Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
A Rough Guide to Immigrant Acculturation: Hassles, Stress, & Support Saba Safdar, Ph.D. Centre for Cross-Cultural Research, Psychology Department Presented at the SOAS, University of London October 29, 2008 What is Acculturation? Acculturation is the process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between cultural groups and their individual members (Redfield, Linton & Herskovits, 1936). Acculturation Research • Research on acculturation in the last four decades indicates that the long term psychological consequences of the process of acculturation depend on social and personal factors that reside in the society of origin and the characteristics of the society of settlement (Berry 1997; Berry & Safdar, 2007; Phinney et al., 2001). Acculturation of Iranians • The Goals of the study were: 1. To evaluate the generalizability of Multidimensional Individual Difference Acculturation (MIDA) model which includes the key factors identified for a framework of cultural adaptation for immigrants. To identify characteristics of groups and settings that influence the adaptation of immigrants. 2. Components of the MIDA Model Psycho-Social Resources Psychological Well-being, Out-group Support, Cultural Competence Acculturation Attitudes Connectedness Family Allocentrism, In-group Support, Ethnic Identity Hassles In-group, Out-group, Family, & General Contact with Out-group & New culture Contact with In-group & Heritage culture Avoidance of PsychoPhysical Distress Psychological & Physical Distress Varieties of Intercultural Strategies (Berry, 1974) Maintenance of heritage culture + Contact with the other group Integration Assimilation Separation Marginalization - Multidimensional Acculturation Model – Safdar, Lay, & Struthers (2003) B P _ Psycho-Social Resources _ + _ Separation + + Connectedness _ + Hassles Out-group Contact + + In-group _ Contact Assimilation _ + Psycho-Physical Distress Measures • • • • • • • • • Psychological well-being (18-item; Ryff & Singer, 1989) Cultural Competence (10-item; based on Lay et al., 1998) Perceived Social Support (12-item; Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) Ethnic Identity Scale (9-item; Cameron, Sato, Lay, & Lalonde, 1997) Behavioural Adaptation Scale (8-item; Safdar, Lay, & Struthers, 2003) Hassles Inventory (12-item; Lay & Nguyen, 1998) Acculturation Attitudes (4-item; van Oudenhoven & Eisses, 1998) Psychological Distress (9-item; van Oudenhoven & van der Zee, 1994) Health Symptoms Scale (6-item; Safdar et al., 2003) The Three Countries in the Study • • • Participants in the study were first generation Iranian immigrants in the U.S., the U.K., and the Netherlands. The U.S., the U.K., and the Netherlands, are relatively similar in cultural terms, including values, family structure, religion, and gender equality (Hofstede, 2001). The U.S., U.K., and the Netherlands differ in their level of “policy diversity” from Canada (Berry, Westin, Virta, Vedder, Rooney, & Sang, 2006). Iranians in the UK • • • • • • • • • 68 Male, 26 Female Age M=33 Years in Britain M=10 41% Citizen 40% Refugee 46% High school diploma or under 38% Employed 29% Home-maker/ Student 32% Unemployed Iranians in the Netherlands • • • • • • • 40 Male & 40 Female Age M=37 Years in the Netherlands: M=10 49% Refugee, 43% Citizen 95% Post Secondary 27% Unemployed 24% Student/Homemaker Iranians in the USA • • • • • • • 35 Male, 28 Female Age M=36 Years in the U.S. M=19 59% US Citizen 98% Post-secondary 76% Employed 24% Student/ Home-maker The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Own Culture Maintenance Psycho-Social Resources .05 In-group Contact .27** .14 .40*** .46*** Connectedness -.18* .28** -.26** Hassles New Culture Acquisition .17 Out-group Contact .16 -.40*** Psycho-Physical Distress X2 (63) = 78.97, p = .08, GFI=.93, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .03 The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Own Culture Maintenance Psycho-Social Resources In-group Contact .46*** Connectedness .28** New Culture Acquisition Hassles -.40*** Out-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Psycho-Social Resources Own Culture Maintenance In-group Contact .27** .40*** Connectedness -.18* New Culture Acquisition Hassles Out-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Psycho-Social Resources Own Culture Maintenance Out-group Contact Connectedness New Culture Acquisition Hassles In-group Contact .17 Psycho-Physical Distress The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Psycho-Social Resources Own Culture Maintenance In-group Contact .05 (U.K.) .50*** (U.S.); .42*** (Dutch) Out-group Contact Connectedness .16 (U.K.); .14 (Dutch) New Culture Acquisition Hassles .34*** (U.S.) Psycho-Physical Distress Psychophysical Distress 0.5 0.3 0.06 0.1 0.14 -0.1 -0.3 -0.38 -0.5 Iranian- Iranian- IranianAmerican British Dutch The three groups differed significantly on Psychophysical Symptoms, F (2, 188) = 6.26, p < 0.01. The Iranian-American group had significantly lower scores on Psychophysical Symptoms than the other two groups. Psychological Well-Being The three groups differed significantly on Psychological Well-Being, F (2, 188) = 4.94, p < 0.01. The Iranian-American group had significantly a higher level of positive psychological functioning than the Iranian-British group. 4 3.94 3.67 3.77 3 2 1 Iranian- Iranian- IranianAmerican British Dutch Cultural and Linguistic Competence The three groups differed significantly on Cultural and linguistic Competence, F (2, 188) = 16.94, p < 0.001. The Iranian-American group had significantly higher scores on Cultural and linguistic Competence than the other two groups. 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 4.24 3.52 3.77 Iranian- Iranian- IranianAmerican British Dutch Iranians Groups • 1. 2. 3. Three waves of emigration from Iran: Beginning in 1950 and lasting until the 1979 revolution. After revolution and it is referred to as “brain drain.” From mid 1990s to the present and consists of two very distinct population; highly skilled individuals and working-class labour immigrants and economic refugees. UNHCR (2004) Global Migrant Origin Database (2000) Destination Countries by Size of Iranian-Born Iranian Asylum Application Population (2000) 1995-2004 Germany 34,828 U.S.A. 291,040 Turkey 22,708 Canada 75,115 U.K. 22,290 Germany 65,750 Netherlands 19,230 Sweden 53,982 Austria 11,315 Israel 51,300 Canada 9,100 U.K. 42,494 U.S.A. 6,919 Netherlands 21,469 Austria 18,789 France 18,376 Conclusion • • How people acculturate in their ethno-cultural groups and the larger society is a function of the societal and the individual variables. The association between some variables within the MIDA model varies from one cultural context to another and from one immigrant group to the next. Future Research • We need to examine mutual Intercultural Relations in plural societies by combining research traditions of acculturation and intergroup relations. Varieties of Intercultural Strategies (Berry, 1984) Maintenance of heritage culture + Contact with the other group - + - + - Integration Assimilation Multiculturalism Melting pot Separation Marginalization Segregation Exclusionism A New International Project • • • Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies (MIRIPS) Assist us in collecting data among dominant and nondominant groups in plural societies. Get authorship and publication. Obtain samples of 200 persons distributed evenly by gender and by age groups (20-35, 36-50, 50+)