Motivation for Ethno-Cultural Continuity as a Predictor of Acculturation and Adaptation in Two Generations of Latvian Russians

Abstract

This article presents the results of empirical research on the relationship of motivation for ethno-cultural continuity (MEC) and strategies of acculturation among two generations of the Russian minority in Latvia. We sampled 107 Russian families (mothers: N = 107, age = 35-59, M = 42 years; late adolescents and youth: N = 107, age = 16-24, M = 17 years). The questionnaire included measures of motivation for ethno-cultural continuity, acculturation strategies, sociocultural adaptation, and self-esteem. A path model showed that motivation for ethno-cultural continuity, preference for assimilation, self-esteem, and sociocultural adaptation of mothers significantly related to those of their children. A motivation for ethno-cultural continuity of mothers predicted their preference for integration and self-esteem, while a motivation for ethno-cultural continuity of adolescents predicted their preference for separation. Preference for integration promoted better sociocultural adaptation and self-esteem in both generations. The results allowed consideration of the process of acculturation on the three interrelated levels: individual, family, and ethnic group, with the central role of the family, teaching younger generations to maintain heritage culture and successfully integrate in the larger society.

Keywords

motivation for ethno-cultural continuity acculturation adaptation ethnic minorities integration well-being

Cultural diversity has become typical for many countries, and acculturation studies pay much attention to the adaptation of different ethnic groups’ members to their life in culturally diverse societies. Past studies demonstrated that attitudes toward culture maintenance along with participation in intercultural contacts result in more successful sociocultural and psychological adaptation in comparison with cultural loss or rejection of contacts with members of other ethnic groups (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006).

Family is one of the main sources of ethnic culture maintenance during the process of acculturation of migrants and ethnic minorities. Therefore, we should take into account that acculturation preferences of children might depend on the desire and readiness of parents to transmit a heritage culture to their children as well as on acculturation preferences of parents themselves. How does such motivation for ethno-cultural continuity (MEC) contribute to acculturation preferences and quality of sociocultural and psychological adaptation of ethnic minorities? What are its within-generational and intergenerational effects? Our study focuses on the impact of motivation for ethno-cultural continuity on acculturation preferences and in turn, both of the above on the sociocultural and psychological adaptation of mothers and youth from Russian families in Latvia.

Acculturation Preferences and Adaptation

According to the theory of acculturation (Berry, 1990), individuals have to deal with two central issues: the extent to which they are motivated or allowed to maintain identification and involvement with their ethnic culture, and the extent to which they are motivated or allowed to identify and participate in mainstream culture and society. Positive and negative orientations of migrants or ethnic minorities’ members toward maintaining ethnic culture and toward contact with a wider society could be combined in four different acculturation strategies: integration, separation, assimilation, and marginalization (Berry, 1990). Integration is the most preferable strategy of acculturation because it associates with successful psychological and sociocultural adaptation and attracts resources from both communities (Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013).

Nevertheless, other strategies might be beneficial under some specific conditions. For instance, separation plays an adaptive role in countries with assimilation policies because perceived discrimination increases the need for support from one’s own ethnic group. Separation provides a successful adaptation in countries with high cultural diversity and impedes adaptation in culturally homogeneous countries. Assimilation might also promote socioeconomic adaptation, but only at the beginning of the acculturation process in culturally diverse countries (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Horenczyk, & Kinunen, 2011). From an adaptation perspective, marginalization seems to be the least preferable strategy (Berry et al., 2006; Berry & Sabatier, 2010, 2011; Ward, 2008). Moreover, it was described not as a strategy that is consciously chosen, but as the result of a lack of individual agency in the acculturative context, having negative consequences for individuals, groups, and societies (Gezentsvey & Ward, 2008).

