AN EXPANDED VIEW OF ACCULTURATION:

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

http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1.asp

http://www.usc.edu/

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.


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


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

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 one’s ethnic and national groups.


So acculturation is multidimensional in two separate ways:

PRACTICES

VALUES

IDENTIFICATIONS

HERITAGE RECEIVING

Heritage languageHeritage-culture foods

Receiving-society languageReceiving-culture foods

CollectivismInterdependenceFamilism

IndividualismIndependence

Country of origin Receiving country


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 I’m 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.

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).


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!!

?


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 don’t 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.


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.

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.

METHOD

Ethnicity and Immigrant Generation

Ethnic Group 1st Generation 2nd Generation Total

White 112 (65%) 61 (35%) 173

Black 102 (34%) 202 (66%) 304

Hispanic 375 (42%) 514 (58%) 889

Asian 144 (37%) 247 (63%) 391

Middle Eastern 58 (44%) 74 (56%) 132

South African 8 (20%) 32 (80%) 40

Other/Mixed 10 (42%) 14 (58%) 24

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.

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

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);


Three kinds of cultural values were measured:

•Independence and interdependence – how one relates to others in general.

METHOD


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.


Independence and interdependence were assessed using the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994).

METHOD

Independence – 12 items, α = .74;

Interdependence – 12 items, α = .77.

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, one’s 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.

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.

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),


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.


All of these health risk behaviors were responded to using a 5-point scale:

METHOD

0 1 2 3 4

Never Once/Twice 3-5 Times 6-10 Times 11+ Times

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

Prevalence of Risk Behaviors

We first crosstabulated the prevalence of each risk behavior by gender and by ethnicity:

RESULTS

Behavior Men (%) Women (%) χ2 (1) φ

Risky Driving

Impaired Driving 27.4 17.4 19.36*** .11

Riding with Impaired Driver 30.6 28.1 0.95 .02

Substance Use

Marijuana Use 28.4 18.1 18.32*** .10

Hard Drug Use 7.3 4.5 4.65* .05

Inhalant Use 7.1 3.4 9.43** .08

Injecting Drug Use 4.3 1.0 17.96*** .11

Prescription Drug Misuse 7.6 4.1 7.47** .07

Unsafe Sexual Behavior

Oral Sex 53.6 51.0 0.76 .02

Anal Sex 17.3 11.7 8.33** .07

Casual Sex 20.2 9.1 35.43*** .15

Unprotected Sex 34.7 39.5 2.89 .04

Sex While Drunk/High 27.7 25.6 0.66 .02

Behavior Ethnic Group χ2 (3) φ

White (%) Black (%) Hispanic (%) Asian (%)

Risky Driving

Driving While Drunk/High 19.1 18.9 20.2 15.9 2.73 .04

Riding with Drunk Driver 37.6 25.5 29.2 26.5 7.39 .06

Substance Use

Marijuana Use 27.0 20.5 21.7 20.3 2.83 .05

Hard Drug Use 8.5 3.3 5.3 5.9 4.79 .06

Inhalant Use 8.5 2.1 4.2 4.2 8.89* .08

Injecting Drug Use 3.5 1.7 1.2 2.6 4.89 .06

Prescription Drug Misuse 8.5 2.9 4.7 5.9 6.36 .07


Oral Sex 62.4 44.8 58.5 39.4 42.73*** .17

Anal Sex 14.2 11.8 15.1 10.9 4.00 .05

Casual Sex 15.6 14.2 10.7 11.0 4.37 .06

Unprotected Sex 47.9 38.2 42.9 29.1 21.24*** .12

Sex While Drunk/High 39.7 20.1 26.7 24.6 18.31*** .11

Correlations among Cultural Variables

We then computed a table of correlations among the cultural variables:

RESULTS

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Heritage Orientation

1. Heritage Practices .17 .18 .14 .44 -.17 .12 -.01 .21 -.03

2. Horizontal Collectivism

------ .41 .40 .29 .21 .21 .00 .37 .27

3. Vertical Collectivism

--------- .46 .38 .18 .20 .15 .29 .25

4. Interdependence --------- .27 .25 .07 .21 .21 .29

5. Ethnic Identity --------- .12 .24 .08 .31 .25

American Orientation

6. American Practices

--------- .22 .12 .32 .54

7. Horizontal Individualism

--------- .23 .48 .15

8. Vertical Individualism

--------- .21 .16

9. Independence --------- .28

10. American Identity

---------

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.

