Acculturation, identity and adaptation in dual heritage adolescents

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

30 (2006) 243–259

0147-1767/$ -

doi:10.1016/j

�Tel.: +64

E-mail ad

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Acculturation, identity and adaptation in dualheritage adolescents

Colleen Ward�

School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract

The research adopts an acculturation framework to examine identity, values, self-perceptions, and

adaptation in dual heritage and single heritage native-born New Zealand youth. Maori, Pakeha

(New Zealand European) and dual heritage (Maori–Pakeha) students completed questionnaires that

included measures of: national and ethnic identity; family values concerning parental obligations and

children’s rights; perceived discrimination; self-perceptions of mastery and esteem; and psychological

(life satisfaction and psychological symptoms) and social (school adjustment and behavioral

problems) adaptation. One-way ANOVAs revealed, as predicted, Maori had stronger ethnic and

national identity, engaged in more ethnic exploration, reported more discrimination, endorsed

greater parental responsibility and fewer children’s rights and experienced more behavioral problems

than Pakeha. Maori also reported lower levels of self-esteem. More importantly and in line with

predictions arising from an acculturation framework, the measures of identity, values, self-

perceptions, and adaptation in the dual heritage group fell between those of Maori and Pakeha.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Acculturation; Identity; Adaptation; Dual heritage; Mixed race

1. Introduction

Acculturation refers to the changes resulting from continuous first hand inter-culturalcontact. Although this was first studied at the cultural level in the anthropological context(Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936), more recently the construct has been introduced to

see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

.ijintrel.2005.09.001

4 4636037; fax: +644 4635402.

dress: [email protected].

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 243–259244

the psychological literature (Graves, 1967) and studied extensively at the individual level(Berry, 1997), often in relation to immigrants and refugees.This vein of research commonly examines changes in identity, attitudes, values and

behaviors as a function of intercultural contact. For example, immigrants are generallyfound to differ from both non-immigrant members of their heritage culture and membersof the established communities in their new society, with migrants’ values, attitudes andbehaviors falling between the two extremes (Feldman & Rosenthal, 1990; Rosenthal, Bell,Demitriou, & Efklides, 1989; Siefen, Kirkaldy, & Athanasou, 1996). The role of culturalcontact in facilitating changes in identity, attitudes, values and behaviors has also beenexamined by comparisons across generations, where studies typically reveal that secondgeneration migrants more closely resemble members of the dominant society than do theirparents (e.g., Heras & Revilla, 1994; Pawliuk et al., 1996).A less conventional approach to examining acculturation within the family context is to

consider the experiences of children in inter-ethnic or bi-cultural families, that is, familieswith parents from different ethno-cultural backgrounds. The experiences of dual heritagechildren (e.g., Anglo-Chinese) can then be compared with the experiences of single ancestrychildren (e.g., Anglos and Chinese) from each of the heritage groups in the same society.This is the primary objective of this research.Although ethnically and racially mixed children have been studied from a number of

perspectives, in most instances researchers implicitly or explicitly adopt a deficitmodel of identity and adaptation (e.g., Drummond & McIntire, 1980). Examples includeCotrell’s (1995) emphasis on the significance of psychological stress, trauma andconflicting parental values in the development of ethnic identity in mixed-race Americans,Williams et al.’s (2002) suggestion that cultural identity formation contributes to anxiety inadolescents of mixed heritage, and Gumina’s (1995) argument that ethnic identity isweaker in mixed than single ancestry adolescents. This ‘‘deficit’’ approach to identity istypically interpreted in terms of the negative stereotypes and racism directed towardsmixed marriages and persons of mixed heritage (e.g., Ross, 1996) as well as therelative instability of inter-ethnic marriages (see Weller & Rofe, 1988, for a discussion),and hence, an unstable home environment contributing to developmental difficulties.Indeed the terminology used to refer to individuals of two or more ethno-cultural or racialheritages as ‘‘mixed’’ (blood, race, ethnic, ancestry, etc.) carries a somewhat negativeconnotation.The research presented here rejects the deficit approach and adopts an acculturation

framework to examine identity and adaptation in dual heritage adolescents. Specifically,the study is concerned with developmental outcomes of sustained and continuous contactwith two cultures within the family environment. In contrast to the negative anddebilitating consequences of mixed heritage predicted by the deficit model, theacculturation framework suggests more neutral outcomes, specifically, that dual heritageyouth absorb cultural influences from two traditions and that, as a result, their values,perceptions and patterns of adaptation fall between those of single heritage youth.In this research comparisons are made between youth from two established ethno-

cultural groups in New Zealand: Maori, the indigenous people of Aotearoa (NewZealand), and Anglo-New Zealanders, those of European, particularly British, descentalso known as Pakeha in local terminology. In addition, a third group of adolescents, thosewho have identified themselves as ‘‘dual ethnics’’ and as having both Maori and Pakehaparentage are sampled in this study.

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 243–259 245

Recent commentaries on mixed heritage individuals (Ramsay, 2000; Stephan & Stephan,2000a; Tashiro, 1999) suggest that the social, political and cultural milieu exerts asignificant influence on acculturation, identity, and adaptation processes. Intermarriagebetween Maori and non-Maori is common in New Zealand; the 1996 census revealed thatabout half of partnered Maori men and women have non-Maori spouses and only 56% ofthose recording Maori as one of their ethnic groups selected Maori only (Callister, 2004).The broader New Zealand context and the relationships between Maori and Pakeha aredescribed in the next section.

1.1. The socio-cultural and historical context

Maori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa and presently compose 14% of thecountry’s population (New Zealand Census, 2001). The relationship between Maori andEuropean settlers, who now represent the numerical majority and de facto the socio-politically dominant ethnic group, has been historically guided by the Treaty of Waitangi,regarded as the most important document in New Zealand history and seen as the basis forthe nation’s sovereignty (Liu, Wilson, McClure, & Higgins, 1999). The Treaty was signedin 1840 between Maori and the British Crown, where Maori arguably ceded governorshipof Aotearoa to the British, were given full rights of British citizenship and lawfully retainedrights over their lands and treasures. The current interpretation of the Treaty (framed inEnglish and Maori) is still a matter of dispute; however, New Zealand officially endorsesthe principles of biculturalism, which assumes an equal partnership between NewZealanders of Maori and European (British) descent.

