Acculturation of Immigrants in Canada: A Comparison Study

1
Acculturation of Immigrants in Canada A
Comparison Study

• Saba Safdar
• Paper presented at the
• Canadian Psychological Association
• Calgary, Alberta June 9th, 2006

2
Acknowledgment

• With special thanks to
• Elsa Lopes
• Salima Jadarji
• Members of Russian and Indian communities in
  Toronto, Mississauga, and Brampton
• Funding from College of Social Applied Research
  Human Sciences at University of Guelph

3
Purpose of the Present Study

• The purpose of the present study was to examine
  acculturation of immigrants using the
  Multidimensional Individual Difference
  Acculturation (MIDA) model.

4
Multidimensional Individual Difference
Acculturation Model
Psycho-Social Resilience Psychological
Well-being, Out-group Support, Cultural Competence
Out-group Contact
Acculturation Attitudes
Co-National Connectedness In-group support,
Family allocentrism, Ethnic Identity
In-group Contact
Psycho-Physical Distress Psychological physical
distress
Acculturation Specific Hassles In-group,
Out-group, Family
5
Multidimensional Acculturation Model Safdar,
Lay, Struthers (2003)
B
P
_

_
_




_
_

_

6
Hypotheses

• Hypothesis 1
• 1 a) Immigrants with high psycho-social
  resilience are less likely to report
  psycho-physical distress and more likely to
  maintain contact with the larger society
  (out-group contact).
• 1b) Immigrants with high psycho-social resilience
  are more likely to endorse assimilation and
  integration attitudes.

7
Hypotheses

• Hypothesis 2
• Immigrants with high co-national connectedness
  are more likely to maintain contact with their
  ethnic community (in-group contact) and more
  likely to endorse a separation attitude toward
  the larger society.
• Hypothesis 3
• Immigrants who experience high levels of
  acculturation specific hassles are more likely to
  experience a high level of psycho-physical
  distress.

8
Hypotheses

• Hypothesis 4
• 4 a) Immigrants who endorse separation attitude
  are more likely to maintain contact with their
  ethnic community (in-group contact).
• 4 b) Immigrants who endorse assimilation attitude
  are more likely to maintain contact with the
  larger society (out-group contact).
• 4 c) Immigrants who endorse integration attitude
  are more likely to maintain contact with both
  their ethnic community and the larger society.
• 4 d) No relation between acculturation attitudes
  and psycho-social distress was predicted.

9
Indians in Canada

• 57 Male, 57 Female
• Age M38
• 76 married 65 had children
• Years in Canada M9
• 95 immigrant 4 refugee
• 81 Post-secondary (including 20 graduate
  training)
• 76 Employed 5 unemployed

