1. INTEGRATION AND ADAPTATION OF
IMMIGRANT YOUTH
Colleen Ward
Centre for Applied Cross-cultural
Research
Victoria University of Wellington

2. INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE
STUDY OF ETHNOCULTURAL YOUTH
• 13 nations
• Over 30 ethnic
groups
• 8000 adolescents
• 20 researchers

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• HOW do immigrant youth live within and between two
cultures?
• HOW WELL do immigrant youth deal with their
intercultural situation?
• What is the relationship between HOW youth engage
in intercultural relations and HOW WELL they adapt?
• How are these processes influenced by societal
factors such as cultural diversity and diversity
policies?

4. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
• Demographic factors- e.g., gender, ethnicity,
birthplace, citizenship
• Intercultural factors- e.g., language use and
proficiency, national and ethnic identity, peer
contacts, acculturation preferences, family values
• Perceived Discrimination
• Adaptation indicators- e.g., school adjustment,
behavioural problems, psychological symptoms, life
satisfaction

5. RESEARCH SAMPLE: INTERNATIONAL
Society Country % of Diversity Diversity
Immigrants Index Policy
Settler Australia 24.6 -.08 High
Canada 18.9 1.42 High
Israel 37.4 .65 Low
NZ 22.5 .04 High
US 12.4 .10 Medium
Former France 10.6 -.51 Low
Colonial Germany 9.0 -.85 Low
Netherlands 9.9 -.78 Medium
UK 6.8 -.21 Medium
Recent Finland 2.6 -.65 Low
Receiving Norway 6.7 -.97 Low
Portugal 2.3 -1.11 Medium
Sweden 11.2 -.59 Medium

6. SETTLER SOCIETIES
AUSTRALIA Vietnamese NZ Chinese
Chinese Pacific
Filipino
CANADA Vietnamese US Vietnamese
Korean Armenian
South Asian Mexican
ISRAEL Russian
Ethiopians

7. FORMER COLONIAL SOCIETIES
FRANCE Vietnamese NETHERLANDS Turkish
Turkish Antilleans
Maghrebian Surinamese
Portuguese UK South Asian
GERMANY Turkish
Portuguese
Aussiedler

8. RECENT RECEIVING SOCIETIES
FINLAND Vietnamese PORTUGAL Cape
Verdeans
Turks Angolans
Russians South Asians
NORWAY Vietnamese Mozambicans
Turks Timorese
Chileans SWEDEN Vietnamese
Turks
Kurds
Finns
Chileans

9. KEY FINDINGS

10. HOW DO MIGRANT YOUTH
LIVE WITHIN AND BETWEEN
TWO CULTURES?

11. ACCULTURATION DIMENSIONS
CULTURAL MAINTENANCE
YES NO
YES Integration Assimilation
PARTICIPATION
Separation Marginalisation
NO

12. ACCULTURATION PREFERENCES
4
3.5
3
2.5
2 Immigrants
Nationals
1.5
1
0.5
0
Int Assim Sep Margin

13. INTEGRATION ATTITUDES

14. ACCULTURATION PROFILES
PROFILE % RANGE- %
Integrated 36.4 17.8 - 53.5
National 18.7 7.3 - 46.4
Ethnic 22.5 6.7 - 40.4
Diffuse 22.4 7.2 - 40.3

15. INTEGRATED (36.4%)
• Strong ethnic and national identity
• High national language proficiency,
moderate ethnic language proficiency,
balanced language usage
• Moderately strong ethnic and national
peer contacts
• Strong endorsement of integration,
rejection of separation, assimilation,
marginalization

16. INTEGRATED PROFILE
mean z scores
1.5
Integration
Separation
1
Assimilation
Marginalization
0.5 Ethnic identity
National identity
0 Ethnic lang prof
national lang prof
-0.5 National lang use
Ethnic peer contacts
-1 National peer contacts
Family obligations
-1.5 Adolescent rights

17. NATIONAL (18.7%)
• Strong national identity and weak ethnic
identity
• Strong endorsement of assimilation,
rejection of separation
• High proficiency in national language,
frequently used; poor proficiency in
ethnic language
• Strong national peer contacts and very
weak ethnic peer contacts

