Transcript of "Integration & adaptation of immigrant youth"
INTEGRATION AND ADAPTATION OFIMMIGRANT YOUTH Colleen Ward Centre for Applied Cross-cultural Research Victoria University of Wellington
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 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?
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
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
SETTLER SOCIETIESAUSTRALIA Vietnamese NZ Chinese Chinese Pacific FilipinoCANADA Vietnamese US Vietnamese Korean Armenian South Asian MexicanISRAEL Russian Ethiopians
FORMER COLONIAL SOCIETIESFRANCE Vietnamese NETHERLANDS Turkish Turkish Antilleans Maghrebian Surinamese Portuguese UK South AsianGERMANY Turkish Portuguese Aussiedler
RECENT RECEIVING SOCIETIESFINLAND Vietnamese PORTUGAL Cape Verdeans Turks Angolans Russians South AsiansNORWAY Vietnamese Mozambicans Turks Timorese Chileans SWEDEN Vietnamese Turks Kurds Finns Chileans
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Adaptation -0.1 Sociocultural Adaptation -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 Int Eth Nat Dif
HOW WELL DO MIGRANTYOUTH DEAL WITH THEIRINTERCULTURAL SITUATION?
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
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
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
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
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
HOW DO MACRO FACT ORS SUCHAS CULTURAL DIVERSITY ANDDIVERSITY POLICIES AFFECTINTERCULTURAL ANDINTRACULTURAL PROCESSES?
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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