Motivation for Ethno-Cultural Continuity

Besides the success of adaptation, preferences for different acculturation strategies might have different outcomes at group level. If most minority group members

. . . acculturate to the dominant society, and if they also fail to teach their children and grandchildren minority culture ways, then the minority group may be assimilated by the dominant society and cease to exist as a coherent cultural group. (Rudmin, 2010, p. 300)

From this perspective, two strategies, integration and separation, can be considered as contributing to the vitality of a group and temporal group continuity. Furthermore, the loss of one’s own culture can lead to negative consequences at an individual level, because a sense of collective continuity provides a sense of existential security (Sani, Herrera, & Bowe, 2009). Findings from international studies demonstrate positive psychological outcomes of maintaining ethnic culture for youth from minorities’ families at the individual level (Colquhoun & Dockery, 2012; Hallett, Chandler, & Lalonde, 2007; Moeke-Pickering, 1996). Individuals who felt particularly connected to their ethnic, religious, and familial identity report greater well-being (Dimitrova, Chasiotis, Bender, & van de Vijver, 2014).

Because the process of acculturation involves not only the reaction to the environment but also personal choice, we should take into account the motivation and activity of the individuals (Gezentsvey & Ward, 2008). In our study, we focused on the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity that is “a measure that captures the active engagement of ethno-cultural group members in cultural endurance” (Gezentsvey Lamy, Ward, & Liu, 2013, p. 1048), and its relationships with acculturation preferences. MEC reflects the individual agency on the level of a group’s acculturation in terms of transmitting the culture of an ethnic group.

For the current study, it is important to note that the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity could be associated with maintaining the cultural heritage of an ethnic group and might influence the personal choice of acculturation strategy and the quality of sociocultural and psychological adaptation. We can assume that such motivation might facilitate the choice of strategies associated with culture maintenance (integration and separation) and prevent the choice of strategies associated with culture loss (assimilation and marginalization). The only empirical study conducted in the multicultural context of New Zealand did not find the relationship between MEC and assimilation (Gezentsvey Lamy et al., 2013). We suppose that in other types of contexts, for instance, in the face of perceived threats to the cultural identity of minority group members, the relationship of MEC and acculturation preferences will manifest itself.

Intergenerational Transmission and Acculturation

To contribute to ethno-cultural longevity research, it is important to study whether motivation for ethno-cultural continuity and strategies of migrants and minorities are transmitted to younger generations. Does parental motivation for ethno-cultural continuity and acculturation preferences contribute to those of their children as well as to the quality of their adaptation?

Sabatier and Berry (2008) have observed the direct effect of parental acculturation orientations on the psychological and sociocultural adaptation of their children among migrant families in the French context (with higher perceived discrimination), but not in the Canadian context (with multicultural attitudes). Perceived discrimination has been found to be an important predictor of how well immigrant youth adapt both psychologically and socioculturally to their life in a new society (Berry et al., 2006). When adolescents perceive that they are targets of discrimination, their psychological well-being decreases (Gil, Vega, & Dimas, 1994; Virta, Sam, & Westin, 2004). The study conducted in Estonia revealed that participation in Estonian culture and the orientation of Russians to the Russian culture’s maintenance, which are both relevant to the successful integration, predicted positive outcomes only when group devaluation was perceived as low (Kus-Harbord & Ward, 2015).

Some protective factors, for example, ethnic or family pride, attitudes of acculturation, ethnic density in the social network, parental and friends’ support, and attachment to parents might reduce either the perception of discrimination or the effect of this perception on well-being (Gil et al., 1994; Jasinskaja-Lahti & Liebkind, 2001). Family, which is the first instance of socialization, where children and adolescents acquire a sense of self-worth and learn social relationships and values, plays a pivotal role in the adaptation of adolescents born into immigrant families to the life in mainstream society (Sabatier, 1991). The acculturation orientation of each family member interacts with the orientations of other members, and may influence the adaptation of the family as a whole. Studies on second-generation adolescents usually neglect this view (Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1993; Vatz-Laaroussi, 2001) as Sabatier and Berry (2008) have noted.

Immigrant parents try to adapt to new surroundings by seeking a balance between the need for cultural continuity within the family and the need to conform to the new demands and constraints of the environment (Camilleri & Malewska-Peyre, 1997; Sabatier, 1991). It seems they look for a strategy of integration to fulfill these different needs. From this perspective, the inevitable contribution of the acculturation orientations of parents and their motivation for ethno-cultural continuity to the adaptation of their children should be taken into consideration.

Overall, the contribution of parents to the psychological and sociocultural adaptation of their adolescents depends on different aspects of family life, daily cultural practices, the ease of the parent–adolescent relationship, and the transmission of knowledge and values (Sabatier & Berry, 2008). Among the crucial issues for second-generation adolescents is the balance between their own ethnic and the host nations’ values.

