant youth have better sociocultural adaptation
  37. 37. PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBEMS: Cross-level interaction between % of immigrants and perceived discrimination 1.83 MIGRANT = -6.677 MIGRANT = 5.423Psychological Problems 1.70 1.57 1.43 1.30 -0.96 -0.46 0.04 0.54 1.04 Discrimination
  38. 38. BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS: Cross-level interaction between % of immigrants and perceived discrimination 2.77 MIGRANT = -6.677 MIGRANT = 5.423Behaviour Problems 2.56 2.36 2.15 1.94 -0.96 -0.46 0.04 0.54 1.04 Discrimination
  39. 39. MACRO-LEVEL FACTORS ANDADAPTATION: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS• Greater diversity is associated with more perceived discrimination and lowel levels of psychological adaptation• Diversity policies are linked to integration and better sociocultural adaptation• Perceived discrimination predicts negative adaptation outcomes• % of immigrants and negative attitudes towards them exert significant negative effects on adaptation in immigrant youth• Perceived discrimination exerts more negative influence on adaptation under immigrant dense conditions
  40. 40. Obviously, the integration strategy can bepursued only in societies that are explicitlymulticultural, in which certain psychologicalpreconditions are established... Thesepreconditions are the widespread acceptanceof the value to a society of cultural diversity(i.e., the presence of a multicultural ideology),and of low levels of prejudice anddiscrimination; positive mutual attitudesamong ethnocultural groups (i.e., no specificintergroup hatreds); and a sense of attachmentto, or identification with, the larger society byall individuals and groups (Berry, 2001).
  41. 41. http://cacr.victoria.ac.nz/
  42. 42. BACKGROUND• Factor analysis of intercultural variables• Resultant factors • Ethnic orientation • National orientation • Integration • Ethnic behaviours• Regression analysis with four factors, perceived discrimination and adaptation outcomes used as dependent variables and demographic factors as predictors• Unstandardized residuals of dependent variables saved and used as dependent variables with cultural diversity or diversity policies as predictors

×