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:

AmericanOrientation

Practices Values Identifications

HeritageOrientation

Practices Values Identifications


RESULTS

These composites were created using exploratory factor analysis – and the factor solutions were reasonably reliable:

Heritage Cultural Orientation, .65;

American Cultural Orientation, .67


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:

RESULTS


Some of the risk behaviors were characterized by an even greater preponderance of zeroes – such that there is very little variability to explain:

RESULTS

RESULTS


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.

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

Risk Behavior American Orientation OR/IRR (95% CI)

Heritage Orientation OR/IRR (95% CI)

Illicit Drug Use

Marijuana Use

Yes/No 0.97 (0.83 to 1.13) 0.83** (0.71 to 0.96)

Count 0.95 (0.86 to 0.95) 0.87** (0.78 to 0.96)

Hard Drug Use

Yes/No 0.97 (0.73 to 1.29) 0.74* (0.57 to 0.97)

Count 1.00 (0.82 to 1.22) 1.00 (0.80 to 1.25)

Inhalant Use

Yes/No 0.92 (0.69 to 1.23) 0.69** (0.50 to 0.95)

Count 1.00 (0.72 to 1.40) 1.00 (0.71 to 1.39)

Prescription Drug Misuse

Yes/No 0.94 (0.68 to 1.29) 0.65** (0.49 to 0.87)

Count 0.92 (0.76 to 1.11) 1.14 (0.86 to 1.52)

Risk Behavior American Orientation OR/IRR (95% CI)

Heritage Orientation OR/IRR (95% CI)


Oral Sex 1.03 (0.98 to 1.09) 0.94** (0.89 to 0.98)

Anal Sex

Yes/No 0.95 (0.78 to 1.15) 0.96 (0.77 to 1.20)

Count 0.92 (0.79 to 1.08) 1.07 (0.92 to 1.25)

Unprotected Sex 1.02 (0.96 to 1.09) 0.97 (0.91 to 1.03)

Casual Sex

Yes/No 0.85 (0.67 to 1.08) 1.15 (0.87 to 1.54)

Count 1.06 (0.89 to 1.27) 0.83 (0.66 to 1.06)

Sex While Drunk/High 0.94 (0.86 to 1.04) 0.84*** (0.76 to 0.92)

Impaired Driving

Driving While Intoxicated

Yes/No 1.49 (1.08 to 2.06) 0.70 (0.45 to 1.08)

Count 0.75* (0.60 to 0.93) 1.16 (0.88 to 1.52)

Riding With Drunk Driver 0.98 (0.89 to 1.08) 0.89* (0.80 to 0.99)

This model fit equivalently between first-generation (foreign born) and second-generation (U.S. born) individuals, Δχ2 (36) = 40.49, p = .28.

RESULTS

There appeared to be some significant differences by ethnicity, Δχ2 (108) = 137.38, p < .03. However, within the individual ethnic groups, there generally was not enough statistical power to detect significant effects.

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

RESULTS

Risk Behavior American Practices OR/IRR (95% CI)

Heritage Practices OR/IRR (95% CI)

Illicit Drug Use

Marijuana Use

Yes/No 0.96 (0.82 to 1.11) 0.83** (0.72 to 0.96)

Count 0.97 (0.88 to 1.06) 0.89* (0.80 to 0.99)

Hard Drug Use

Yes/No 0.83 (0.65 to 1.07) 0.71* (0.52 to 0.98)

Count 0.97 (0.82 to 1.15) 1.02 (0.82 to 1.27)

Inhalant Use

Yes/No 0.83 (0.63 to 1.11) 0.71* (0.52 to 0.98)

Count 0.99 (0.81 to 1.21) 1.11 (0.84 to 1.46)


Yes/No 0.78 (0.59 to 1.02) 0.65** (0.48 to 0.88)

Count 1.01 (0.84 to 1.20) 1.14 (0.80 to 1.62)

Risk Behavior American PracticesOR/IRR (95% CI)

Heritage PracticesOR/IRR (95% CI)


Oral Sex 1.02 (0.97 to 1.08) 0.99 (0.94 to 1.04)

Anal Sex

Yes/No 0.95 (0.80 to 1.14) 0.96 (0.77 to 1.20)

Count 1.18 (0.96 to 1.45) 1.07 (0.92 to 1.25)


Casual Sex

Yes/No 0.88 (0.72 to 1.08) 1.18 (0.90 to 1.54)

Count 1.01 (0.88 to 1.17) 0.85 (0.68 to 1.07)