18. NATIONAL PROFILE
mean z scores
1.5 Integration
Separation
1 Assimilation
Marginalisation
0.5 Ethnic identity
National identity
0 Ethnic language prof
National language prof
-0.5 National language use
Ethnic peer contacts
-1 Natonal peer contats
Family obligations
-1.5 Adolescent rights

19. ETHNIC (22.5%)
• Very strong endorsement of separation;
srong rejection of assimilation
• Strong ethnic identity, very weak
national identity
• Good proficiency in ethnic language;
infrequent use of national language
• Few national peer contacts and strong
ethnic peer contacts

20. ETHNIC PROFILE
mean z scores
1.5
Integration
Separation
1
Assmilation
Marginalisation
0.5 Ethnic identity
National identity
0 Ethnic language prof
National language prof
-0.5 National language use
Ethnic peer contacts
-1 National peer contacts
Family obligations
-1.5 Adolescent rights

21. DIFFUSE (22.4%)
• Strong endorsement of assimilation and
marginalization, moderately strong
endorsement of separarion
• High proficiency and frequent use of ethnic
language; very poor national language
proficiency
• No strong cultural identity: Moderately weak
ethnic identity, somewhat weak national
identity
• Peer contacts: some tendency towards ethnic
contacts and away from national contacts

22. DIFFUSE PROFILE
mean z scores
1.5
Integration
Separation
1
Assimilation
Marginalisation
0.5 Ethnic identity
National identity
0 Ethnic language prof
National language prof
-0.5 National language use
Ethnic peer contacts
-1 National peer contacts
Family obligations
-1.5 Adolescent rights

23. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN HOW MIGRANTYOUTH
ENGAGE IN INTERCULTURAL
RELATIONS AND HOW WELL
THEY ADAPT?

24. ACCULTURATION PROFILES AND
ADAPTATION
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 Psychological
0 Adaptation
-0.1 Sociocultural
Adaptation
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Int Eth Nat Dif

25. Perceived Discrimination
National Orientation -.33
-.18
.14
Ethnic Orientation .40
Ethnic
-.24
Contacts
Integration .10 -.28
.85
Ethnic Behaviours .13
.06 .17 .04
.11
Psychological Sociocultural
Adaptation .28 Adaptation
2 (N = 4767; df = 40 = 7.123; p < 0.13.1 AGFI = .997, NNFI = .995,
RMSEA = .013

26. HOW WELL DO MIGRANT
YOUTH DEAL WITH THEIR
INTERCULTURAL SITUATION?

27. mean scores
Al
li
m
m
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
ig
ra
n
Au ts
st
ra
lia
C
an
ad
a
Fi
nl
an
d
Fr
an
G ce
er
m
an
y
N Is
et ra
he e l
N rl
ew and
Ze s
al
an
d
N
or
w
a
Po y
rtu
ga
U Sw l
ni
te ed
d
LIFE SATISFACTION
en
Ki
U ng
ni do
te m
d
St
at
N e
at s
io
na
ls

28. mean scores
Al
li
m
m
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
ig
ra
n ts
Au
st
ra
lia
C
an
ad
a
Fi
nl
an
d
Fr
a nc
G e
er
m
an
y
N Is
ra
et
h e l
er
N la
n
ew ds
Ze
al
an
d
N
or
w
ay
Po
r tu
ga
U Sw l
ni
te ed
d en
Ki
U ng
ni do
te m
d
St
at
N e
at s
io
PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
na
ls

29. mean scores
Al
li
m
m
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
ig
ra 5.0
n
Au ts
st
ra
l ia
C
an
ad
a
Fi
nl
an
d
Fr
an
G ce
er
m
an
y
N Is
et ra
he el
N rl
ew and
Ze s
al
an
d
N
or
w
a
Po y
rtu
ga
U Sw l
ni
te ed
d
SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT
en
Ki
U ng
ni do
te m
d
St
at
N e
at s
io
na
ls

30. mean scores
Al
li
m
m
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
ig
ra
n
Au ts
st
ra
lia
C
an
ad
a
Fi
nl
an
d
Fr
an
G ce
er
m
an
y
N Is
et ra
he e l
N rl
ew and
Ze s
al
an
d
N
or
w
a
Po y
rtu
ga
U Sw l
ni
te ed
d en
Ki
U ng
ni do
te m
d
St
at
N e
BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS
at s
io
na
ls

31. ACCULTURATION AND
ADAPTATION: KEY FINDINGS
• Overall, migrant youth adapt well
• Both national and migrant youth prefer integration as
an acculturation strategy
• Four acculturation profiles
– Integration associated with better adaptive
outcomes
– Diffusion linked to poorest outcomes

32. HOW DO MACRO FACT ORS SUCH
AS CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND
DIVERSITY POLICIES AFFECT
INTERCULTURAL AND
INTRACULTURAL PROCESSES?