Most would argue that the reality of the social and political situation in present day NewZealand is far from this ideal conceptualization, and despite contemporary developments,Thomas and Nikora (1992) have described the position of Maori in Aotearoa as

Maori people, in common with indigenous peoples in other countries, have beensubmerged by a dominant colonial culture. They have suffered a great deal ofoppression and constitute the most economically and socially disadvantaged ethnicgroup in the population (p. 292).

This is apparent in terms of most objective indicators of socio-economic status andphysical and mental health. Maori are more likely than the general population to leaveschool without a formal qualification, and they are under-represented at the higher levelsof education. Maori unemployment rates are higher than their European counterparts, andincome levels are significantly lower (New Zealand Census, 2001). Maori are over-represented in the prison population, particularly for violent behaviors, and in mentalhealth facilities, as non-voluntary patients (Department of Justice, 2000). The morbidityand mortality figures are also worse for Maori than non-Maori (Durie, 1995). While thereis undoubtedly contemporary evidence that attests to strengthening of Maori language andculture and greater acceptance of biculturalism by Pakeha New Zealanders, there is still along way to go to the achievement of a Maori–Pakeha partnership in Aotearoa.

1.2. Identity, adaptation and intergroup differences

On the most basic level identity involves recognition, categorization and self-identification as a member of a particular group. It is seen as including a sense of


affirmation, pride and a positive evaluation of one’s group as well as an involvementdimension relating to associated behaviors, values and traditions (Phinney, 1992).International research on ethnic identity has indicated that minority groups tend to havea stronger sense of ethnic identity than members of the dominant socio-political group (DeRoza & Ward, 1999; James, Kim, & Armijo, 2000). For example, Phinney (1992) reportedthat blacks, Asians and Hispanics in the United States have stronger ethnic identity thanwhites.Research in New Zealand suggests similar trends. Thomas and Nikora’s (1994) study

revealed that 28% of New Zealand European secondary students described ‘‘beingPakeha’’ as the absence of Maori characteristics. More recently Liu et al. (1999) discussedthe ambivalence about identity in the socially dominant group commenting that there islittle agreement even about the most appropriate label for New Zealanders of Europeandescent. Limited information on national identity suggests a similar pattern (e.g., DeRoza& Ward, 1999), including research reporting 45% Maori and 29% Pakeha youthspontaneously identified ‘‘Maori culture, being Maori’’ as a defining attribute of being aNew Zealander (Thomas & Nikora, 1994). Consequently, it is predicted that Maori willhave stronger ethnic and national identities and engage in more ethnic exploration thanPakeha.Early research by Ritchie (1964, 1992) noted more prejudice and discrimination directed

towards Maori than New Zealanders of European descent. Several investigations ofstereotyping and attributions have reported in-group favoritism in both Maori and Pakeha(e.g., Holmes, Murachver, & Bayard, 2001; Lynskey, Ward, & Fletcher, 1991; Vaughan,1978); however, the reality is that Pakeha retain more socio-political and economic powerto act upon these preferences while Maori are more likely to be victims of discrimination(Metge, 1976; Thomas, 1992). Indeed, 15% of Maori students in Thomas and Nikora’s(1994, p. 35) study viewed ‘‘antagonism toward Maori’’ as a defining feature of Pakeha.Therefore, it is predicted here that Maori will report more perceived discrimination thanPakeha.One aspect of ethno-cultural identity involves norms and values. In this research family

attitudes, particularly attitudes toward parental obligations and children’s rights areconsidered. The importance placed on whanau (extended family) in Maori culture iswell known; it is part of a larger sense of interconnectedness to hapu (sub-tribe) and iwi

(tribe) and to ancestors and neighbors (Liu & Temara, 1998). There are significantobligations associated with family life in Maoritanga, and marriage and having childrenare considered important duties. Although parental control has become somewhat morerelaxed in recent times, Maori families do not operate in an egalitarian fashion. Oldersiblings are expected to exert authority over younger ones, and there is widespread respectfor elders (Metge, 1976; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1997). Given these traditional cultural values, itis expected that Maori will endorse greater parental obligations and fewer children’s rightsthan Pakeha.Predictions about intergroup differences in self-perceptions and adaptation are less

straightforward and more complex. Objective indicators of socioeconomic status (e.g.,education and income) and general well-being (e.g., hospital admissions, incarcerationrates, mortality figures, adolescent suicide) confirm Maori disadvantage (Beautrais, 2001;Edmonds, Williams, & Walsh, 2000; New Zealand Census, 2001). The same is true forlarge-scale survey data on risk behaviors such as smoking and alcohol use in adolescentsand adults (Ministry of Health, 1999). These objective disadvantages, however, do not


routinely manifest themselves in studies of subjective psychological or social adaptation.Indeed, despite relative deprivation, Maori appear remarkably resilient. Evans, Wilson,Hansson, and Hungerford (1997) found no differences in anxiety, depression or self-esteembetween Pakeha and non-Pakeha (Maori, part Maori and Pacific) youth. Studies of schoolattitudes and scholastic performance have also failed to establish significant differences inperceptions of overall academic ability between Maori and Pakeha (Chapman, 1984;Rzoska & Ward, 1991; Thomas, 1985). Furthermore, a small number of studies hasrevealed more positive psychological outcomes for Maori such as higher levels of self-esteem in university students (Harrington & Liu, 2002) and greater life satisfaction in theelderly (Gee, 2002).

Given the pattern of mixed results described in local research and the types of indicators(self-esteem, mastery, psychological symptoms, life satisfaction, school adjustment andbehavioral problems) used in this study, only differences in behavioral problems (i.e., theself-reported frequency of antisocial behaviors such as swearing, vandalism, theft, etc.) areexpected here. In this instance it is predicted that Maori youth will report more behavioralproblems than Pakeha. This prediction is consistent with ethnic differences in behavioraldata on risk activities and self-reported likelihood of engaging in aggression (Rotheram-Borus & Petrie, 1996).

1.3. Acculturation, identity and adaptation

Acculturation theories acknowledge the influence of both Maori and European cultureson the values, attitudes and behaviors of dual ethnic adolescents in New Zealand andsuggest that these influences will be manifest by the dual heritage group occupying anintermediate position between Maori and Pakeha in intergroup comparisons. The theoriesdiffer, however, as to how these influences operate. Theoretical perspectives onacculturation range from linear, unidirectional models, which set two cultures inopposition and view ‘‘gaining’’ one culture in terms of ‘‘shedding’’ another, to orthogonaland categorical models that assume a unique contribution from each culture to identityformation and maintenance (Ward, 1999; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). Linearmodels of acculturation imply a negative relationship between two cultural identities,specifically, a stronger Maori identity would be associated with a weaker Pakeha identity.Orthogonal models assume no systematic relationship between the core identities inacculturating persons. Categorical approaches, such as Berry’s (1974, 1984, 1997) model,are based on assumptions of independent identities but juxtapose these identities to formacculturation categories that include assimilation, separation, marginalization andintegration. By extension, Maori and European identities would be inversely related inseparated and assimilated individuals and positively related in marginalized and integratedindividuals. The distinction between integrated and marginalized dual ethnics, however, isthat the former identifies strongly with both heritage groups while the latter identifiesstrongly with neither.1

1Berry’s model has typically been applied to the identity and acculturation of immigrants, sojourners and native

peoples where the core identities refer to heritage and contact (usually the dominant ethno-cultural group)

cultures. In his model, separated individuals retain heritage culture but do not identify with the contact culture;

assimilated individuals embrace the contact culture but are not interested in maintenance of heritage culture;

integrated individuals identify with both heritage and contact cultures and marginalized individuals identify with

neither. To my knowledge Berry’s model has not been used or modified for application to ‘‘mixed race’’ persons.


This investigation is basically guided by an orthogonal model of acculturation. It isanticipated that the intermediate position occupied by dual heritage adolescents ispredicated on the parallel influences of Maori and European cultures. However, as theseyouth have spontaneously self-identified as dual ethnics, it is also expected that they willdemonstrate many of the characteristics of integrated (bicultural) youth as elaborated inBerry’s (1974, 1984) categorical model. Specifically, it is predicted that self-perceivedsimilarity with Maori and with Pakeha will be positively related and not significantlydifferent in dual heritage youth and that dual heritage adolescents will be more likely to seeboth Maori and European traditions as defining New Zealand culture than single heritageyouth.Finally, the research considers the relationship between identity and adaptation. There is

considerable evidence from developmental and social psychology that ethnic identity ispositively related to adaptation (Deaux, 1996; Phinney, 1991). There is also stronginternational evidence that acculturating individuals who adopt an integrated (orbicultural) strategy demonstrate better psychological and sociocultural adaptation (Berry,Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). Contrary to the deficit propositionthat stress, conflict and anxiety are associated with the development of ethnic identity inmixed race persons, it is hypothesized that strong ethnic identity will be related to betterpsycho-social adaptation in dual heritage adolescents.In summary, this research examines acculturation in the family context via com-

parisons between dual heritage adolescents of Maori and Pakeha descent with singleheritage Maori and Pakeha youth. As dual heritage adolescents are exposed to bothcultures within their families, it is expected that their values, attitudes and behaviorswill bear some resemblance to those of both Maori and Pakeha and will occupyan intermediate position between the two. To examine this proposition significantdifferences between Maori and Pakeha are first considered, and these are hypothesizedas follows:

1.
Maori will have stronger ethnic and national identity and engage in more ethnicexploration than Pakeha.
2.
Maori will more strongly endorse parental obligations and less strongly endorsechildren’s rights than Pakeha.
3.
Maori will report greater perceived discrimination than Pakeha. 4. Maori will report more behavioral problems than Pakeha.
Acculturation theory is then applied to the study of dual heritage adolescents, and it ishypothesized that:

5.
Dual heritage adolescents will occupy an intermediate position between Maori andPakeha youth with respect to identity, values, perceived discrimination and behavioralproblems.
6.
Identification (perceived similarity) with Maori and Pakeha will be positively correlatedin dual heritage adolescents.
7.
Maori and Pakeha youth will report greater similarity to members of their respectivegroups, but no differences will be found in dual heritage adolescents.
8.
Dual heritage youth will be more likely to view both Maori and European cultures asdefining New Zealand and New Zealanders.
9.
Strong ethnic identity will be associated with better psychological and social adaptationin dual heritage adolescents.


2. Method

2.1. Participants

The research included 447 New Zealand youth, 247 Pakeha (85 females and 162 males),96 Maori (51 females, 44 males, 1 unknown), and 104 dual heritage (Maori and Pakeha)students (55 females and 49 males). Ages ranged from 12 to 18 years with mean ages of15.03 years (SD ¼ 1.22) for Pakeha, 14.92 years (SD ¼ 1.20) for Maori and 14.94 years(SD ¼ 1.18) for the dual heritage group. Students had attended school 9–13 years. Themean number of years at school was 11.07 for Pakeha (SD ¼ 1.24), 10.79 for Maori(SD ¼ 1.21) and 10.81 (SD ¼ 1.38) for dual heritage youth. There were no significantdifferences in the ages (F(2,443) ¼ 0.41 ns) or years (F(2, 444) ¼ 2.54, ns) at school amongthe three groups; however, the Pakeha group had proportionally more males than theother two; w2 (2) ¼ 16.01, po.001).

These participants represent the New Zealand native-born respondents in a largerproject, the International Comparative Study of Ethnocultural Youth (ICSEY), whichspans 13 countries and includes at least 50 ethnic groups. As it was originally intended thatthese respondents represent members of the receiving society and be classified as one of thetwo ‘‘charter’’ groups in New Zealand, they were given the following response options tothe question ‘‘What is your ethnic background?’’ : New Zealand European, Maori, Other(please specify). It was only after the collection of data that it was realized that a significantnumber of participants identified as dual heritage. This was done primarily by ticking bothNew Zealand European and Maori, although a proportion ticked ‘‘Other’’ and specifiedboth groups, and in rare instances participants used terms such as ‘‘mixed’’ or ‘‘halfand half.’’

