ACCULTURATION AND ADAPTATION : SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION APPROACH

SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION Identity Belongingness Pride Centrality Behaviours Intergroup Relations

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? Intercultural question Adaptation question Cross-cultural question

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 510 national 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 Others: other Pacific, Asian, European, African

KEY FINDINGS

HOW DO MIGRANT YOUTH LIVE WITHIN AND BETWEEN TWO CULTURES?

NATIONAL AND ETHNIC IDENTITY

NATIONAL AND ETHNC IDENTITY OVER GENERATIONS

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

ACCULTURATION PREFERENCES 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

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

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

DIFFUSE Very weak ethnic identity Poor English proficiency Endorsement of assimilation, separation and marginalization

DIFFUSE PROFILE

HOW WELL DO MIGRANT YOUTH DEAL WITH THEIR INTERCULTURAL SITUATION?

LIFE SATISFACTION Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high) Indian significantly more satisfied than all other groups except British & SA British more satisfied than Koreans, Chinese and NZE & Maori NZE and Maori are only different from Brit and Indian-- SO NO MIGRANT DISADVANTAGE Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS Symptoms highest in NZE but significantly greater than Chinese, Indian, British Indian has significantly less symptoms than all groups except British NO MIGRANT DISADVANTAGE Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high) Indian significantly better adjustment than all other groups except Koreans Maori more school adjustment problems than other groups and NZE less school adjustment than migrants groups with the exception of Samoan Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high) Analyses control for age gender and proportion of life in NZ Maori report more behavioural problems than all other groups and NZE more than all migrant groups expect Samoans Asian groups do particularly well Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

DISCRIMINATION Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high) BRITISH reported least discrimination although it was not significantly different from white groups- perceived discrimination appears more a function of race than migrant status Korean most discrimination and signifcanlty more than all other groups except Maori Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

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

LIFE SATISFACTION Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high) Integrated and national are more satisfied than ethnic and diffuse Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS Diffuse display more psychological symptoms than other groups Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high) Diffuse has poorer school adjustment than all other groups Integrated has better school adjustment than ethnic (no difference from national) Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high)

BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS Scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high) Integrated and ethnic youth have fewer behavioural problems than national and diffuse Diffuse have more behavioral problems than all other groups 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 It is the only strategy that engenders agreement 2. AS evidenced by national, ethnic and diffuse groups diffusion is linked to negative adaptation 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?