Coping and Beliefs Regarding the Terrorist Attacks Against
Download
Report
Transcript Coping and Beliefs Regarding the Terrorist Attacks Against
Acculturation of
Immigrants in Canada:
A Comparison Study
Saba Safdar
Paper presented at the
Canadian Psychological Association
Calgary, Alberta June 9th, 2006
Acknowledgment
With special thanks to:
Elsa Lopes
Salima Jadarji
Members of Russian and Indian communities in
Toronto, Mississauga, and Brampton
Funding from College of Social & Applied Research
Human Sciences at University of Guelph
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.
Multidimensional Individual
Difference Acculturation Model
Psycho-Social Resilience
Psychological Well-being,
Out-group Support,
Cultural Competence
Acculturation
Co-National
Attitudes
Connectedness
In-group support,
Family allocentrism,
Ethnic Identity
Acculturation
Specific Hassles
In-group, Out-group,
& Family
Out-group Contact
In-group Contact
Psycho-Physical
Distress
Psychological &
physical distress
Multidimensional Acculturation Model –
Safdar, Lay, & Struthers (2003)
B
P
_
Psycho-Social
Resilience
_
+
_
Separation
+
+
Connectedness
_
+
Hassles
Out-group
Contact
+
+
In-group
_ Contact
Assimilation
_
+
Psycho-Physical
Distress
Hypotheses
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).
1b) Immigrants with high psycho-social resilience
are more likely to endorse assimilation and
integration attitudes.
Hypotheses
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.
Hypothesis 3
Immigrants who experience high levels of
acculturation specific hassles are more likely to
experience a high level of psycho-physical distress.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 4
4 a) Immigrants who endorse separation attitude are more
likely to maintain contact with their ethnic community (ingroup 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 d) No relation between acculturation attitudes and psychosocial distress was predicted.
Indians in Canada
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
57 Male,
57 Female
Age M=38
76% married; 65% had
children
Years in Canada M=9
95% immigrant; 4% refugee
81% Post-secondary
(including 20% graduate
training)
76% Employed; 5%
unemployed
Cronbach's alpha of the Scales
Psycho-social Resilience
-Psychological well-being (Ryff &
Singer, 1989)
-Cultural Competence (Lay et al., 1998)
-Perceived social Support (Zimet,
Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988)
Co-national Connectedness
-Ethnic Identity Scale (Cameron, Sato,
Lay, & Lalonde, 1997)
-Family Allocentrism Scale (Lay et al., 1998)
-Perceived social Support (Zimet, et al., 1988)
Hassles Inventory (Lay & Nguyen, 1998)
Indian
(N = 114)
Russian
(N = 168)
.78 (18-item) .70 (18-item)
.87 (13-item) .85 (9-item)
.94 (3-item) .87 (3-item)
.84 (15-item) .83 (12-item)
.79 (21-item) .83 (21-item)
.74 (5-item) .81 (6-item)
.91 (18-item) .76 (18-item)
Indian
(N = 114)
Russian
(N = 168)
Acculturation Attitude (Kim, 1984, revised)
-Assimilation
-Separation
-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
-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)
-Zung Depression Scale (Zung et al., 1960)
-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)
Cronbach's alpha of the Scales
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social
Resilience
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
Co-national
Connectedness
In-group
Contact
Separation
Status
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p > .05 X2/df = 1.47,
GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
.59***
Psycho-Social
Resilience
.46***
.20*
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
-.60***
Co-national
Connectedness
In-group
Contact
Separation
Status
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
-.29***
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p > .05 X2/df = 1.47,
GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social
Resilience
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
-.35***
Co-national
Connectedness
.36***
Separation
.17*
In-group
Contact
Status
.46***
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p > .05 X2/df = 1.47,
GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social
Resilience
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
Co-national
Connectedness
In-group
Contact
Separation
Status
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
.30***
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p > .05 X2/df = 1.47,
GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07
MIDA Model (Indian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social
Resilience
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
.29***
.24**
.15*
Co-national
Connectedness
Separation
.23**
In-group
Contact
Status
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (24, N= 114) = 35.36, p > .05 X2/df = 1.47,
GFI = .95, RMSEA = .07
Russians in Canada
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
62 Male,
106 Female
Age M=41
80% married; 76% had
children
Years in Canada M= 5
94% immigrant; 6%
refugee
89% Post-secondary
(including 15% graduate
training)
52% Employed; 20%
unemployed
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social
Resilience
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
Co-national
Connectedness
In-group
Contact
Separation
Status
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p > .05 X2/df = 1.38,
GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
.35***
Psycho-Social
Resilience
.21**
.16*
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
-.42***
Co-national
Connectedness
In-group
Contact
Separation
Status
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
Psycho-Physical
Distress
-.22**
X2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p > .05 X2/df = 1.38,
GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social
Resilience
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
-.42***
Co-national
Connectedness
.26***
.16*
Separation
-.20**
.31***
Status
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
In-group
Contact
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p > .05 X2/df = 1.38,
GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social
Resilience
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
Co-national
Connectedness
In-group
Contact
Separation
Status
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
.27***
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p > .05 X2/df = 1.38,
GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social
Resilience
Out-group
Contact
.19**
Assimilation
-.17*
Co-national
Connectedness
.38***
In-group
Contact
Separation
Status
.18**
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
.18**
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p > .05 X2/df = 1.38,
GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05
MIDA Model (Russian-Canadian)
Psycho-Social
Resilience
Out-group
Contact
Assimilation
Co-national
Connectedness
.24***
In-group
Contact
Separation
Status
Integration
Acculturation
Hassles
.15*
Psycho-Physical
Distress
X2 (22, N= 168) = 30.48, p > .05 X2/df = 1.38,
GFI=.97, RMSEA = .05
Conclusion
•
•
•
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.
No relation between psycho-social resilience
and integration was found.
Conclusion
•
•
•
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 negatively
related to assimilation and positively to
integration.
Conclusion
Hassles was positively related to psycho-physical
distress.
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).
Integration was positively related to out-group
contact in the Indian model and to in-group
contact in the Russian model.
Conclusion
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 conational connectedness was negatively related to
status.