The process of ethnic self-identification is central to the present research in that ethnicity(with its cultural base) and race (with its biological foundation) overlap but are notsynonymous.2 In the self-identified Maori group 93% of mothers and 90% of fathers wereidentified as Maori; however, 5% and 6%, respectively, were identified as New ZealandEuropean. Dual heritage was not part of the personal ethnic identification for theseadolescents. For the acknowledged dual heritage group, however, 35% of mothers and45% of their fathers were categorized as New Zealand European, 35% mothers and 29%of fathers were categorized as Maori, and 30% of mothers and 25% of fathers were dualheritage. In the majority (61%) of cases, one parent was identified as Maori and the otherNew Zealand European. Parenthetically, in the Pakeha group 98% of both mothers andfathers were labeled New Zealand European.

2.2. Materials

The students completed a survey, which, in addition to personal backgroundinformation, included measures of: identity (national identity, ethnic identity, and ethnicexploration), family values (parental obligations and children’s rights), perceiveddiscrimination, self-perceptions (mastery, self-esteem), and psychological (life satisfaction,psychological symptoms) and social (behavioral problems and school adjustment)

2This issue is also addressed in the New Zealand Census where the 2001 data indicated that one in seven New

Zealanders (526,281) identified their ethnicity as Maori but one in six (604,110) reported being of Maori descent.


adaptation. These measures are part of a larger survey developed and used by ICSEYresearchers.3

Background information included age, years at school, gender, ethnicity, country ofbirth, and parents’ ethnicity and parents’ country of birth.All of the Identity measures relied upon 5-point agree-disagree responses to statements

about identity. Ethnic Identity was assessed by an 8-item scale derived from Phinney’s(1992) work. The measure included statements such as ‘‘I am proud of being a member ofmy ethnic group’’ and ‘‘Being part of my ethnic group makes me feel good.’’ The NationalIdentity measure, based on work by Phinney and Devich-Navarro (1997), was composedof four statements, e.g., ‘‘I am happy to be a New Zealander’’ and ‘‘I feel that I am part ofNew Zealand culture.’’ Finally, Ethnic Exploration was assessed by three items: ‘‘I havespent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group,’’ ‘‘I think a lot about how mylife will be affected by my ethnicity,’’ and ‘‘I have talked to people or read books to learnabout my ethnic group.’’Related to the measurement of identity, respondents were asked how similar they saw

themselves to both Maori and New Zealand European ethnic groups. Responses weremade on a 5-point scale (endpoints: very similar to myself/very different from myself). Theywere also asked: ‘‘When you were thinking about New Zealand and New Zealanders in theprevious question (i.e., those on identity), did you think about New Zealand Europeanculture, Maori culture, both cultures or neither culture?’’The measure of family relationship values included the assessment of parental

obligations (10 items) and children’s rights (4 items). The measure was developed by theICSEY team based on assessments by Nguyen and Williams (1989), Georgas (1989), andGeorgas, Berry, Shaw, Christakopoulou, and Mylonas (1996). Five-point agree/disagree

scales were used in response to statements such as ‘‘Parents should teach their children tobehave properly,’’ and ‘‘Parents always know what is best,’’ as well as ‘‘When a boy/girlreaches the age of 16, it is alright for him/her to decide whom to date and when to date.’’The Perceived Discrimination measure consisted of seven items, four pertaining to the

perceived frequency of being treated unfairly because of ethnic background by peers,teachers or adults and three statements about the experience of acceptance, threat or insulton the basis of ethnicity. All responses were made on 5-point scales with frequencyresponses using never/often endpoints and statements about unfair treatment usingstrongly agree/strongly disagree options.Self-perceptions were examined in terms of self-esteem and mastery. Self-esteem was

assessed by Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item self-esteem inventory. Respondents indicateagreement-disagreement (endpoints: strongly agree/strongly disagree) on 5-point scales.Sample items include: ‘‘On the whole I am satisfied with myself,’’ and ‘‘I am able to dothings as well as most people.’’Mastery was assessed by a 6-item scale which combined items from measures by Connell

(1985), Levenson (1981), Paulhus (1983) and Pearlin and Schooler (1978). Sample itemsinclude: ‘‘I can do anything I really set my mind to do,’’ and ‘‘I can determine what willhappen in my life.’’ Responses are made on 5-point agree/disagree scales.Finally, psychological (symptoms and life satisfaction) and social (school adjustment

and behavioral problems) were measured. The assessment of Life Satisfaction relied upon

3The measures used in the study were assembled by members of the ICSEY team: John W. Berry, Kyunghwa

Kwak, Karmela Liebkind, Jean Phinney, Colette Sabatier, David Sam, Erkki Virta and Charles Westin.


5-point agree/disagree scales, this case in response to five items taken from research byDiener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985). Examples include: ‘‘I am satisfied with mylife,’’ and ‘‘If I could live my life over, I would not change anything.’’

Psychological Symptoms were measured by a 15-item scale constructed by the ICSEYteam from items extracted from work by Beiser and Fleming (1986), Kinzie et al. (1982)and Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman (1991). Five point scales (endpoints: not at all/

very often) are used as response options to items such as ‘‘I worry a lot of the time,’’ and‘‘I feel unhappy and sad.’’

School Adjustment was assessed by a 7-item instrument based on work by Andersen(1982) and Moos (1989). The measure relies upon a 5-point agree/disagree format andincorporates statements such as ‘‘At present I like school,’’ and ‘‘I have problemsconcentrating when doing homework.’’ The measure also includes one item onabsenteeism.

Finally, Behavioral Problems were assessed by a modified version of Olweus’ (1989)measure of antisocial behavior. A 5-point frequency scale is used (endpoints: never/many

times) in response to items about bullying, stealing, quarrelling and other antisocialactivities.

2.3. Procedures

Initially schools in Wellington, Christchurch and Hastings were contacted forpermission for students to participate in the research. Surveys were distributed in classeswith either research assistants or teachers available to answer questions arising from thesurvey. Participation in the research was anonymous and voluntary.

3. Results

The results are presented in three sections. The first describes the psychometricproperties of the scales. The second examines the differences in identity, values,discrimination, self-perceptions and adaptation across the three ethno-cultural groups.The third explores issues pertaining to acculturation, identity and adaptation.

3.1. Psychometric properties

The psychometric properties of the scales are presented in Table 1 for each group. Themeasures were generally reliable, and most scales produced Cronbach alphas over .80. Themajor exception was the measure of School Adjustment, where the Cronbach alpha wasless than .60 for the Maori and the dual heritage group.