Very few studies examined the relationships between acculturation orientations and indicators of adaptation in intergenerational perspective. It is important to note that there is a gender-related specificity in parental influence on their offspring’s acculturation. Some authors mentioned the pivotal role of mothers in youth development: Maternal ethnic socialization contributes to shaping youths’ identity processes (Hughes, Hahelskamp, Way, & Foust, 2009); mothers play a major role in transmitting cultural values to their offspring (Bao, Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Conger, 1999; Verkuyten, Thijs, & Stevens, 2012). Mothers are generally considered the most influential socializing agent in children’s development of ethnic and religious identity (Verkuyten et al., 2012).

In the study conducted in France, both mothers and fathers contributed to the transmission process with some differences: Mothers were responsible for the transmission of ethnic heritage, while fathers for the transmission of the new recently acquired competences and the links with the host society (Sabatier, 2013). Thus, compared with fathers, mothers’ impact in transmitting cultural values and practices to their offspring is much stronger (Bao et al., 1999). Mother’s collective identity showed a strong, positive association with adolescent’s collective identity; the same was true for well-being in Roma families in Eastern Europe (Dimitrova et al., 2014). However, the role of transmission of acculturation attitudes as well as motivation for ethno-cultural continuity in an intergenerational perspective is still an unexplored domain and needs further empirical studies in different cultural contexts.

Current Study

Our current study focuses on the impact of MEC on acculturation preferences of mothers and youth from Russian families in Latvia. How does sociocultural and psychological adaptation of minority members depend on MEC and acculturation preferences? In addition, we focused on the effects of interfamilial transmission of MEC as well as acculturation and adaptation from mothers to their offspring.

Russians in Latvia

After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, many ethnic Russians found themselves outside of the borders of Russia. The sociopolitical and psychological status of Russians dramatically changed, they became an ethnic minority in new independent states, despite the fact that most of them were born there and regarded these countries (including Latvia) as their native land. According to statistics, in 2013, the population of Latvia was 2,023,825, and 530,419 (i.e., 26.2%) of the population were ethnic Russians (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2014). The majority of Russians settled in Latvia after World War II. This migration was a part of internal labor migration inside the USSR, and resulted in the decrease of the proportion of ethnic Latvians from 76% to 77% in 1935 to 52% in 1989 (Cara, 2010; Ivlevs, 2013). Russian migrants were and are employed mostly in industry and construction. Therefore, they are overwhelmingly city dwellers until now (Schmid, 2008).

After Latvia regained independence in the 1990s, most Russians who lived in the Latvian Soviet republic in 1991, but were not descendants of Latvia’s citizens before 1940, have not received Latvian citizenship. In 2005, only 50% of Russians were citizens of Latvia, and the rest were noncitizens or aliens (Cara, 2006). Nevertheless, the process of naturalization of noncitizens became more rapid after Latvia joined the European Union. This was due to a softening of the citizenship policy, which was a result of criticism from the European international community, as well as a desire of noncitizens to obtain citizenship to access the possibilities of European labor opportunities (Ivlevs & King, 2012). According to the information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, the percentage of noncitizens dropped to 12% (262,622) in 2015, compared with 29% (approximately 730,000) in 1995 when the naturalization process began. Nowadays, 84% of Latvia’s population has Latvian citizenship (“Basic Facts . . . ,” 2015).

