A Rough Guide to Immigrant Acculturation: Hassles, Stress, & Support

Saba Safdar, Ph.D.Saba Safdar, Ph.D.

Centre for Cross-Cultural Centre for Cross-Cultural Research, Psychology DepartmentResearch, Psychology Department

Presented at the SOAS, University of London Presented at the SOAS, University of London

October 29, 2008October 29, 2008

What is Acculturation? What is Acculturation?

Acculturation is the process of cultural Acculturation is the process of cultural and psychological change that takes and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between place as a result of contact between cultural groups and their individual cultural groups and their individual members (Redfield, Linton & Herskovits, members (Redfield, Linton & Herskovits, 1936). 1936).

Acculturation ResearchAcculturation Research

• Research on acculturation in the last Research on acculturation in the last four decades indicates that the long four decades indicates that the long term psychological consequences of term psychological consequences of the process of acculturation depend the process of acculturation depend on social and personal factors that on social and personal factors that reside in the society of origin and reside in the society of origin and the characteristics of the society of the characteristics of the society of settlement (Berry 1997; Berry & settlement (Berry 1997; Berry & Safdar, 2007; Phinney et al., 2001).Safdar, 2007; Phinney et al., 2001).

Acculturation of Iranians

• The Goals of the study were: The Goals of the study were: 1.1. To evaluate the generalizability of To evaluate the generalizability of

Multidimensional Individual Multidimensional Individual Difference Acculturation (MIDA)Difference Acculturation (MIDA) model which includes the key factors model which includes the key factors identified for a framework of cultural identified for a framework of cultural adaptation for immigrants. adaptation for immigrants.

2.2. To identify characteristics of groups To identify characteristics of groups and settings that influence the and settings that influence the adaptation of immigrants.adaptation of immigrants.

Components of the MIDA Components of the MIDA ModelModel

Connectedness

Family Allocentrism, In-group Support, Ethnic Identity

Hassles

In-group, Out-group, Family, & General

Acculturation Attitudes Contact with In-group

& Heritage culture

Contact with Out-group & New culture

Avoidance of Psycho-Physical Distress

Psychological & Physical Distress

Psycho-Social Resources

Psychological Well-being, Out-group Support, Cultural Competence

Varieties of Intercultural Varieties of Intercultural Strategies (Berry, 1974)Strategies (Berry, 1974)

Maintenance of heritage culture

Contact with the other group

Integration Assimilation

Separation Marginalization

-

-+

Multidimensional Multidimensional Acculturation Model – Safdar, Acculturation Model – Safdar,

Lay, & Struthers (2003) Lay, & Struthers (2003)

Psycho-Social Resources

Connectedness

Hassles

Separation

Assimilation

Out-group Contact

In-group Contact

Psycho-Physical Distress

_+

+

_

_+

+

+

_

_+

+

_

P B

MeasuresMeasures• Psychological well-being (18-item; Ryff & Singer, 1989)Psychological well-being (18-item; Ryff & Singer, 1989)• Cultural Competence (10-item; based on Cultural Competence (10-item; based on Lay et al., Lay et al.,

1998)1998)• Perceived Social Support Perceived Social Support (12-item; Zimet, Dahlem, (12-item; Zimet, Dahlem,

Zimet, & Farley, 1988)Zimet, & Farley, 1988)• Ethnic Identity Scale (9-item; Ethnic Identity Scale (9-item; Cameron, Sato, Lay, & Cameron, Sato, Lay, &

Lalonde, 1997)Lalonde, 1997)• Behavioural Adaptation Scale (8-item; Safdar, Lay, & Behavioural Adaptation Scale (8-item; Safdar, Lay, &

Struthers, 2003)Struthers, 2003)• Hassles Inventory (12-item; Lay & Nguyen, 1998) Hassles Inventory (12-item; Lay & Nguyen, 1998) • Acculturation Attitudes (4-item; Acculturation Attitudes (4-item; van Oudenhoven & van Oudenhoven &

Eisses, 1998)Eisses, 1998)• Psychological Distress (9-item; van Oudenhoven & van Psychological Distress (9-item; van Oudenhoven & van

der Zee, 1994)der Zee, 1994)• Health Symptoms Scale (6-item; Safdar et al., 2003Health Symptoms Scale (6-item; Safdar et al., 2003) )

The Three Countries in The Three Countries in the Studythe 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, The U.S., the U.K., and the Netherlands, are relatively similar in cultural terms, are relatively similar in cultural terms, including values, family structure, including values, family structure, religion, and gender equality (Hofstede, religion, and gender equality (Hofstede, 2001).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 UKIranians in the UK

• 68 Male, 68 Male, 26 Female 26 Female

• Age Age MM=33=33• Years in Britain Years in Britain

MM=10=10• 41% Citizen41% Citizen• 40% Refugee40% Refugee• 46% High school 46% High school

diploma or underdiploma or under• 38% Employed38% Employed• 29% Home-maker/ 29% Home-maker/

StudentStudent• 32% Unemployed32% Unemployed

Iranians in the Iranians in the NetherlandsNetherlands

• 40 Male & 40 40 Male & 40 FemaleFemale

• Age Age MM=37=37• Years in the Years in the

Netherlands: Netherlands: MM=10=10• 49% Refugee, 43% 49% Refugee, 43%

CitizenCitizen• 95% Post Secondary95% Post Secondary• 27% Unemployed 27% Unemployed • 24% 24%

Student/HomemakeStudent/Homemakerr

Iranians in the USA Iranians in the USA

• 35 Male, 35 Male, 28 Female 28 Female

• Age Age MM=36=36• Years in the U.S. Years in the U.S.

