IDENTITY, ACCULTURATION AND ADAPTATION IN MIGRANT YOUTH

Colleen Ward

Centre for Applied Cross-cultural Research

Victoria University of Wellington

Research funded by Royal Society of New Zealand,James Cook Fellowship

INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ETHNOCULTURAL YOUTH

• 13 nations• Over 30 ethnic

groups• 7000 migrant youth• 20 researchers

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?

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

• Adaptation indicators- e.g., school adjustment, behavioural problems, psychological symptoms, life satisfaction

RESEARCH SAMPLE

935 migrant youth• 53% female• 12-19 years (M = 15.5)• 70% overseas born• 145 Chinese, 188 Korean, 147 Samoan, 102 Indian, 111

British, 101 South African, 141 others

510 national youth• 50% female• 12-19 years (M = 14.9)• 98% New Zealand born• 396 NZE and 114 Maori

KEY FINDINGS

HOW DO MIGRANT YOUTH LIVE WITHIN AND BETWEEN TWO CULTURES?

ACCULTURATION DIMENSIONS

Integration Assimilation

Separation Marginalisation

CULTURAL MAINTENANCE

YES NO

PARTICIPATION

YES

NO

ACCULTURATION PREFERENCES

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Int Assim Sep Margin

NZEMaoriMigrants

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

ACCULTURATION PROFILES

• Integrated (28.7%)

• National (28.8%)

• Ethnic (23.6%)

• Diffuse (18.8%)

INTEGRATED

• Strong ethnic and national identity

• Good English proficiency and frequent use of English

• Strong ethnic peer contacts

• Strong endorsement of integration

INTEGRATED PROFILE

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5Assimilation

Integration

Separation

Marginalisation

Parental obligations

Childrens rights

Ethnic Identity

National identity

National peer contacts

Ethnic peer contacts

English Language use

English language proficiency

Ethnic language proficiency

NATIONAL

• Moderately strong national identity and weak ethnic identity

• High proficiency in and frequent use of English

• Strong national peer contacts and weak ethnic peer contacts

• Strong rejection of separation

NATIONAL PROFILE

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5 Assimilation

Integration

Separation

Marginalisation

Parental obligations

Childrens rights

Ethnic Identity

National identity

National peer contacts

Ethnic peer contacts

English Language use

English languageproficiencyEthnic language proficiency

ETHNIC

• Moderately strong ethnic identity and weak national identity

• Poor proficiency in and infrequent use of English

• Good proficiency in ethnic language• Few national peer contacts and strong

ethnic peer contacts• Strong endorsement of separation

ETHNIC PROFILE

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5Assimilation

Integration

Separation

Marginalisation

Parental obligations

Childrens rights

Ethnic Identity

National identity

National peer contacts

Ethnic peer contacts

English Language use

English language proficiency

Ethnic language proficiency

DIFFUSE

• Very weak ethnic identity • Poor English proficiency • Endorsement of assimilation, separation

and marginalization

DIFFUSE PROFILE

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5Assimilation

Integration

Separation

Marginalisation

Parental obligations

Childrens rights

Ethnic Identity

National identity

National peer contacts

Ethnic peer contacts

English Language use

English language proficiency

Ethnic language proficiency

HOW WELL DO MIGRANT YOUTH DEAL WITH THEIR INTERCULTURAL SITUATION?

LIFE SATISFACTION

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

NZE Mao Sam Chi Ind Kor Brit SA

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

NZE Mao Sam Chi Ind Kor Brit SA

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

NZE Mao Sam Chi Ind Kor Brit SA

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

NZE Mao Sam Chi Ind Kor Brit SA

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

DISCRIMINATION

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

NZE Mao Sam Chi Ind Kor Brit SA

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN HOW MIGRANT YOUTH ENGAGE IN INTERCULTURAL RELATIONS AND HOW WELL THEY ADAPT?

LIFE SATISFACTION

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

Nat Eth Dif Int

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS

2.22.25

2.32.35

2.42.45

2.52.55

2.62.65

2.7

Nat Eth Dif Int

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

Nat Eth Dif Int

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

2

Nat Eth Dif Int

Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

SUMMARY

• Both national and migrant youth prefer integration as an acculturation strategy

• Integration is not achieved to the extent it is desired• Overall, migrant youth adapt well• Both cultural maintenance and participation (social

inclusion) are important– Integration associated with better adaptive

outcomes– Diffusion linked to poorest outcomes

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: QUESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

• What can be done to facilitate integration?• How can we promote greater participation and social

inclusion?• How do we address the issue of cultural

maintenance?• Who are our policies for?

For further information contact:Colleen.Ward@vuw.ac.nz

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.