Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

AN EXPANDED VIEW OF ACCULTURATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK TAKING BEHAVIORS AMONG COLLEGE-ATTENDING IMMIGRANT EMERGING ADULTS Seth J. Schwartz, Ph.D. University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "AN EXPANDED VIEW OF ACCULTURATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK TAKING BEHAVIORS AMONG COLLEGE-ATTENDING IMMIGRANT EMERGING ADULTS Seth J. Schwartz, Ph.D. University."— Presentation transcript:

1 AN EXPANDED VIEW OF ACCULTURATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK TAKING BEHAVIORS AMONG COLLEGE-ATTENDING IMMIGRANT EMERGING ADULTS Seth J. Schwartz, Ph.D. University of Miami July 9, 2009

2 IMMIGRATION AND ACCULTURATION Immigration is at an all-time high, both in the United States and in many other Western countries (van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004; Schwartz, Montgomery, & Briones, 2006). Since 1965, most immigration to the United States has come from heavily collectivist countries in Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). There is also a steady flow of White immigrants, mostly from Eastern Europe (Birman & Taylor-Ritzler, 2007; Hinkel, 2000). The U.S. is consistently rated as the most individualistic country in the world (Greenfield, 2006) – suggesting that the gap between immigrants heritage cultures and U.S. culture may be large.

3 IMMIGRATION AND ACCULTURATION In most cases, immigration is followed by acculturation – changes in cultural practices, values, and identifications that accompany contact with people from the receiving cultural context. Early views of acculturation were unidimensional – immigrants were assumed to discard their cultures of origin as they acculturated to the receiving society (e.g., Gordon, 1964): HERITAGE CULTURE RECEIVING CULTURE

4 IMMIGRATION AND ACCULTURATION In more recent years, cultural psychologists have adopted a bidimensional model of acculturation – where heritage and receiving cultural orientations are considered as separate dimensions. RECEIVING HERITAGE

5 MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF ACCULTURATION Acculturation is multidimensional in terms of heritage and receiving cultural orientations – but it is also multidimensional in terms of the domains in which it operates: 1. Cultural practices refer to behaviors such as language use, media preferences, social relationships, and celebrations; 2. Cultural values refer to beliefs and ideals associated with specific cultural contexts (e.g., machismo in Hispanics, modesty in Southeast Asians) – as well as more general cultural values such as individualism and collectivism; and 3. Cultural identifications refer to the extent to which one feels attached to ones ethnic and national groups.

6 MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF ACCULTURATION So acculturation is multidimensional in two separate ways: PRACTICES VALUES IDENTIFICATIONS HERITAGERECEIVING Heritage language Heritage-culture foods Receiving-society language Receiving-culture foods Collectivism Interdependence Familism Individualism Independence Country of origin Receiving country

7 MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF ACCULTURATION However, the literatures on behavioral acculturation, cultural values, and cultural identifications have been largely separate from one another (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2009). The purpose of the study Im presenting here was to examine all of these dimensions of acculturation as predictive of health risk behaviors in a sample of young-adult college students from immigrant families.

8 THE IMMIGRANT PARADOX One might think that moving from a resource-poor country to a wealthy nation like the United States would be associated with a drastic improvement in health outcomes. However, research has shown just the opposite!! The longer that immigrants live in the United States (or the more acculturated they are to American culture), the more likely they are to: Use illicit drugs (Allen, Elliot, Fuligni, Morales, Hambarsoomian, & Schuster, 2008); Engage in unsafe sexual practices (Ford & Norris, 1993); Consume fast food and be physically inactive (Unger et al., 2004).

9 THE IMMIGRANT PARADOX A similar conclusion has been drawn between first-generation (born outside the US) and second-generation (born im the US but raised by immigrant parents) individuals (Prado et al., in press). The message from these studies seems to be that, among immigrants and their immediate descendants, becoming Americanized is hazardous to your health!! ?

10 THE IMMIGRANT PARADOX However, virtually all of these studies have relied on unidimensional models of acculturation, where heritage and receiving cultural orientations were cast as polar opposites. As a result, we dont really know whether the risk is based on acquiring American orientations, or losing heritage orientations. A more precise understanding of where the risks of acculturation come from would help us to know how to advise researchers, educators, policy makers, and the public.

