Immigrant Youth: Acculturation, Identity, and Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente plusieurs des principaux résultats d’une grande étude internationale sur l’acculturation et l’adaptation de jeunes immigrés (âgés de 13 à 18 ans) qui se sont implantés dans treize pays ( N = 5,366); il y est adjoint un échantillon de jeunes nationaux ( N = 2,631). La recherche s’appuyait sur trois questions centrales: comment les jeunes migrants gèrent‐ils le processus d’acculturation? Comment parviennent‐ils à s’adapter? Et y a‐t‐il un lien manifeste entre la forme d’acculturation et le succès de l’adaptation? L’analyse en clusters déboucha sur quatre profils d’acculturation: intégrateur, ethnique, national et diffus. L’analyse factorielle de cinq variables d’adaptation mit en évidence deux types d’adaptation: psychologique et socioculturel. Il existe une forte relation entre la façon dont les jeunes s’acculturent et leur adaptation: ceux qui présentent un profil intégrateur bénéficient des meilleurs indicateurs d’adaptations psychologique et socioculturelle alors que ceux souffrant d’un profil diffus ont les pires. Entre les deux, le profil ethnique présente une adaptation psychologique relativement bonne et une adaptation socioculturelle plutôt pauvre, tandis que le profil national a une adaptation psychologique relativement pauvre et une adaptation socioculturelle légèrement négative. Cette configuration de résultats fut en grande partie retrouvée à travers une modélisation en équation structurelle. Les conséquences pour l’implantation des jeunes immigrés sont claires: ils devraient être encouragés à préserver l’appartenance à leur culture d’origine tout en établissant des liens étroits avec la société d’accueil. This paper reports some of the main findings from a large international study of the acculturation and adaptation of immigrant youth (aged 13 to 18 years) who are settled in 13 societies ( N = 5,366), as well as a sample of national youth ( N = 2,631). The study was guided by three core questions: How do immigrant youth deal with the process of acculturation? How well do they adapt? Are there important relationships between how they acculturate and how well they adapt? Cluster analysis produced four distinct acculturation profiles: integration , ethnic , national , and diffuse . Factor analysis of five adaptation variables revealed two distinct forms of adaptation: psychological and sociocultural . There were substantial relationships between how youth acculturate and how well they adapt: those with an integration profile had the best psychological and sociocultural adaptation outcomes, while those with a diffuse profile had the worst; in between, those with an ethnic profile had moderately good psychological adaptation but poorer sociocultural adaptation, while those with a national profile had moderately poor psychological adaptation, and slightly negative sociocultural adaptation. This pattern of results was largely replicated using structural equation modeling. Implications for the settlement of immigrant youth are clear: youth should be encouraged to retain both a sense of their own heritage cultural identity, while establishing close ties with the larger national society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".