10
Cronbach's alpha of the Scales Indian (N 114) Russian (N 168)
Psycho-social Resilience -Psychological well-being (Ryff Singer, 1989) -Cultural Competence (Lay et al., 1998) -Perceived social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, Farley, 1988) .78 (18-item) .87 (13-item) .94 (3-item) .70 (18-item) .85 (9-item) .87 (3-item)
Co-national Connectedness -Ethnic Identity Scale (Cameron, Sato, Lay, Lalonde, 1997) -Family Allocentrism Scale (Lay et al., 1998) -Perceived social Support (Zimet, et al., 1988) .84 (15-item) .79 (21-item) .74 (5-item) .83 (12-item) .83 (21-item) .81 (6-item)
Hassles Inventory (Lay Nguyen, 1998) .91 (18-item) .76 (18-item)
11
Cronbach's alpha of the Scales Indian (N 114) Russian (N 168)
Acculturation Attitude (Kim, 1984, revised) -Assimilation -Separation -Integration .71 (4-item) .75 (5-item) .74 (4-item) .70 (8-item) .66 (7-item) .71 (6-item)
Acculturation Behaviour Scale (Safdar et al., 2003) -In-group contact -Out-group contact .84 (6-item) .82 (6-item) .68 (6-item) .69 (7-item)
Psycho-physical Distress -Beck Depression Inventory (Beck et al., 1961) -Zung Depression Scale (Zung et al., 1960) -Health Symptoms Scales (Safdar et al., 2003) - .83 (19-item) .94 (18-item) .87 (14-item) - .79 (18-item)
Obtained Status (Safdar et al., 2003) .75 (4-item) .84 (3-item)
12
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
Assimilation
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
Status
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
X2 (24, N 114) 35.36, p gt .05 X2/df 1.47,
GFI .95, RMSEA .07
13
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
.59
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
.46
.20
Assimilation
-.60
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
Status
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
-.29
Acculturation Hassles
X2 (24, N 114) 35.36, p gt .05 X2/df 1.47,
GFI .95, RMSEA .07
14
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
Assimilation
-.35
.36
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
.17
Status
.46
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
X2 (24, N 114) 35.36, p gt .05 X2/df 1.47,
GFI .95, RMSEA .07
15
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
Assimilation
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
Status
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
.30
X2 (24, N 114) 35.36, p gt .05 X2/df 1.47,
GFI .95, RMSEA .07
16
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
.29
Assimilation
.24
.15
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
.23
Status
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
X2 (24, N 114) 35.36, p gt .05 X2/df 1.47,
GFI .95, RMSEA .07
17
Russians in Canada

• 62 Male, 106 Female
• Age M41
• 80 married 76 had children
• Years in Canada M 5
• 94 immigrant 6 refugee
• 89 Post-secondary (including 15 graduate
  training)
• 52 Employed 20 unemployed

18
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
Assimilation
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
Status
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
X2 (22, N 168) 30.48, p gt .05 X2/df 1.38,
GFI.97, RMSEA .05
19
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
.35
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
.21
.16
Assimilation
-.42
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
Status
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
-.22
X2 (22, N 168) 30.48, p gt .05 X2/df 1.38,
GFI.97, RMSEA .05
20
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
Assimilation
-.42
.26
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
.16
Separation
-.20
Status
.31
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
X2 (22, N 168) 30.48, p gt .05 X2/df 1.38,
GFI.97, RMSEA .05
21
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
Assimilation
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
Status
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
.27
X2 (22, N 168) 30.48, p gt .05 X2/df 1.38,
GFI.97, RMSEA .05
22
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
.19
Assimilation
-.17
In-group Contact
.38
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
Status
.18
.18
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
X2 (22, N 168) 30.48, p gt .05 X2/df 1.38,
GFI.97, RMSEA .05
23
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social Resilience
Out-group Contact
Assimilation
.24
In-group Contact
Co-national Connectedness
Separation
.15
Status
Integration
Psycho-Physical Distress
Acculturation Hassles
X2 (22, N 168) 30.48, p gt .05 X2/df 1.38,
GFI.97, RMSEA .05
24
Conclusion

• In both studies psycho-social resilience was
  positively related to out-group contact and
  negatively to psycho-physical distress.
• Psycho-social resilience was positively related
  to assimilation and negatively to separation.
• No relation between psycho-social resilience and
  integration was found.

25
Conclusion

• In both studies co-national connectedness was
  positively related to in-group contact.
• Co-national connectedness was positively related
  to separation.
• Co-national connectedness was negatively related
  to assimilation and positively to integration.

26
Conclusion

• Hassles was positively related to psycho-physical
  distress.
• Assimilation was positively related to out-group
  contact.
• Separation was positively related to in-group
  contact (and positively to psycho-physical
  distress in the Russian model).
• Integration was positively related to out-group
  contact in the Indian model and to in-group
  contact in the Russian model.

27
Conclusion

• In both studies psycho-social resilience was
  positively related to obtained-status.
• In the Indian model, assimilation was positively
  related to status and in the Russian model
  co-national connectedness was negatively related
  to status.