3.2. Intergroup comparisons

One way analyses of variance revealed significant differences across the groups in:(1) identity, including national identity (F(2,441) ¼ 5.67, po.004), ethnic identity(F(2,438) ¼ 26.62, po.001), and ethnic exploration (F(2,438) ¼ 36.41, po.001); (2) values,both parental obligations (F(2,422) ¼ 9.62, po.001) and children’s rights (F(2,424) ¼ 7.65,po.001); (3) discrimination (F(2,419) ¼ 9.23, po.001); (4) self-perceptions, specifically,self-esteem (F(2,421) ¼ 3.46, po.032); and (6) social adaptation, specifically, behavioral

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Scalar reliability

Measure No. of items Cronbach’s alpha

Pakeha Maori Dual heritage

National identity 4 .85 .83 .84

Ethnic identity 8 .86 .83 .85

Ethnic exploration 3 .84 .72 .70

Parental obligations 10 .78 .62 .72

Children’s rights 4 .81 .79 .80

Discrimination 7 .87 .80 .82

Mastery 6 .82 .81 .76

Self-esteem 10 .84 .75 .80

Psychological symptoms 15 .91 .91 .86

Life satisfaction 5 .82 .70 .74

Behavioral problems 10 .88 .88 .85

School adjustment 7 .70 .56 .58

Table 2

Mean scores for Pakeha, Maori and dual heritage youth

Measures Means and SDs

Pakeha Maori Dual heritage

National identity 4.15 (0.91) 4.44 (0.71) 4.38 (0.68)

Ethnic identity 3.71 (0.81) 4.35 (0.67) 4.07 (0.71)

Ethnic exploration 2.15 (1.06) 3.07 (1.12) 2.96 (1.00)

Similarity to NZ European 1.24 (0.68) 2.77 (1.34) 1.74 (0.95)

Similarity to Maori 3.17 (1.30) 1.58 (1.12) 1.93 (1.13)

Parental obligations 2.77 (0.68) 3.08 (0.59) 3.02 (0.72)

Children’s rights 4.28 (0.87) 3.84 (0.97) 4.16 (0.90)

Discrimination 2.02 (0.90) 2.49 (0.89) 2.11 (0.79)

Mastery 3.95 (0.77) 3.93 (0.76) 3.95 (0.68)

Self-esteem 3.68 (0.72) 3.46 (0.64) 3.65 (0.68)

Psychological symptoms 2.61 (0.73) 2.57 (0.74) 2.58 (0.65)

Life satisfaction 3.38 (0.87) 3.38 (0.80) 3.39 (0.83)

Behavioral problems 2.03 (0.89) 2.31 (1.02) 2.06 (0.81)

School adjustment 3.56 (0.74) 3.43 (0.62) 3.60 (0.66)

Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses. Mean scores are based on 1–5 scales.

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 243–259252

problems (F(2,418) ¼ 3.06, po.05). There were no significant differences across the threegroups in mastery, life satisfaction, psychological symptoms, or school adjustment(F’so1.8).4 See Table 2 for mean scores.

4It was not the intention of this research to examine gender differences; however, for those interested a 2� 3

MANOVA indicated that the main effects were found for ethnic identity (F(1,381) ¼ 4.84, po.03), symptoms

(F(1,381) ¼ 5.40, po.03) and perceived discrimination (F(1,381) ¼ 8.57, po.004) with females reporting stronger

ethnic identity, more psychological symptoms and less perceived discrimination. Given these results, analysis of

covariance (controlling for gender effects) was undertaken for identity, values, self-perceptions and adaptation

measures with the results converging with the one-way ANOVA findings reported here.


Post hoc tests (Tukey’s test of Honestly Significant Differences) were used to elaboratethese differences. In all cases there were significant differences between Maori and Pakehastudents, but the alignment of dual heritage students varied across analyses.

With respect to identity, Maori had a stronger ethnic and national identity than Pakehaand engaged in more ethnic exploration. Dual heritage students occupied an intermediateposition in each of these cases. They did not differ significantly from Maori in terms ofethnic exploration or national identity; however, they differed significantly from bothgroups in terms of ethnic identity.

Values pertaining to both parental obligations and children’s rights were also foundbetween Maori and Pakeha with the former endorsing greater parental obligations andfewer children’s rights. Again dual heritage adolescents occupied an intermediate position;they supported children’s rights more than Maori but endorsed parental obligations morestrongly than Pakeha.

Groups differences were further observed with respect to perceived discrimination.Specifically, Maori adolescents reported more discrimination than either Pakeha or dualheritage adolescents.

Finally, with respect to self-perceptions and adaptation, Pakeha had higher levels of self-esteem and reported fewer behavioral problems than Maori; in both instances the dualheritage group occupied the intermediate position and was not significantly different fromeither of the other groups.

3.3. Acculturation, identity and adaptation

Maori, Pakeha and dual heritage adolescents’ general understanding of New Zealandculture was examined by w2 analysis, and Table 3 reports the % breakdown of the results.The analysis revealed significant differences across groups; w2 (6) ¼ 120.14 (po.001). Ascan be seen in the table, each group most frequently acknowledged both Maori andEuropean cultures as defining New Zealand and New Zealanders; however, the trendappeared strongest in the dual heritage group. Additionally, conceptualizations of NewZealanders that involved neither Maori nor Pakeha culture appeared least evident (only10%) in the dual heritage group.

Self-perceptions of similarity to Maori and Pakeha were examined in a 3 (own group) �2 (target group) mixed design analysis of variance which revealed a significant interactioneffect; F(2,416) ¼ 173.74, po.001). Post hoc tests revealed that both Maori and Pakehayouth saw themselves as significantly more similar to their own group than the other

Table 3

Distribution of responses for defining New Zealand culture

Group NZ European Maori Both Neither Total

Pakeha 36% 0% 49% 16.5% 100%

(84) (0) (119) (40) (243)

Maori 6.5% 33.3% 47.3% 12.9% 100%

(6) (31) (44) (12) (93)

Dual heritage 7.1% 13.3% 69.4% 10.2% 100%

(7) (13) (68) (10) (98)

Note: Number of respondents in parentheses.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Correlations between ethnic identity and psychological and social adaptation in New Zealand adolescents

Group Life satisfaction Psychological symptoms Behavioral problems School adjustment

Pakeha .28�� .24�� .19�� .19��

Maori .25� �.02 �.02 .02

Dual heritage .21� .03 �.14 .12

�po.05.��po.001.

