Family Support Differences Between Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Adolescents Across 30 Countries: Examining the Moderating Role of Cultural Distance, Culture of Origin, and Reception in Receiving Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differing theoretical indications suggest that immigrant adolescents’ perceptions of family support will either be lower or higher than those of their non-immigrant peers. To unravel this inconsistency, current cross-national study examines family support differences between first- and second-generation immigrant and non-immigrant adolescents. It also investigates how these differences vary based on restrictive integration policies, anti-immigrant attitudes, and immigrant density in the receiving country, the obedience orientation of the origin country, and the cultural distance in obedience orientation between the origin- and receiving country. Cross-classified multilevel regression analyses were conducted on data from the 2017 to 2018 Health Behavior in School-aged Children survey with a national representative sample of adolescents from 178 origin countries in 30 receiving countries across Europe, Central Asia, and in Israel. Results revealed the variance in family support was small at the level of the origin country (0.73%) and the community (1.24%), while modest at the receiving country level (10.91%). Family support was slightly lower for adolescents of both immigrant generations compared with non-immigrant adolescents, with greater differences for first-than for second-generation immigrants (respectively d = .16 and d = .02). Differences in family support were unrelated to restrictive integration policies, anti-immigrant attitudes, immigrant density, or obedience orientation. However, family support for second-generation immigrant adolescents decreased more compared with non-immigrants when their cultural distance was greater. Concluding, immigrant adolescents’ lower family support, may reflect their exposure to more stressors than non-immigrants. Cultural distance can amplify these stressors, thereby affecting family support for some immigrants more than others.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".