Demographic, Economic and Social
Predictors of Psychological and Sociocultural
Adaptation of Immigrant Youth
Colleen Ward
and
Jaimee Stuart
Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research
Victoria University of Wellington
Psychological Aspects of Immigration
• Acculturation
• Integration
• Adaptation
– Psychological
– Sociocultural
This Study
• Objective: To predict psychological and sociocultural
adaptation in immigrant youth
• From individual-level data (e.g., gender, perceived
discrimination) from the International Comparative
Study of Ethno-cultural Youth (ICSEY) and nationallevel data archival data from the World Bank (e.g.,
GDP) and the International Social Survey (e.g.,
attitudes toward immigrants)
• By using Multi-level Modelling
International Comparative Study of
Ethno-cultural Youth (ICSEY)
• Key Questions
– How do immigrant youth adapt in their societies of
settlement?
– How well do they adapt?
– What is the relationship between
how immigrant youth adapt and
how well they adapt?
• Survey Methods
– Demographic variables
– Intercultural variables
– Adaptation variables
International Comparative Study of
Ethno-cultural Youth
• Participants
– 5366 immigrant youth
– 2631 national youth
– In Europe: Finland, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United
Kingdom; North America: Canada, United States;
Australasia: Australia, New Zealand; and Israel
Variables of Interest: Individual Level
• Positive and Negative Indicators of Adaptation
– Psychological: Life satisfaction (α =.78),
Psychological Symptoms (α =.83)
– Sociocultural: School Adjustment (α =.68),
Behavioural Problems (α =.81)
• Level 1
– Personal background: Age, gender, generation
– Perceived discrimination (α =.84)
Variables of Interest: National Level
• Per capita GDP in $US ($28,504- $84,508)
• % Immigrants (4%- 39%)
• Positive Attitudes
– The government should help minorities to preserve
traditions.
– Immigrants are generally good for the economy.
– Immigrants make societies open to new ideas and cultures.
• Negative Attitudes
– Immigrants increase the crime rate.
– Immigrants take away jobs from those born in this country
– People who do not share traditions cannot be fully [ ].
SAMPLE
CHARACTERISTICS
Country
N
Age
% Sec
Gen
%
female
Per
Discr
P.C.
GDP
%
Imm
+ Att
- Att
Australia
456
15.22
51.1
60.5
1.97
42,131
16
3.16
3.03
Canada
257
15.87
44.7
55.6
2.00
46,236
21
3.12
3.00
Finland
442
15.30
9.0
50.0
2.20
44,512
4
2.94
3.36
France
517
15.61
82.6
57.3
1.90
39,460
10
2.53
3.15
Germany
295
16.36
58.3
52.2
1.90
40,152
13
2.72
3.50
Israel
456
16.31
1.1
41.0
2.50
28,504
39
3.24
3.13
Netherlands
351
14.87
66.7
49.7
1.92
46,915
11
2.60
3.27
N.Z.
243
15.71
65.1
54.4
2.47
29,352
22
2.92
3.11
Norway
484
15.24
46.1
52.2
2.10
84,538
10
2.56
3.45
Portugal
426
14.79
53.1
62.0
2.17
21,505
9
3.17
3.24
Sweden
829
15.11
57.4
51.0
1.82
48,936
14
2.95
3.09
U.K.
120
15.18
89.2
45.0
2.21
36,144
10
2.48
3.42
U.S.
472
14.60
44.7
60.6
2.09
47,199
14
2.90
3.09
Total
5365
15.35
49.1
53.3
2.07
Hypotheses
• At the individual level, perceived discrimination will
predict poorer adaptive outcomes
• At the country level
– Greater immigrant density (larger numbers of
immigrants) and more negative attitudes toward
them predict poorer adaptive outcomes,
– Positive attitudes toward immigrants predict
better adaptive outcomes, and
– Higher per capita GDP predicts greater life
satisfaction
Hypotheses
• There will be an interaction between immigrant
density and perceived discrimination with the
negative effects of perceived discrimination on
adaptation exacerbated under more immigrantdense conditions.
PREDICTORS OF ADAPTATION IN IMMIGRANT YOUTH
Psych Probs Life Sat
Beh Probs
Sch Adj
2.236**
3.622**
1.753**
3.843**
Per capita GDP
-.001†
.000
-.000
.000
% of immigrants
.016**
-.021**
.016**
-.000
Positive Attitudes
.144
-.087
-.047
-.267
Negative Attitudes
.314
-1.025**
.709*
-.515*
Age
.015
-.010
-.013
-.041**
Gender
.152*
-.105**
-.208**
.102**
Generation
-.003
-.053
-.077*
-.000
Perceived Discrimination (PD)
.318**
-.228**
.172**
-.239**
.005**
-.001
.008**
-.002
Intercept
Level-2
Level-1
Cross-level Interaction
PD x % of immigrants
** p <.01, * p <.05, † p <.10
Psychological Problems: Cross-level Interaction between
Perceived Discrimination and % of Immigrants
1.83
MIGRANT = -6.677
Psychological Problems
MIGRANT = 5.423
1.70
1.57
1.43
1.30
-0.96
-0.46
0.04
Discrimination
0.54
1.04
Behavioural Problems: Cross-level Interaction
between Perceived Discrimination and % of
Immigrants
2.77
MIGRANT = -6.677
Behaviour Problems
MIGRANT = 5.423
2.56
2.36
2.15
1.94
-0.96
-0.46
0.04
Discrimination
0.54
1.04
Summary of Key Findings
• Personal background factors are associated with
psychological and sociocultural adaptation
• Perceived discrimination predicts negative
adaptation outcomes
• % of immigrants and negative attitudes toward them
exert significant negative effects on adaptation in
immigrant youth
• Perceived discrimination exerts more negative
influence on adaptation problems under immigrant
dense conditions
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).
But there are questions…..
• Positive and negative: Why is it only negative
attitudes that affect adaptation?
Policy Implications
• Maximising the benefits and minimizing the
risks of immigration
– Restrict numbers?
– Improve attitudes, intergroup relations and social
cohesion?
– Whose responsibility?
To “get the best out of immigrants” and to reap the
benefits of diversity, diminishing (or even better
eliminating) negative attitudes toward immigrants
should be a fundamental objective. Ensuring fair and
equitable access to participation and discouraging
separation from the mainstream society are also
important. In the end, our findings support the
contention that it is not only the responsibility of
immigrants to “fit in” and adapt to their new
homelands, but it is the responsibility of the receiving
society to ensure a receptive environment that is
conducive to mutually beneficial goals.
For further information contact:
Colleen.Ward@vuw.ac.nz