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 243–259254

group, but that the dual heritage adolescents did not differentiate between the targetgroups (see Table 2). It is important to note that the dual heritage group strongly identifiedwith both Maori and Pakeha, the median score for each being 1 on a 5-point scale.Furthermore, self-perceptions of similarity to Maori and Pakeha were significantlycorrelated in dual heritage adolescents (r ¼ .37, po.005), but this was not observed ineither Maori (r ¼ .08) or New Zealand European (r ¼ .11) youth. These data converge tosuggest an integrated acculturation strategy and a true bicultural identity in dual heritageadolescents.Finally, ethnic identity scores were correlated with adaptation outcomes, and the results

are presented in Table 4. Pearson correlations revealed that stronger ethnic identity wasassociated with greater life satisfaction (r ¼ .28, po.005), fewer psychological symptoms(r ¼ �.24, po.005), fewer behavioral problems (r ¼ �.19, po.003) and better schooladjustment (r ¼ .19, po.003) in Pakeha adolescents. Ethnic identity was also related togreater life satisfaction in Maori (r ¼ .25, po.02) and dual heritage adolescents (r ¼ .21,po.05).

4. Discussion

The research adopted an acculturation perspective rather than a deficit model toexamine identity, values, self-perceptions, and adaptation in dual heritage (Maori–Pakeha)adolescents. This was accomplished by intergroup comparisons with single heritage (Maoriand Pakeha) adolescents and by investigating the relationship between ethnic identity andadaptation in the dual heritage group. The hypothesis that dual heritage adolescents wouldoccupy an intermediate position between Maori and Pakeha youth in terms of their values,self-perceptions, identity and adaptation was largely borne out in this research. Thehypotheses that dual heritage youth would be most likely to see both Maori and Europeancultures as defining New Zealand, that their self-perceptions of similarity to both Maoriand Pakeha would not differ, and that their Maori and Pakeha identities would bepositively correlated were confirmed. However, the prediction that strong ethnic identitywould be associated with better psychological and social outcomes received only limitedsupport.The positioning of dual heritage adolescents between single ancestry groups as a

function of acculturation influences in the family is dependent upon the identification ofpredictable differences between the two single heritage groups. In this study thefundamental intergroup differences emerged largely as predicted: Maori had strongerethnic and national identity, engaged in more ethnic exploration, reported more


discrimination, endorsed greater parental responsibilities and fewer children’s rights, andreported more behavioral problems than did Pakeha. They also reported lower levels ofself-esteem.5 More important than the Maori–Pakeha differences per se is the finding thatin each of these cases the dual heritage adolescents were situated between the self-identifiedsingle ancestry Maori and Pakeha youth.

Adolescents who identified as both Maori and Pakeha exhibited a pragmatically blendedconstellation of values, attitudes and self-perceptions that reflected the influence of bothcultural groups. There was no evidence that this blending resulted in psychological orsocial disadvantage. Indeed, the dual heritage group was not significantly different fromsingle ancestry groups in terms of psychological symptoms, life satisfaction, behavioralproblems or school adjustment. These results undermine the validity of the deficitapproach and reiterate the usefulness of an acculturation framework for understandingand explaining the socialization process in dual heritage adolescents.

While the findings clearly demonstrate that dual ethnics incorporate aspects of twoheritage cultures into their psychological make-up, the manner in which this is achievedmerits further attention. The suggestion that children of intercultural marriages tend toapproximate members of the dominant culture more closely in terms of their academic andsocial activities (Yogev & Jamshy, 1983) was not borne out in the current research. Rather,the perceived similarity data and the strong tendency for dual heritage youth to see NewZealand as being defined by both Maori and European cultures converge to suggest thatthis group of dual heritage adolescents can lay claim to an integrated, balanced and trulybicultural identity. Furthermore, and in line with predictions based on Berry’s (1974, 1984)model of acculturation, this identity is associated with positive psychological outcomes, inparticular, increased life satisfaction.

The major research hypotheses were supported in this research; nevertheless, it remainsto be seen if the findings concerning Maori, Pakeha and dual heritage youth in NewZealand will replicate with other ethno-cultural groups in other countries. New Zealandoccupies a unique position with respect to the relationship between its indigenous peopleand the European settlers. Although the Treaty of Waitangi, which promises an equalpartnership between Maori and Europeans, has not always been honored, there isawareness of and respect for Maori culture in this country. In short, the development of apositive bicultural identity in dual heritage Maori–Pakeha youth is sanctioned in NewZealand. Stephan and Stephan’s (1989, 1991) research with young adults of Asian–Cau-casian and Hispanic–Caucasian ancestry suggests that similar outcomes may be observedin at least some parts of the United States, but further research should test the externalvalidity of the acculturation paradigm for dual heritage individuals in more diversesettings.

The background to and findings of this study also bring up a number of issues about thedefinition and classification of ethnic identity more broadly. First, as pointed out byStephan (1992) in her discussion of mixed heritage individuals, research participants withthe same biological ancestry often select different ethnic identities. In this study 61% ofthose who self-identified as having dual heritage had one New Zealand European and oneMaori parent, but approximately 10% of those who self-identified as Maori also had oneNew Zealand European parent. Second, Stephan and Stephan (2000b) argue that the

5These findings converge with those of Ranby (1979); however, the results may be undermined by broader

psychometric considerations for cross-cultural comparisons.