11 THE IMMIGRANT PARADOX It is also possible that different conclusions might be drawn for different ethnic groups – so it is essential to examine various dimensions of acculturation as predictors of health risk behaviors across ethnic groups.

12 METHOD Sample 1966 emerging-adult students (75% women) from 14 colleges and universities around the United States. Mean age 20.4; SD 3.54 (95% between 18 and 27) All participants reported that both of their parents were born outside the United States.

13 METHOD Ethnicity and Immigrant Generation Ethnic Group1 st Generation2 nd GenerationTotal White112 (65%)61 (35%)173 Black102 (34%)202 (66%)304 Hispanic375 (42%)514 (58%)889 Asian144 (37%)247 (63%)391 Middle Eastern58 (44%)74 (56%)132 South African8 (20%)32 (80%)40 Other/Mixed10 (42%)14 (58%)24

14 METHOD Most Common Countries of Origin Whites – the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, Poland, and Great Britain; Blacks – Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad, and various African countries; Hispanics – Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, and Peru; Asians – China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, India, and Pakistan.

15 METHOD Measures – Cultural Practices Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale – 32 items (15 for American cultural practices, 17 for heritage cultural practices) Items indexing language use, food preferences, friends, media, et cetera. Heritage cultural practices – α =.89 American cultural practices – α =.83

16 METHOD Measures – Cultural Values Three kinds of cultural values were measured: Horizontal individualism and collectivism – how one conceptualizes others at the same social level (e.g., peers, co- workers); Vertical individualism and collectivism – how one conceptualizes authority figures and elders (e.g., parents, bosses, teachers);

17 Measures – Cultural Values Three kinds of cultural values were measured: Independence and interdependence – how one relates to others in general. METHOD

18 Measures – Cultural Values Individualism and collectivism were assessed using 4-item scales developed by Triandis and Gelfand (1995): METHOD Horizontal individualism: α =.77; Vertical individualism: α =.77; Horizontal collectivism: α =.74; Vertical collectivism: α =.73.

19 Measures – Cultural Values Independence and interdependence were assessed using the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994). METHOD Independence – 12 items, α =.74; Interdependence – 12 items, α =.77.

20 Measures – Cultural Identifications Ethnic identity was measured using the Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992). METHOD The MEIM consists of 12 items (α =.90) measuring the extent to which one has thought about, and is attached to, ones ethnic group. There is no corresponding validated measure of American identity in the literature – and studies that have included American identity have used single-item measures.

21 Measures – Cultural Identifications As a result, we adapted the MEIM to measure American identity by changing my ethnic group to the United States for each item. METHOD This measure gave us an α of.90.

22 Measures – Health Risk Behaviors We asked about a number of health risk behaviors in the 30 days prior to assessment: METHOD Drug Use Marijuana, hard drugs, inhalants, injecting drugs, prescription drug misuse Sexual Risk Taking Oral sex, anal sex, unprotected sexual activity, sex while drunk/high, casual sex (sex with a stranger),

23 Measures – Health Risk Behaviors We asked about a number of health risk behaviors in the 30 days prior to assessment: METHOD Risky Driving Driving while intoxicated, and riding with a driver who was intoxicated.

24 Measures – Health Risk Behaviors All of these health risk behaviors were responded to using a 5- point scale: METHOD NeverOnce/Twice3-5 Times6-10 Times11+ Times

25 Procedures Online data collection in Fall 2008 METHOD Students from psychology, sociology, education, and family studies courses directed to study website 85% of participants who logged in completed all six survey pages 14 sites around the United States

26 Prevalence of Risk Behaviors We first crosstabulated the prevalence of each risk behavior by gender and by ethnicity: RESULTS

27 BehaviorMen (%)Women (%)χ 2 (1)φ Risky Driving Impaired Driving ***.11 Riding with Impaired Driver Substance Use Marijuana Use ***.10 Hard Drug Use *.05 Inhalant Use **.08 Injecting Drug Use ***.11 Prescription Drug Misuse **.07 Unsafe Sexual Behavior Oral Sex Anal Sex **.07 Casual Sex ***.15 Unprotected Sex Sex While Drunk/High

