1. Acculturation of Immigrants in Canada: A Comparison Study Saba Safdar Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Calgary, Alberta June 9 th, 2006

2. Acknowledgment With special thanks to: With special thanks to: Elsa Lopes Elsa Lopes Salima Jadarji Salima Jadarji Members of Russian and Indian communities in Toronto, Mississauga, and Brampton Members of Russian and Indian communities in Toronto, Mississauga, and Brampton Funding from College of Social & Applied Research Human Sciences at University of Guelph 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. 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 Co-National Connectedness In-group support, Family allocentrism, Ethnic Identity Acculturation Specific Hassles In-group, Out-group, & Family Acculturation Attitudes In-group Contact Out-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress Psychological & physical distress Psycho-Social Resilience Psychological Well-being, Out-group Support, Cultural Competence

5. Multidimensional Acculturation Model – Safdar, Lay, & Struthers (2003) Psycho-Social Resilience Connectedness Hassles Separation Assimilation Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress _ + + _ _ + + + _ _ + + _ P B

6. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 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). 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. 1b) Immigrants with high psycho-social resilience are more likely to endorse assimilation and integration attitudes.

7. Hypotheses Hypothesis 2 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. 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 Hypothesis 3 Immigrants who experience high levels of acculturation specific hassles are more likely to experience a high level of psycho-physical distress. 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 Hypothesis 4 4 a) Immigrants who endorse separation attitude are more likely to maintain contact with their ethnic community (in- group contact). 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 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 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. 4 d) No relation between acculturation attitudes and psycho- social distress was predicted.

9. Indians in Canada 57 Male, 57 Female 57 Male, 57 Female Age M=38 Age M=38 76% married; 65% had children 76% married; 65% had children Years in Canada M=9 Years in Canada M=9 95% immigrant; 4% refugee 95% immigrant; 4% refugee 81% Post-secondary (including 20% graduate training) 81% Post-secondary (including 20% graduate training) 76% Employed; 5% unemployed 76% Employed; 5% unemployed

10. Cronbach's alpha of the Scales Indian (N = 114) Russian (N = 168) Psycho-social Resilience -Psychological well-being (Ryff & -Psychological well-being (Ryff & Singer, 1989) Singer, 1989) -Cultural Competence (Lay et al., 1998) -Cultural Competence (Lay et al., 1998) -Perceived social Support (Zimet, -Perceived social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988).78 (18-item).87 (13-item).94 (3-item).70 (18-item).85 (9-item).87 (3-item) Co-national Connectedness -Ethnic Identity Scale (Cameron, Sato, -Ethnic Identity Scale (Cameron, Sato, Lay, & Lalonde, 1997) Lay, & Lalonde, 1997) -Family Allocentrism Scale (Lay et al., 1998) -Family Allocentrism Scale (Lay et al., 1998) -Perceived social Support (Zimet, et al., 1988) -Perceived social Support (Zimet, et al., 1988).84 (15-item).79 (21-item).74 (5-item).83 (12-item).83 (21-item).81 (6-item) Hassles Inventory (Lay & Nguyen, 1998).91 (18-item).76 (18-item)

11. Cronbach's alpha of the Scales Indian (N = 114) Russian (N = 168) Acculturation Attitude (Kim, 1984, revised) -Assimilation -Assimilation -Separation -Separation -Integration -Integration.71 (4-item).75 (5-item).74 (4-item).70 (8-item).66 (7-item).71 (6-item) Acculturation Behaviour Scale (Safdar et al., 2003) -In-group contact -In-group contact -Out-group contact -Out-group contact.84 (6-item).82 (6-item).68 (6-item).69 (7-item) Psycho-physical Distress -Beck Depression Inventory (Beck et al., 1961) -Beck Depression Inventory (Beck et al., 1961) -Zung Depression Scale (Zung et al., 1960) -Zung Depression Scale (Zung et al., 1960) -Health Symptoms Scales (Safdar et al., 2003) -Health Symptoms Scales (Safdar et al., 2003)-.83 (19-item).94 (18-item).87 (14-item) -.79 (18-item) Obtained Status (Safdar et al., 2003).75 (4-item).84 (3-item)

12. MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.47, GFI =.95, RMSEA =.07 Separation Status

13. MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.47, GFI =.95, RMSEA =.07 Separation Status.59*** -.29***.46*** -.60***.20*

14. MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.47, GFI =.95, RMSEA =.07 Separation Status.36***.46*** -.35***.17*

15. MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.47, GFI =.95, RMSEA =.07 Separation Status.30***

16. MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.47, GFI =.95, RMSEA =.07 Separation Status.29***.24**.23**.15*

17. Russians in Canada 62 Male, 106 Female 62 Male, 106 Female Age M=41 Age M=41 80% married; 76% had children 80% married; 76% had children Years in Canada M= 5 Years in Canada M= 5 94% immigrant; 6% refugee 94% immigrant; 6% refugee 89% Post-secondary (including 15% graduate training) 89% Post-secondary (including 15% graduate training) 52% Employed; 20% unemployed 52% Employed; 20% unemployed

18. MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA =.05 Separation Status

19. MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA =.05 -.22**.35*** -.42***.21** Separation.16* Status

20. MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA =.05 -.20**.31*** -.42***.26*** Separation.16* Status

21. MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA =.05.27*** Separation Status

22. MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA =.05.18**.38***.18**.19** Separation -.17* Status

23. MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian) Psycho-Social Resilience Co-national Connectedness Acculturation Hassles Assimilation Integration Out-group Contact In-group Contact Psycho-Physical Distress X 2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p >.05 X 2 /df = 1.38, GFI=.97, RMSEA =.05.24*** Separation.15* Status

24. Conclusion In both studies psycho-social resilience was positively related to out-group contact and negatively to psycho-physical distress. 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. Psycho-social resilience was positively related to assimilation and negatively to separation. No relation between psycho-social resilience and integration was found. No relation between psycho-social resilience and integration was found.

25. Conclusion In both studies co-national connectedness was positively related to in-group contact. 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 positively related to separation. Co-national connectedness was negatively related to assimilation and positively to integration. Co-national connectedness was negatively related to assimilation and positively to integration.

26. Conclusion Hassles was positively related to psycho-physical distress. Hassles was positively related to psycho-physical distress. Assimilation was positively related to out-group contact. 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). 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. Integration was positively related to out-group contact in the Indian model and to in-group contact in the Russian model.

27. Conclusion In both studies psycho-social resilience was positively related to obtained-status. 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. In the Indian model, assimilation was positively related to status and in the Russian model co- national connectedness was negatively related to status.