methods used for classifying ethnic identity are often inadequate. They are critical offorced choice classification systems, particularly for mixed heritage individuals who arelimited to a single selection or forced to choose ‘‘other.’’ They also note that multiracialcategories are seldom available despite the fact that the number of ‘‘recognized’’ mixedheritage individuals is on the rise and that the United States census records the mostrapidly growing racial designation as ‘‘other.’’ Stephan and Stephan’s criticisms arepertinent to the present study where it might be regarded as remarkable that 104respondents took the initiative to identify as dual heritage despite the constraints of thesurvey’s format. It is unclear, however, the extent to which this number would be greater ifmore ‘‘user-friendly’’ options were available for dual heritage self-identification,particularly as international research suggests that how people define their ethnic orracial group can change according to how questions are asked (Callister, 2004).Finally, the psychometric properties of some of the measurement scales give pause for

concern. Although all measures were reliable for the Pakeha sample, the internalconsistency of the School Adjustment scale for both Maori and the dual heritage groupand the Parental Obligations scale for the Maori was less than expected. Issues might alsobe raised about the cultural appropriateness and cross-cultural equivalence of theself-esteem scale for the Maori and part Maori participants. Chapman (1984) has discussedthe importance of whakaiti (being humble) and the avoidance of whakahihi (settingoneself above others) in Maori culture and speculated that conventional measures, whichoften point to relatively low levels of Maori self-esteem, do not adequately capture self-concept in Maori. His contentions may be situated in the context of a larger cross-culturaldebate about variations in the core conceptualization of self across cultures, the nature ofself-enhancement, and the difficulties in cross-cultural assessment of self (Markus &Kitayama, 1991).In conclusion the research has examined identity, values, self-perceptions and

adaptation in dual heritage adolescents. The results undermine the deficit model of mixedheritage identity and demonstrate the usefulness of an acculturation framework forunderstanding the dual heritage experience. Future research should explore the cross-cultural applicability of the framework, extend studies to more diverse ethno-culturalgroups, and as suggested by Stephan and Stephan (2000a), investigate models of both‘‘situated’’ and ‘‘joint’’ ethnic identities in dual heritage individuals.

Acknowledgements

The empirical basis of this paper comes from the New Zealand portion of the ICSEYProject. All collaborators of the project are gratefully acknowledged. Other members ofthe group are: Australia (W. Karnilowicz, C. Leung, R. Pe-Pua, R. Rooney & D. Sang);Canada (J. Berry & K. Kwak); Finland (K. Liebkind); France (C. Sabatier); Germany (P.Schmitz); Israel (G. Horenczyk); the Netherlands (F. van de Vijver and Paul Vedder);Norway (D. Sam); Portugal (F. Neto); Sweden (E. Virta and C. Westin); United Kingdom(L. Robinson) and United States (J. Phinney).The financial support for the research was provided by the School of Psychology,

Victoria University of Wellington, and the manuscript was completed during the author’stenure as a James Cook Fellow, an award administered by the Royal Society of NewZealand. The author would also like to thank Jo Kleeb, Cynthia Cheung and Elsie Ho forassistance with data collection, and John Berry, Catherine Love (Te Atiawa) and an


anonymous reviewer who commented on an earlier draft of the paper. Any remainingshortcomings of the manuscript are the responsibility of the author.

References

Andersen, C. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53,

368–420.

Beautrais, A. L. (2001). Child and adolescent suicide in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of

Psychiatry, 35, 647–653.

Beiser, M., & Fleming, J. A. E. (1986). Measuring psychiatric disorder among Southeast Asian refugees.

Psychological Medicine, 16, 627–639.

Berry, J. W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism. Topics in Cultural Learning, 2, 17–22.

Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies. In N. Miller, & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact

(pp. 11–27). New York: Academic Press.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46,

5–34.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International

Migration Review, 21, 491–511.

Callister, P. (2004). Ethnicity measures, intermarriage and social policy. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 23,

109–140.

Chapman, J. W. (1984). The self concept of Maori school pupils revisited: A critique of Ranby’s study and some

new data. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 19, 45–54.

Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control. Child Development,

56, 1018–1041.

Cotrell, G. L. (1995). Americans of Indian and European descent: Ethnic identity issues. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 56(1-A), 356.

Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook

of basic principles (pp. 777–798). New York: Guildford Press.

Department of Justice. (2000). Total number of cases resulting in convictions by type of offence and ethnicity of

offender (1995–99) www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/convict_sentence_2000/appendix_2html/#ta-

ble%20A2-7.

DeRoza, C., & Ward, C. (1999). Identity and intergroup perceptions in Singapore. Paper presented at the third

biennial conference of the Asian Association of Social Psychology, Taipei, Taiwan.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, A. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

Drummond, R. J., & McIntire, W. G. (1980). Grade, sex and ethnic differences in self-concept of Franco-

American and Anglo primary grade children. Journal of Psychology, 106, 49–53.

Durie, M. (1995). Mental health patterns for New Zealand Maori. In I. Al-Issa (Ed.), Handbook of culture and

mental illness: An international perspective (pp. 331–346). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

Edmonds, L. K., Williams, S., & Walsh, A. E. S. (2000). Trends in Maori mental health in Otago. Australian and

New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 677–683.

Evans, I. M., Wilson, N. J., Hansson, G., & Hungerford, R. (1997). Positive and negative behaviors of

independent, adolescent youth participating in a community support programme. New Zealand Journal of

Psychology, 26, 29–35.

Feldman, S. S., & Rosenthal, D. (1990). The acculturation of autonomy expectations on Chinese high schoolers in

two Western nations. International Journal of Psychology, 25, 259–281.

Gee, S. (2002). Happily even after? Positive aging in three New Zealand cultural groups. Paper presented at the

New Zealand Association of Gerontology Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

Georgas, J. (1989). Changing family values in Greece: From collectivist to individualism. Journal of Cross-cultural


Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., Shaw, A., Christakopoulou, S., & Mylonas, K. (1996). Acculturation of Greek family

values. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 27, 329–338.

Graves, T. D. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community. Southwestern Journal of

Anthropology, 23, 337–350.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/convict_sentence_2000/appendix_2html/#table%20A2-7

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/convict_sentence_2000/appendix_2html/#table%20A2-7


Gumina, D. P. (1995). Ethnic identity, self-identity and family values: A study of Italian American later

adolescents in the San Francisco Bay Area. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(6-B), 3475.

Harrington, L., & Liu, J. (2002). Self-enhancement and attitudes toward high achievers: A bi-cultural view of

independent and interdependent self. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33, 37–55.

Heras, P., & Revilla, L. A. (1994). Acculturation, generational status, and family environment of Pilipino

Americans: A study in cultural adaptation. Family Therapy, 21, 129–138.

Holmes, K., Murachver, T., & Bayard, C. (2001). Accent, appearance and ethnic stereotypes in New Zealand.