28 BehaviorEthnic Groupχ 2 (3)φ White (%)Black (%)Hispanic (%)Asian (%) Risky Driving Driving While Drunk/High Riding with Drunk Driver Substance Use Marijuana Use Hard Drug Use Inhalant Use *.08 Injecting Drug Use Prescription Drug Misuse Unsafe Sexual Behavior Oral Sex ***.17 Anal Sex Casual Sex Unprotected Sex ***.12 Sex While Drunk/High ***.11

29 Correlations among Cultural Variables We then computed a table of correlations among the cultural variables: RESULTS

30 Variable Heritage Orientation 1. Heritage Practices Horizontal Collectivism Vertical Collectivism Interdependence Ethnic Identity American Orientation 6. American Practices Horizontal Individualism Vertical Individualism Independence American Identity

31 Correlations among Cultural Variables It is of note that the corresponding heritage and American cultural variables were generally modestly correlated with one another: RESULTS Heritage practices with American practices, r = -.17; Horizontal individualism with horizontal collectivism, r =.21; Vertical individualism with vertical collectivism, r =.15; Independence with interdependence, r =.21; Ethnic identity with American identity, r =.25.

32 Risk Behaviors by Heritage and American Cultural Orientations We then created composite variables for heritage and American cultural orientations and regressed the health risk behaviors on these composite variables. RESULTS These composite variables took the following form (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2009: American Orientation PracticesValuesIdentifications Heritage Orientation PracticesValuesIdentifications

33 Risk Behaviors by Heritage and American Cultural Orientations RESULTS These composites were created using exploratory factor analysis – and the factor solutions were reasonably reliable: Heritage Cultural Orientation,.65; American Cultural Orientation,.67

34 Risk Behaviors by Heritage and American Cultural Orientations Next, we regressed the risk behavior variables on the heritage and American orientation composite variables. RESULTS As with most risk behavior variables, these variables were characterized by a Poisson distribution – overrepresentation of zero responses, and response frequencies decreasing as one moves away from zero:

35 RESULTS

36 Risk Behaviors by Heritage and American Cultural Orientations Some of the risk behaviors were characterized by an even greater preponderance of zeroes – such that there is very little variability to explain: RESULTS

37

38 Risk Behaviors by Heritage and American Cultural Orientations In these cases, we would need to use zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) modeling – which separates the zeroes from the nonzero count data. RESULTS In a ZIP model, the count variable is split into two parts: A yes/no indicator reflecting whether or not the person engaged in the behavior in the past month; and A count indicator reflecting how many times the person engaged in the behavior in the past month. For participants reporting no engagement in the behavior in question, the count indicator is specified as missing.

39 Results for Poisson and ZIP models are written as odds ratios (OR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR). OR is for yes/no variables, and IRR is for count variables. For both OR and IRR: The null hypothesis is OR/IRR = 1. Values above 1 indicate a positive relationship. Values between 0 and 1 indicate a negative relationship. If the OR or IRR is significant, the 95% confidence interval cannot include 1. RESULTS

40 Risk BehaviorAmerican Orientation OR/IRR (95% CI) Heritage Orientation OR/IRR (95% CI) Illicit Drug Use Marijuana Use Yes/No0.97 (0.83 to 1.13)0.83 ** (0.71 to 0.96) Count0.95 (0.86 to 0.95)0.87 ** (0.78 to 0.96) Hard Drug Use Yes/No0.97 (0.73 to 1.29)0.74 * (0.57 to 0.97) Count1.00 (0.82 to 1.22)1.00 (0.80 to 1.25) Inhalant Use Yes/No0.92 (0.69 to 1.23)0.69 ** (0.50 to 0.95) Count1.00 (0.72 to 1.40)1.00 (0.71 to 1.39) Prescription Drug Misuse Yes/No0.94 (0.68 to 1.29)0.65 ** (0.49 to 0.87) Count0.92 (0.76 to 1.11)1.14 (0.86 to 1.52)