Apart from the citizenship, the second sensitive issue for Latvian Russians is Russian language usage. When Latvia was a part of the USSR, Latvian and Russian were the two official languages. Russian was a language of intercultural communication, and even dominated in some sectors of economics and public life (Ivlevs, 2013). Before the 1990s, Latvia introduced the segregated system of schooling: Ethnic Latvians attended schools with Latvian as the language of instruction; Russian speakers preferred schools with Russian as the language of instruction. In independent Latvia, only Latvian became the official language, and Russians had to adapt linguistically as well (Cara, 2010). In 2004, the “60/40” law was passed stipulating that 60% of instruction at schools with the Russian language of instruction must take place in Latvian (Ivlevs & King, 2014; Schmid, 2008). Although the law was intended to accelerate the process of linguistic integration of Russians, the attitudes of the Russian speakers toward the school reform had been quite negative due to the perceived threat of assimilation and concerns about the deterioration of the quality of education in schools with the Russian language of instruction. Positive results of the reform did not become so apparent: Latvian language proficiency slightly increased; however, the Russian pupils’ sense of belonging to Latvia declined (Ivlevs & King, 2014). Surveys showed that despite the positive attitude of Russian speakers toward learning the Latvian language, many of them had reported fears of assimilation. Experts noted the “one-sided approach” to integration by Latvian authorities, who emphasized the need for minorities to learn the Latvian language and Latvia’s history and culture, but ignored the need to maintain the minority culture and identity. The assimilationist tendencies of such integration policy affected the sense of belonging in minority groups as well as the perception of cultural threat in both Latvian and Russian communities. In a 2006 study, 34% of Russian-speaking respondents claimed that the Russian language and culture in Latvia is under “somewhat of a threat,” and 35% of the Latvian respondents claimed that the Latvian language and culture in Latvia is under “somewhat of a threat” (Muiznieks, Rozenvalds, & Birka, 2013). This leads to mutual fears and misunderstanding instead of mutual trust and national integration. Nevertheless, according to the research, young generations of Latvian Russians prefer an integration strategy of acculturation, followed by separation, with marginalization being the least preferred one (Cara, 2006, 2010).

In our study, we regard family not only as one of the main sources of socialization but as an important agent of acculturation of different generations of migrants and minorities. From such a perspective, the process of acculturation takes place on the three interrelated levels: individual, family, and ethnic group. Each level has its own specifics, plays its important role, and needs special research attention. We try to investigate the family (mostly a motherly) role in the offspring’s acculturation and adaptation in our study. Based on the abovementioned research (Dimitrova et al., 2014; Sabatier & Berry, 2008; Verkuyten et al., 2012), we suppose that maternal motivation for ethno-cultural continuity, acculturation attitudes, sociocultural adaptation, and well-being might be transmitted to those of youth in minority families.

Adaptation as the acculturation’s outcome has two main components: psychological and sociocultural (Ward, 1996). Psychological adaptation refers to an individual’s personal sense of well-being. In our recent study, we examine the psychological adaptation of minority adolescents in terms of general self-esteem. Sociocultural adaptation refers to how well individuals are able to function in their daily lives in school or at work and in the larger society in general. In this study, we examine skills of interpersonal communication, language proficiency, personal interests, community involvement, and ecological adaptation (Wilson, 2013). Further details are provided in the “Method and Procedure” section.

The aim of our study was threefold. First, we wanted to test the suggestion that MEC relates to acculturation preferences within both parental and offspring’s generations. Second, we wanted to explore whether acculturation preferences and MEC of mothers correspond with those of their children (late adolescents/youth). Third, we wanted to investigate whether MEC and acculturation preferences influence psychological and sociocultural adaptation within and between generations of Latvian Russians.

Most of the hypotheses proposed below are based on the research mentioned above, but some of them are proposed and tested for the first time. We divided the research hypotheses into two groups: the first group reflects the processes occurring at the individual level within both generations, the second group reflects the intergenerational process level within the family.

Research hypotheses. Within generations, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: MEC positively relates to separation and integration, and negatively relates to marginalization and assimilation in both generations.

Hypothesis 2: MEC positively relates to self-esteem in both generations.

Hypothesis 3: A strategy of integration promotes better sociocultural adaptation and higher self-esteem in both generations.

Hypothesis 4: Strategies of assimilation, separation, and marginalization negatively relate to sociocultural adaptation and self-esteem in both generations.

Between generations, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 5: MEC of mothers positively relates to MEC of youth.

Hypothesis 6: Acculturation preferences of mothers positively relate to the same preferences of youth.

Hypothesis 7: Self-esteem of mothers positively relates to the self-esteem of youth.

Hypothesis 8: Sociocultural adaptation of mothers positively relates to sociocultural adaptation of youth.

We present the hypothesized relationships in the model to be tested in our research for four acculturation strategies (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Theoretical model of how MEC and acculturation preferences affect self-esteem and sociocultural adaptation within and across generations (along research hypotheses).

Method and Procedure

We used a research design that includes representatives of two generations of the same family (mothers and late adolescents/youth), surveyed by interviewers in small groups (classes) or in families. Participants were informed that participation was voluntary, and that responses were anonymous.

Participants

This study was conducted among Russian ethnic minority families living in Riga, Latvia. Students, psychologists of The Baltic Psychology and Management University College during their traineeship at schools and universities under the supervision of Prof. Plotka, surveyed members of Russian families. Together with the schools’ administration, they organized special meetings with pupils and provided them with letters of invitation to participate in the study on acculturation of Russians in Latvia. These letters were delivered by youth to their parents. Youth from the families that agreed to participate in the study were interviewed in classrooms. Parents filled the questionnaires during specially organized meetings or at home. Questionnaires from eight families were removed due to damage. Finally, the study involved 107 mothers (age = 35-59 years, M = 42 years; 76.6% born in Latvia; 49.5% have a higher education; 35.5%, nonuniversity post-secondary professional education; 12.1%, secondary education), and 107 late adolescents/youth (age = 16-24 years, M = 17 years; 68.2% females; 95.3% born in Latvia).

Measures

All measures were rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale. The scales were formed by averaging their corresponding items. A group of Russian–English bilinguals did the translation of the scale of motivation for ethno-cultural continuity using a committee approach. Other scales were translated into Russian and adapted for use in previous studies in Russia (Lebedeva & Tatarko, 2009).

Motivation for ethno-cultural continuity (MEC)

The original scale consisted of 10 items (Gezentsvey Lamy et al., 2013). To test the construct validity of the scale in two generations, we used multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). Goodness-of-fit indexes indicated that a model that consisted of five items fits the data adequately: relative chi-square CMIN/DF = 2.68; comparative fit index (CFI) = .97; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05; ΔCFI = .003 (factor loadings for each item are presented in the appendix). Examples of the items are “Long term, I would like my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to continue our Russian heritage” and “I want to transmit to my children a love for and interest in their Russian heritage” (α_youth = .89, α_mothers = .89).

In addition, we used two scales of the MIRIPS (Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies) project questionnaire: acculturation strategies and self-esteem. The complete MIRIPS questionnaire and scoring keys are available on the project website: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cacr/research/mirips

Acculturation strategies

This scale had 16 items, with four items for each of the acculturation strategies: integration (“It is important to me to be fluent in both Latvian language and in Russian language”; α_youth = .82, α_mothers = .67), assimilation (“It is more important to me to be fluent in Latvian than in Russian language”; α_youth = .73, α_mothers = .86), separation (“It is more important to me to be fluent in Russian than in Latvian language”; α_youth = .74, α_mothers = .64), and marginalization (“It is not important to me to be fluent in Latvian than in Russian language”; α_youth = .49, α_mothers = .56).

Self-esteem

The scale consisted of four items (α_youth = .87, α_mothers = .83) from Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). For example, “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I am able to do things as well as most other people.”

Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCA)

The scale included seven items from the Revised Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCA-R; Wilson, 2013; α_youth = .87, α_mothers = .85). The items measured self ratings of difficulties in interpersonal communication skills (“Building and maintaining relationships” and “Changing my behaviour to suit social norms, rules, attitudes, beliefs, and customs”), language proficiency (“Understanding and speaking National language”), personal interests and community involvement (“Maintaining my hobbies and interests” and “Attending or participating in community activities”), and ecological adaptation (“Adapting to the pace of life”).

Data Processing

To test the predicted model, we followed a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach (Kline, 1998), using MPlus, Version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). Due to nonnormal distribution of some variables (e.g., integration), the robust maximum likelihood (MLM) estimator was used (Byrne, 2012). We performed the path analyses for each acculturation strategy separately.

Results

Table 1 presents mean comparison of the main variables.

Table 1.

Mean Comparison of the Main Variables.

	Mothers		Youth
	M	SD	M	SD
MEC	4.19***	0.72	3.76***	0.86
Integration	4.06	0.69	4.01	0.83
Assimilation	1.69	0.82	1.79	0.80
Separation	2.65	0.85	2.66	0.97
Marginalization	2.12	0.73	2.27	0.73
Self-esteem	4.13	0.67	4.11	0.82
Sociocultural adaptation	3.90	0.70	3.79	0.80

Note. MEC = motivation for ethno-cultural continuity.