New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30, 79–86.

James, W. H., Kim, G., & Armijo, E. (2000). The influence of ethnic identity on drug use among ethnic minority

adolescents. Journal of Drug Education, 30, 265–280.

Kinzie, J. D., Manson, S. M., Vinh, D. T., Tolan, N. T., Anh, B., & Pho, T. N. (1982). Development and

validation of a Vietnamese-language depression rating scale. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 1276–1281.

Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.),

Research with the locus of control construct, Vol. 1 (pp. 15–63). New York: Academic Press.

Liu, J., & Temara, P. (1998). Leadership, colonization and tradition: Identity and economic change in Ruatoki

and Ruatahuma. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 22, 138–150.

Liu, J., Wilson, M., McClure, J., & Higgins, T. (1999). Social identity and the perception of history: Cultural

representations of Aotearoa/New Zealand. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1021–1047.

Lynskey, M., Ward, C., & Fletcher, G. (1991). Stereotypes and intergroup attributions in New Zealand.

Psychology and Developing Societies, 3, 113–127.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation.

Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Metge, J. (1976). The Maoris of New Zealand. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Ministry of Health (1999). Taking the pulse: The 1996/97 New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington, New Zealand,

www.moh.govt.nz.

Moos, R. (1989). Evaluating educational environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

New Zealand Census (2001). Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.

Nguyen, N., & Williams, H. (1989). Transition from East to West: Vietnamese adolescents and their parents.

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 505–515.

Olweus, D. (1989). Prevalence and incidence in the study of antisocial behavior: Definition and measurement. In

M. W. Klein (Ed.), Cross-national research in self-reported crime and delinquency (pp. 187–201). Dordrecht,

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Paulhus, D. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

44, 1253–1265.

Pawliuk, N., Grizenko, N., Chan-Yip, A., Gantous, P., Mathew, J., & Nguyen, D. (1996). Acculturation

style and psychological functioning in children of immigrants. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66,

111–121.

Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21.

Phinney, J. (1991). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: A review and integration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences, 13, 193–208.

Phinney, J. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with adolescents and young

adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.

Phinney, J., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and

Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 7, 3–32.

Ramsay, G. M. (2000). The family and cultural identity in aborigines and Torres Strait islanders of Chinese

ancestry: A rural urban divide. Journal of Family Studies, 6, 199–213.

Ranby, P. (1979). What do Maori children think of themselves? Set, Vol. 1. Wellington: New Zealand Council for

Educational Research.

Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American

Anthropologist, 38, 149–152.

Ritchie, J. (1964). Race relations: Six New Zealand studies. Wellington: Victoria University.

Ritchie, J. (1992). Becoming bicultural. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (1997). The next generation: Child-rearing in New Zealand. Auckland: Penguin.

Robinson, P. R., Shaver, P., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.). (1991). Measures of personality and social psychology

attitudes (pp. 61–114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

http://www.moh.govt.nz


Rosenthal, D., Bell, R., Demitriou, A., & Efklides, A. (1989). From collectivism to individualism? The

acculturation of Greek immigrants in Australia. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 723–742.

Ross, D. (1996). In their own words: Mixed heritage children in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 56(11-A), 4329.

Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Petrie, K. J. (1996). Patterns of social expectations among Maori and European

children in New Zealand. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 27, 576–597.

Rzoska, K. M., & Ward, C. (1991). The effects of cooperative and competitive learning methods on the

mathematics achievement, attitudes toward school, self concepts and friendship choices of Maori, Pakeha and

Samoan children. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 20, 17–24.

Siefen, G., Kirkaldy, B. D., & Athanasou, J. A. (1996). Parental attitudes: A study of German, Greek and second

generation Greek migrant adolescents. Human Relations, 49, 837–851.

Stephan, C. W. (1992). Mixed heritage individuals: Ethnic identity and trait characteristics. In M. Root (Ed.),

Racially mixed people in America (pp. 50–63). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (1989). After intermarriage: Ethnic identity among mixed-heritage Japanese-

Americans and Hispanics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 507–519.

Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (2000a). What are the functions of ethnic identity? In P. Spickard, & W. J.

Burroughs (Eds.), We are a people—Narrative and multiplicity in constructing ethnic identity (pp. 229–243).

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (2000b). The measurement of racial and ethnic identity. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 24, 541–552.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1991). Intermarriage: Effects on personality, adjustment and intergroup

relations in two samples of students. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 241–250.

Tashiro, C. J. (1999). Standing on both feet: History and the construction of identity for older mixed race

Americans. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(4-A), 1345.

Thomas, D. (1985). Cooperative learning and school achievement. Unpublished manuscript, Department of

Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Thomas, D. (1992). Ethnic pluralism in Australia and New Zealand: Policies and practices. In D. Thomas, & A.

Veno (Eds.), Psychology and social change (pp. 259–277). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Thomas, D., & Nikora, L. W. (1992). From assimilation to biculturalism: Changing patterns in Maori–Pakeha

relationships. In D. Thomas, & A. Veno (Eds.), Psychology and social change (pp. 278–298). Palmerston

North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Thomas, D., & Nikora, L. W. (1994). Maori, Pakeha and New Zealander: Ethnic and national identity among

New Zealand students. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 1, 29–40.

Vaughan, G. (1978). Social change and intergroup preferences in New Zealand. European Journal of Social


Ward, C. (1999). Models and measurements of acculturation. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, D. K. Forgays, & S.

A. Hayes (Eds.), Merging past, present and future (pp. 221–229). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. London: Routledge.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment and socio-cultural

competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–343.

Weller, L., & Rofe, Y. (1988). Marital happiness among mixed and homogenous marriages in Israel. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 50, 245–254.

Williams, J. K. Y., Goebert, D., Hishinuma, E., Miyamoto, R., Anzai, N., Izutsu, S., Yanagida, E., Nishimura,

S., Andrade, N., & Baker, F. M. (2002). A conceptual model of cultural predictors of anxiety among Japanese

American and part-Japanese American adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8,

320–333.

Yogev, A., & Jamshy, H. (1983). Children of ethnic intermarriage in Israeli schools: Are they marginal? Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 45, 965–974.

Documents

Acculturation, identity and adaptation in dual heritage adolescents