41 Risk BehaviorAmerican Orientation OR/IRR (95% CI) Heritage Orientation OR/IRR (95% CI) Unsafe Sexual Behavior Oral Sex1.03 (0.98 to 1.09)0.94 ** (0.89 to 0.98) Anal Sex Yes/No0.95 (0.78 to 1.15)0.96 (0.77 to 1.20) Count0.92 (0.79 to 1.08)1.07 (0.92 to 1.25) Unprotected Sex1.02 (0.96 to 1.09)0.97 (0.91 to 1.03) Casual Sex Yes/No0.85 (0.67 to 1.08)1.15 (0.87 to 1.54) Count1.06 (0.89 to 1.27)0.83 (0.66 to 1.06) Sex While Drunk/High0.94 (0.86 to 1.04)0.84 *** (0.76 to 0.92) Impaired Driving Driving While Intoxicated Yes/No1.49 (1.08 to 2.06)0.70 (0.45 to 1.08) Count0.75 * (0.60 to 0.93)1.16 (0.88 to 1.52) Riding With Drunk Driver0.98 (0.89 to 1.08)0.89 * (0.80 to 0.99)

42 This model fit equivalently between first-generation (foreign born) and second-generation (U.S. born) individuals, Δχ 2 (36) = 40.49, p =.28. RESULTS There appeared to be some significant differences by ethnicity, Δχ 2 (108) = , p <.03. However, within the individual ethnic groups, there generally was not enough statistical power to detect significant effects.

43 We then decomposed the American and heritage cultural orientation composites and conducted separate follow-up analyses using practices, values, and identifications. RESULTS

44 Risk BehaviorAmerican Practices OR/IRR (95% CI) Heritage Practices OR/IRR (95% CI) Illicit Drug Use Marijuana Use Yes/No0.96 (0.82 to 1.11)0.83** (0.72 to 0.96) Count0.97 (0.88 to 1.06)0.89* (0.80 to 0.99) Hard Drug Use Yes/No0.83 (0.65 to 1.07)0.71* (0.52 to 0.98) Count0.97 (0.82 to 1.15)1.02 (0.82 to 1.27) Inhalant Use Yes/No0.83 (0.63 to 1.11)0.71* (0.52 to 0.98) Count0.99 (0.81 to 1.21)1.11 (0.84 to 1.46) Prescription Drug Misuse Yes/No0.78 (0.59 to 1.02)0.65** (0.48 to 0.88) Count1.01 (0.84 to 1.20)1.14 (0.80 to 1.62)

45 Risk BehaviorAmerican Practices OR/IRR (95% CI) Heritage Practices OR/IRR (95% CI) Unsafe Sexual Behavior Oral Sex1.02 (0.97 to 1.08)0.99 (0.94 to 1.04) Anal Sex Yes/No0.95 (0.80 to 1.14)0.96 (0.77 to 1.20) Count1.18 (0.96 to 1.45)1.07 (0.92 to 1.25) Unprotected Sex1.01 (0.95 to 1.07)1.00 (0.94 to 1.05) Casual Sex Yes/No0.88 (0.72 to 1.08)1.18 (0.90 to 1.54) Count1.01 (0.88 to 1.17)0.85 (0.68 to 1.07) Sex While Drunk/High0.89 * (0.81 to 0.98)0.87 ** (0.79 to 0.95) Impaired Driving Driving While Intoxicated Yes/No1.15 (0.93 to 1.42)0.95 (0.68 to 1.32) Count0.84 * (0.72 to 0.97)0.95 (0.77 to 1.18) Riding With Drunk Driver0.94 (0.86 to 1.14)0.86 ** (0.78 to 0.95)

46 Risk BehaviorAmerican Values OR/IRR (95% CI) Heritage Values OR/IRR (95% CI) Illicit Drug Use Marijuana Use Yes/No0.98 (0.85 to 1.13)0.85 * (0.74 to 0.98) Count1.03 (0.93 to 1.14)0.85 ** (0.76 to 0.94) Hard Drug Use Yes/No1.08 (0.83 to 1.42)0.67 ** (0.53 to 0.86) Count1.08 (0.91 to 1.29)0.91 (0.76 to 1.09) Inhalant Use Yes/No1.04 (0.76 to 1.41)0.68 ** (0.52 to 0.90) Count1.15 (0.91 to 1.40)0.89 (0.72 to 1.10) Prescription Drug Misuse Yes/No1.08 (0.80 to 1.44)0.62 *** (0.48 to 0.78) Count1.03 (0.86 to 1.23)1.00 (0.80 to 1.25)