33. MULTIPLE REGRESSION EXAMINING IMPACT OF CULTURAL
DIVERSITY ON INTERCULTURAL VARIABLES AND
ADAPTATION OUTCOMES
Dependent Variable ß R2 F
(residuals)
Perceived Discrimination .08** .01 19.50**
Ethnic orientation -.01 .00 .07
National orientation .23** .05 192.51**
Integration .01 .00 .11
Ethnic behaviours .08** .01 21.58**
Psychological adaptation -.08** .01 19.56**
Sociocultural adaptation .01 .00 .16
**p < .001

34. IN COUNTRIES WITH GREATER
CULTURAL DIVERSITY…
• Migrant youth report slightly higher levels of
discrimination
• Migrant youth have slightly stronger involvement with
ethnic peers
• Migrant youth have a stronger orientation to the
national group
• Migrant youth have a slightly lower level of
psychological adaptation

35. MULTIPLE REGRESSION EXAMINING IMPACT OF CULTURAL
DIVERSITY POLICY ON INTERCULTURAL VARIABLES AND
ADAPTATION OUTCOMES
Dependent Variable ß R2 F
(residuals)
Perceived Discrimination .-.03 .00 2.10
Ethnic orientation .04* .00 6.16*
National orientation .11** .01 39.60**
Integration .07** .01 16.72**
Ethnic behaviours .03 .00 2.52
Psychological adaptation -.02 .00 1.99
Sociocultural adaptation .07** .01 15.78*
*p < .05, **p <. 01

36. IN COUNTRIES WITH POLICIES THAT
ARE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF
CULTURAL DIVERSITY…
• Migrant youth have a stronger integration
orientation (stronger national + ethnic
orientations)
• Migrant youth have better sociocultural
adaptation

38. PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBEMS:
Cross-level interaction between % of immigrants and
perceived discrimination
1.83
MIGRANT = -6.677
MIGRANT = 5.423
Psychological Problems
1.70
1.57
1.43
1.30
-0.96 -0.46 0.04 0.54 1.04
Discrimination

39. BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS:
Cross-level interaction between % of immigrants and
perceived discrimination
2.77
MIGRANT = -6.677
MIGRANT = 5.423
Behaviour Problems
2.56
2.36
2.15
1.94
-0.96 -0.46 0.04 0.54 1.04
Discrimination

40. MACRO-LEVEL FACTORS AND
ADAPTATION: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
• Greater diversity is associated with more perceived
discrimination and lowel levels of psychological
adaptation
• Diversity policies are linked to integration and better
sociocultural adaptation
• Perceived discrimination predicts negative adaptation
outcomes
• % of immigrants and negative attitudes towards them
exert significant negative effects on adaptation in
immigrant youth
• Perceived discrimination exerts more negative
influence on adaptation under immigrant dense
conditions

41. Obviously, the integration strategy can be
pursued only in societies that are explicitly
multicultural, in which certain psychological
preconditions are established... These
preconditions are the widespread acceptance
of the value to a society of cultural diversity
(i.e., the presence of a multicultural ideology),
and of low levels of prejudice and
discrimination; positive mutual attitudes
among ethnocultural groups (i.e., no specific
intergroup hatreds); and a sense of attachment
to, or identification with, the larger society by
all individuals and groups (Berry, 2001).

42. http://cacr.victoria.ac.nz/

43. BACKGROUND
• Factor analysis of intercultural variables
• Resultant factors
• Ethnic orientation
• National orientation
• Integration
• Ethnic behaviours
• Regression analysis with four factors, perceived
discrimination and adaptation outcomes used as
dependent variables and demographic factors as
predictors
• Unstandardized residuals of dependent variables
saved and used as dependent variables with cultural
diversity or diversity policies as predictors