***

p < .001.

As can be seen in Table 1, youths and mothers differ in their MEC: It is higher among mothers (t = 3.96, p < .001). No intergenerational differences in acculturation attitudes, self-esteem, and the level of sociocultural adaptation were found. The results show that integration is the most preferable acculturation strategy by both mothers and youths, followed by separation and marginalization preferences. The least preferable strategy is assimilation.

We have tested the hypothesized relationships for each of the four acculturation strategies. Fit measures showed a good model fit for all path models (χ² = 9.33, df = 14, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .04, for integration; χ² = 15.98, df = 14, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05, for separation; χ² = 15.34, df = 14, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03, SRMR = .04, for assimilation; χ² = 12.82, df = 14, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .05, for marginalization).

To compare impacts of motivation for ethno-cultural continuity and acculturation strategies on sociocultural and psychological adaptation within generations, we summarized the relationships between variables obtained by path analyses for each acculturation preference in the Table 2.

Table 2.

Standardized Regression Coefficients for the Relationships Between Variables Within Generations.

Relationship	Integration		Separation		Assimilation		Marginalization
Relationship	Mothers	Youth	Mothers	Youth	Mothers	Youth	Mothers	Youth
MEC → acculturation preference	.24*	.07	−.06	.32***	−.45***	−.32***	−.17	−.31***
MEC → self-esteem	.32***	.11	.37***	.18	.17	.05	.33***	.05
Acculturation → self-esteem	.29***	.27**	−.18*	−.21**	−.51***	−.23	−.33***	−.27**
Acculturation → sociocultural adaptation	.25**	.21*	−.18*	−.16	−.27*	−.18	−.30***	−.15

Note. MEC = motivation for ethno-cultural continuity.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

We can see that in both generations, MEC was positively related to the strategy of integration, but this relationship was significant only in the sample of mothers (β_mothers = .24, p < .05). Instead, we obtained a positive relationship between MEC and preference for separation among the youth (β_youth = .32, p < .001). We also obtained negative relationships of MEC with the assimilation strategy in both generations (β_mothers = −.45, p < .001; β_youth = −.32, p < .001), and with the marginalization strategy in the youth sample (β_youth = −.31, p < .001).

Thus, our Hypothesis 1 was fully confirmed in both generations, but with some differences. It has been confirmed for integration in the sample of mothers and for separation and marginalization in the youth sample. Negative relations of MEC with the assimilation strategy in both generations coincided.

Our second hypothesis proposed the positive relations of MEC with self-esteem in both generations. The results of our study have demonstrated that in all the models, except the assimilation, MEC of mothers positively related to their self-esteem, but such relationships were nonsignificant in the youth sample.

Our results supported Hypothesis 3: The strategy of integration promoted higher self-esteem (β_mothers = .29, p < .001; β_youth = .27, p < .01) and better sociocultural adaptation (β_mothers = .25, p < .01; β_youth = .21, p < .05) in both generations. In line with Hypothesis 4, we obtained negative relations between separation and self-esteem (β_mothers = −.18, p < .05; β_youth = −.21, p < .01), and between marginalization and self-esteem (β_mothers = −.33, p < .001; β_youth = −.27, p < .01) in both generations. The relations between assimilation and self-esteem were negative also, but did not reach required level of significance in the sample of youth (β_mothers = −.51, p < .001; β_youth = −.23, p = .07). We revealed negative relations between separation and sociocultural adaptation (β_mothers = −.18, p < .05), between assimilation and sociocultural adaptation (β_mothers = −.27, p < .05), and between marginalization and sociocultural adaptation (β_mothers = −.30, p < .001) in the sample of mothers. Thus, we can conclude that Hypothesis 4 was fully supported in mothers, while it was partially supported in the sample of youth. To compare the relationships of MEC, acculturation strategies, and sociocultural and psychological adaptation between generations, we present relationships obtained by path analysis for each acculturation preference in Table 3.

Table 3.

Standardized Regression Coefficients of the Between-Generational Relationships of Variables in Different Acculturation Models.

