Transcript Coping and Beliefs Regarding the Terrorist Attacks Against

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
Iranian- IranianAmerican British
3.77
IranianDutch
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+)