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

1. 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

2. 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).

3. 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).

4. Acculturation of Iranians • The Goals of the study were: • 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.

5. Components of the MIDA Model Psycho-Social Resources Psychological Well-being, Out-group Support, Cultural Competence Contact with Out-group & New culture Acculturation Attitudes Contact with In-group & Heritage culture Connectedness Family Allocentrism, In-group Support, Ethnic Identity Avoidance of Psycho-Physical Distress Psychological & Physical Distress Hassles In-group, Out-group, Family, & General

6. Varieties of Intercultural Strategies (Berry, 1974) Maintenance of heritage culture + - Contact with the other group Integration Assimilation Separation Marginalization -

7. Psycho-Social Resources Out-group Contact Separation In-group Contact Connectedness Assimilation Psycho-Physical Distress Hassles Multidimensional Acculturation Model – Safdar, Lay, & Struthers (2003) B P _ + _ _ + + + + _ _ + _ +

8. 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)

9. 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).

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Own Culture Maintenance .05 In-group Contact Psycho-Social Resources .27** .14 .40*** .46*** Out-group Contact Connectedness -.18* .28** .16 New Culture Acquisition -.26** Psycho-Physical Distress -.40*** .17 Hassles X2(63) = 78.97, p = .08, GFI=.93, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .03

14. The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Own Culture Maintenance In-group Contact Psycho-Social Resources .46*** Out-group Contact Connectedness -.40*** .28** New Culture Acquisition Psycho-Physical Distress Hassles

15. The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Own Culture Maintenance In-group Contact Psycho-Social Resources .27** .40*** -.18* Out-group Contact Connectedness New Culture Acquisition Psycho-Physical Distress Hassles

16. The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Own Culture Maintenance In-group Contact Psycho-Social Resources Out-group Contact Connectedness New Culture Acquisition Psycho-Physical Distress .17 Hassles

17. The Best-Fit Model for the Three Immigrant Groups Own Culture Maintenance In-group Contact Psycho-Social Resources .05 (U.K.) .50*** (U.S.); .42*** (Dutch) Out-group Contact Connectedness .16 (U.K.); .14 (Dutch) .34*** (U.S.) New Culture Acquisition Psycho-Physical Distress Hassles

18. Psychophysical 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. Iranians Groups • 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.

22. UNHCR (2004) Global Migrant Origin Database (2000)

23. 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.

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

25. Varieties of Intercultural Strategies (Berry, 1984) Maintenance of heritage culture + - + - + Contact with the other group Integration Assimilation Separation Marginalization Multiculturalism Melting pot Segregation Exclusionism -

26. A New International Project • Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies (MIRIPS) • Assist us in collecting data among dominant and non-dominant 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+)