47 Risk BehaviorAmerican Values OR/IRR (95% CI) Heritage Values OR/IRR (95% CI) Unsafe Sexual Behavior Oral Sex1.08 ** (1.02 to 1.14)0.92 ** (0.87 to 0.97) Anal Sex Yes/No1.10 (0.90 to 1.35)0.91 (0.74 to 1.13) Count1.15 (0.97 to 1.37)0.89 (0.75 to 1.07) Unprotected Sex1.08 ** (1.02 to 1.15)0.94 * (0.89 to 0.99) Casual Sex Yes/No0.91 (0.67 to 1.24)1.04 (0.72 to 1.50) Count1.17 (0.90 to 1.52)0.75 (0.54 to 1.05) Sex While Drunk/High1.06 (0.96 to 1.17)0.78 *** (0.70 to 0.87) Impaired Driving Driving While Intoxicated Yes/No1.50 (0.70 to 3.23)0.74 (0.24 to 2.03) Count0.76 (0.46 to 1.26)1.11 (0.59 to 2.09) Riding With Drunk Driver0.99 (0.90 to 1.09)0.90 (0.81 to 1.00)

48 Risk BehaviorAmerican Identifications OR/IRR (95% CI) Heritage Identifications OR/IRR (95% CI) Illicit Drug Use Marijuana Use Yes/No0.90 (0.78 to 1.04)0.96 (0.83 to 1.11) Count0.88 ** (0.80 to 0.96)0.94 (0.85 to 1.04) Hard Drug Use Yes/No0.95 (0.87 to 1.04)0.67 ** (0.53 to 0.86) Count1.08 (0.91 to 1.29)0.91 (0.76 to 1.09) Inhalant Use Yes/No1.04 (0.76 to 1.41)0.88 (0.68 to 1.13) Count0.91 (0.67 to 1.23)1.19 (0.90 to 1.58) Prescription Drug Misuse Yes/No0.98 (0.74 to 1.30)0.70 * (0.52 to 0.93) Count0.83 (0.66 to 1.05)1.21 (0.93 to 1.59)

49 Risk BehaviorAmerican Identifications OR/IRR (95% CI) Heritage Identifications OR/IRR (95% CI) Unsafe Sexual Behavior Oral Sex0.97 (0.92 to 1.02)1.00 (0.95 to 1.06) Anal Sex Yes/No0.91 (0.76 to 1.10)0.94 (0.76 to 1.17) Count0.88 (0.74 to 1.05)1.09 (0.93 to 1.28) Unprotected Sex0.98 (0.92 to 1.03)1.00 (0.94 to 1.06) Casual Sex Yes/No0.89 (0.71 to 1.11)1.11 (0.87 to 1.42) Count1.01 (0.86 to 1.18)0.82* (0.69 to 0.98) Sex While Drunk/High0.90* (0.82 to 0.98)0.92 (0.84 to 1.02) Impaired Driving Driving While Intoxicated Yes/No1.39* (1.03 to 1.88)0.81 (0.58 to 1.13) Count0.80* (0.66 to 0.97)1.02 (0.82 to 1.27) Riding With Drunk Driver0.96 (0.87 to 1.05)0.96 (0.87 to 1.07)

50 In general, these results suggest that loss of heritage-culture practices, values, and identifications – and not acculturation to American practices, values, and identifications – is most likely responsible for the associations with health risk behavior. DISCUSSION Findings were equally strong between first and second generation immigrants – suggesting that U.S.-born individuals raised in immigrant-headed households also should be encouraged to enculturate to heritage-culture orientations. Orientations toward American culture were generally unrelated to health risk behaviors – suggesting that acculturation may not be hazardous to ones health.


Download ppt "AN EXPANDED VIEW OF ACCULTURATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK TAKING BEHAVIORS AMONG COLLEGE-ATTENDING IMMIGRANT EMERGING ADULTS Seth J. Schwartz, Ph.D. University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google