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.