MM=19=19• 59% US Citizen59% US Citizen• 98% Post-secondary98% Post-secondary• 76% Employed76% Employed• 24% Student/ Home-24% Student/ Home-

makermaker

The Best-Fit Model for the Three

Immigrant Groups

Psycho-Social Resources

Connectedness

Hassles

Own Culture Maintenance In-group

Contact

Out-group Contact

Psycho-Physical Distress

-.26**

X2 (63) = 78.97, p = .08, GFI=.93, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .03

.40***

.16

.17

.14

.05

.28**-.18*

New Culture Acquisition

.27**

.46***

-.40***

The Best-Fit Model for the Three

Immigrant Groups

Psycho-Social Resources

Connectedness

Hassles

Own Culture Maintenance In-group

Contact

Out-group Contact

Psycho-Physical Distress

.28**

New Culture Acquisition

.46***

-.40***

The Best-Fit Model for the Three

Immigrant Groups

Psycho-Social Resources

Connectedness

Hassles

Own Culture Maintenance In-group

Contact

Out-group Contact

Psycho-Physical Distress

.40***-.18*

New Culture Acquisition

.27**

The Best-Fit Model for the Three

Immigrant Groups

Psycho-Social Resources

Connectedness

Hassles

Own Culture Maintenance In-group

Contact

Out-group Contact

Psycho-Physical Distress.17

New Culture Acquisition

The Best-Fit Model for the Three

Immigrant Groups

Psycho-Social Resources

Connectedness

Hassles

Own Culture Maintenance In-group

Contact

Out-group Contact

Psycho-Physical Distress

.16 (U.K.); .14 (Dutch)

.34*** (U.S.)

.05 (U.K.)

.50*** (U.S.); .42*** (Dutch)

New Culture Acquisition

Psychophysical DistressPsychophysical Distress 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.

-0.38

0.060.14

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

Iranian-American

Iranian-British

Iranian-Dutch

Psychological Well-BeingPsychological 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.

3.943.67 3.77

1

2

3

4

Iranian-American

Iranian-British

Iranian-Dutch

Cultural and Linguistic Cultural and Linguistic CompetenceCompetence

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.

4.24

3.523.77

11.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

Iranian-American

Iranian-British

Iranian-Dutch

Iranians Groups Iranians Groups

• Three waves of emigration from Iran:Three waves of emigration from Iran:1.1. Beginning in 1950 and lasting until Beginning in 1950 and lasting until

the 1979 revolution.the 1979 revolution.2.2. After revolution and it is referred to After revolution and it is referred to

as “brain drain.”as “brain drain.”3.3. From mid 1990s to the present and From mid 1990s to the present and

consists of two very distinct consists of two very distinct population; highly skilled individuals population; highly skilled individuals and working-class labour immigrants and working-class labour immigrants and economic refugees. and economic refugees.

UNHCR (2004) Global Migrant UNHCR (2004) Global Migrant Origin DatabaseOrigin Database

(2000) (2000)

Iranian Asylum Iranian Asylum Application 1995-Application 1995-

20042004

GermanyGermany 34,82834,828

TurkeyTurkey 22,70822,708

U.K.U.K. 22,29022,290

NetherlanNetherlandsds

19,23019,230

AustriaAustria 11,31511,315

CanadaCanada 9,1009,100

U.S.A.U.S.A. 6,9196,919

Destination Countries Destination Countries by Size of Iranian-by Size of Iranian-Born Population Born Population

(2000)(2000)

U.S.A.U.S.A. 291,040291,040

CanadaCanada 75,11575,115

GermanyGermany 65,75065,750

SwedenSweden 53,98253,982

IsraelIsrael 51,30051,300

U.K.U.K. 42,49442,494

NetherlandNetherlandss

21,46921,469

AustriaAustria 18,78918,789

FranceFrance 18,37618,376

Conclusion Conclusion

• How people acculturate in their How people acculturate in their ethno-cultural groups and the larger ethno-cultural groups and the larger society is a function of the societal society is a function of the societal and the individual variables. and the individual variables.

• The association between some The association between some variables within the MIDA model variables within the MIDA model varies from one cultural context to varies from one cultural context to another and from one immigrant another and from one immigrant group to the next. group to the next.

Future ResearchFuture Research

• We need to eWe need to examine mutual Intercultural Relations in plural societies by combining research traditions of acculturation and intergroup relations.

Varieties of Intercultural Varieties of Intercultural Strategies (Berry, 1984)Strategies (Berry, 1984)

Maintenance of heritage culture

Contact with the other group

Integration Assimilation

Separation Marginalization

Multiculturalism Melting pot

Segregation Exclusionism

+

-

-+-+

A New International A New International ProjectProject

• Mutual Intercultural Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Relations in Plural Societies (MIRIPS)Societies (MIRIPS)

• Assist us in collecting Assist us in collecting data among dominant data among dominant and non-dominant and non-dominant groups in plural groups in plural societies. Get authorship societies. Get authorship and publication.and publication.

• Obtain samples of 200 Obtain samples of 200 persons distributed persons distributed evenly by gender and by evenly by gender and by age groups (20-35, 36-age groups (20-35, 36-50, 50+)50, 50+)