Sex While Drunk/High 0.89* (0.81 to 0.98) 0.87** (0.79 to 0.95)

Impaired Driving


Yes/No 1.15 (0.93 to 1.42) 0.95 (0.68 to 1.32)

Count 0.84* (0.72 to 0.97) 0.95 (0.77 to 1.18)

Riding With Drunk Driver 0.94 (0.86 to 1.14) 0.86** (0.78 to 0.95)

Risk Behavior American Values OR/IRR (95% CI)

Heritage Values OR/IRR (95% CI)

Illicit Drug Use

Marijuana Use

Yes/No 0.98 (0.85 to 1.13) 0.85* (0.74 to 0.98)

Count 1.03 (0.93 to 1.14) 0.85** (0.76 to 0.94)

Hard Drug Use

Yes/No 1.08 (0.83 to 1.42) 0.67** (0.53 to 0.86)

Count 1.08 (0.91 to 1.29) 0.91 (0.76 to 1.09)

Inhalant Use

Yes/No 1.04 (0.76 to 1.41) 0.68** (0.52 to 0.90)

Count 1.15 (0.91 to 1.40) 0.89 (0.72 to 1.10)


Yes/No 1.08 (0.80 to 1.44) 0.62*** (0.48 to 0.78)

Count 1.03 (0.86 to 1.23) 1.00 (0.80 to 1.25)

Risk Behavior American ValuesOR/IRR (95% CI)

Heritage ValuesOR/IRR (95% CI)


Oral Sex 1.08** (1.02 to 1.14) 0.92** (0.87 to 0.97)

Anal Sex

Yes/No 1.10 (0.90 to 1.35) 0.91 (0.74 to 1.13)

Count 1.15 (0.97 to 1.37) 0.89 (0.75 to 1.07)

Unprotected Sex 1.08** (1.02 to 1.15) 0.94* (0.89 to 0.99)

Casual Sex

Yes/No 0.91 (0.67 to 1.24) 1.04 (0.72 to 1.50)

Count 1.17 (0.90 to 1.52) 0.75 (0.54 to 1.05)

Sex While Drunk/High 1.06 (0.96 to 1.17) 0.78*** (0.70 to 0.87)

Impaired Driving


Yes/No 1.50 (0.70 to 3.23) 0.74 (0.24 to 2.03)

Count 0.76 (0.46 to 1.26) 1.11 (0.59 to 2.09)

Riding With Drunk Driver 0.99 (0.90 to 1.09) 0.90 (0.81 to 1.00)

Risk Behavior American Identifications OR/IRR (95% CI)

Heritage Identifications OR/IRR (95% CI)

Illicit Drug Use

Marijuana Use

Yes/No 0.90 (0.78 to 1.04) 0.96 (0.83 to 1.11)

Count 0.88** (0.80 to 0.96) 0.94 (0.85 to 1.04)

Hard Drug Use

Yes/No 0.95 (0.87 to 1.04) 0.67** (0.53 to 0.86)

Count 1.08 (0.91 to 1.29) 0.91 (0.76 to 1.09)

Inhalant Use

Yes/No 1.04 (0.76 to 1.41) 0.88 (0.68 to 1.13)

Count 0.91 (0.67 to 1.23) 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58)


Yes/No 0.98 (0.74 to 1.30) 0.70* (0.52 to 0.93)

Count 0.83 (0.66 to 1.05) 1.21 (0.93 to 1.59)

Risk Behavior American IdentificationsOR/IRR (95% CI)

Heritage IdentificationsOR/IRR (95% CI)


Oral Sex 0.97 (0.92 to 1.02) 1.00 (0.95 to 1.06)

Anal Sex

Yes/No 0.91 (0.76 to 1.10) 0.94 (0.76 to 1.17)

Count 0.88 (0.74 to 1.05) 1.09 (0.93 to 1.28)


Casual Sex

Yes/No 0.89 (0.71 to 1.11) 1.11 (0.87 to 1.42)

Count 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) 0.82* (0.69 to 0.98)

Sex While Drunk/High 0.90* (0.82 to 0.98) 0.92 (0.84 to 1.02)

Impaired Driving


Yes/No 1.39* (1.03 to 1.88) 0.81 (0.58 to 1.13)

Count 0.80* (0.66 to 0.97) 1.02 (0.82 to 1.27)

Riding With Drunk Driver 0.96 (0.87 to 1.05) 0.96 (0.87 to 1.07)

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 one’s health.”

Documents

AN EXPANDED VIEW OF ACCULTURATION: