1 / 27

Acculturation of Immigrants in Canada: A Comparison Study

Acculturation of Immigrants in Canada: A Comparison Study. Saba Safdar Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Calgary, Alberta June 9 th , 2006. Acknowledgment. With special thanks to: Elsa Lopes Salima Jadarji

mostyn
Download Presentation

Acculturation of Immigrants in Canada: A Comparison Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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. Psycho-Social Resilience Out-group Contact Separation In-group Contact Connectedness Assimilation Psycho-Physical Distress Hassles 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 M=38 • 76% married; 65% had children • Years in Canada M=9 • 95% immigrant; 4% refugee • 81% Post-secondary (including 20% graduate training) • 76% Employed; 5% unemployed

  10. 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 > .05 X2/df = 1.47,GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07

  11. MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian) .59*** Psycho-Social Resilience .46*** Out-group Contact .20* Assimilation -.60*** In-group Contact Co-national Connectedness Separation Status Integration -.29*** Psycho-Physical Distress Acculturation Hassles X2(24, N= 114) = 35.36, p > .05 X2/df = 1.47,GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07

  12. 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 > .05 X2/df = 1.47,GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07

  13. 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 > .05 X2/df = 1.47,GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07

  14. 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 > .05 X2/df = 1.47,GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07

  15. Russians in Canada • 62 Male, 106 Female • Age M=41 • 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

  16. 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 > .05 X2/df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05

  17. MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian) .35*** Psycho-Social Resilience .21** Out-group Contact .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 > .05 X2/df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05

  18. 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 > .05 X2/df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05

  19. 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 > .05 X2/df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05

  20. MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Out-group Contact .19** Assimilation -.17* .38*** In-group Contact Co-national Connectedness Separation Status .18** .18** Integration Psycho-Physical Distress Acculturation Hassles X2(22, N= 168) = 30.48, p > .05 X2/df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05

  21. 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 > .05 X2/df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

More Related