Relationship	Integration	Separation	Assimilation	Marginalization
MEC of mothers → MEC of youth	.41***	.41***	.41***	.41***
Acculturation of mothers → acculturation of youth	.08	.15	.39***	.06
Self-esteem of mothers → self-esteem of youth	.40***	.41**	.37*	.37**
Sociocultural adaptation of mothers → sociocultural adaptation of youth	.32**	.32**	.29**	.31**

Note. MEC = motivation for ethno-cultural continuity.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In concordance with the hypotheses of intergenerational level (Hypotheses 5, 7, and 8), we have found cross-generational (mothers–youth) positive relationships for MEC (β = .41, p < .001), self-esteem (β_integration = .40, p < .001; β_separation = .41, p < .01; β_assimilation = .37, p < .05; β_{marginalization} = .37, p < .01), and sociocultural adaptation (β_integration = .32, p < .01; β_separation = .32, p < .01; β_assimilation = .29, p < .01; β_{marginalization} = .31, p < .01).

Thus, our hypotheses of between-generational level, Hypotheses 5, 7, and 8, were fully supported. Hypothesis 6 that proposed the positive relations between mothers–youth acculturation preferences was supported partially. The only preference for assimilation in mothers was positively related to the preference for assimilation in youth (β_assimilation = .39, p < .001). Other maternal acculturation preferences did not predict the acculturation preferences of youth.

Discussion

Acculturation studies need further development of knowledge about predictors of successful acculturation at individual, family, and group levels, because all these levels depend on each other and contribute to a person’s adaptation and well-being as well as cultural group longevity and plural societies smooth functioning. Empirical studies demonstrated that perceptions of collective continuity related to social well-being, and this relationship was mediated by a collective self-esteem (Sani, Bowe, & Herrera, 2008). These collective (group and family) levels are underestimated in the acculturation studies, and until now, our knowledge is limited and needs more research that is detailed.

In our current research, we have studied the relationships of MEC with acculturation preferences and their consequences such as sociocultural and psychological adaptation within and between two generations of ethnic Russians living in Latvia. All four “within generations” hypotheses were partially confirmed by the results. The results showed that MEC positively but differently related to the two acculturation preferences directed on culture maintenance—integration in the mothers and separation in the youth. In addition, MEC negatively related to the assimilation preference in both generations, and to the marginalization preference of youth. Our results are not consistent with results of the New Zealand study (Gezentsvey Lamy et al., 2013), that did not find relations of MEC with assimilation. We can suppose that due to the multicultural policy of this country, the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity itself as well as its impact on acculturation preferences of minority group members might not be very strong. In the case of Latvian Russians, for whom the necessity to preserve their culture is acute due to perceived fear of assimilation (Ivlevs & King, 2014; Muiznieks et al., 2013), we revealed significant relationships of MEC and all four strategies of acculturation in both generations. The negative relationships between MEC and assimilation, as well as between MEC and marginalization, suggested that the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity prevented the loss of culture in both generations in accordance with the meaning of this construct (Gezentsvey Lamy et al., 2013).

The worrying fact that, in youth, MEC provides the preference for separation means that the motivation for the vitality of their cultural group for the younger generation is connected not with the choice of more successful integration strategy, but with the maintenance of heritage culture combined with rejection of contacts and participation in the larger society. This might be the consequence of the “60/40” law implementation in 2004 that decreased the Latvian language usage in everyday communication among Russians (Cara, 2010) and reduced the Russian pupils’ sense of belonging to Latvia (Ivlevs & King, 2014).

Some studies mentioned an adaptive role of a separation acculturation attitude in the particular acculturative contexts (e.g., assimilation policies, perceived discrimination) that increases the need of immigrants for ethnic community support (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2011). If parents try to adapt to changed surroundings by seeking a balance between the need for cultural continuity and the need to conform to the new demands of the environment (Camilleri & Malewska-Peyre, 1997; Sabatier, 1991), adolescents in the situation of perceived discrimination might prefer less effective pattern of acculturation with poorer psychological outcomes (Gil et al., 1994; Virta et al., 2004). In our study, the separation strategy did not associate with positive outcomes, such as self-esteem and successful sociocultural adaptation. Perhaps young people realize that separation is not the best strategy, but lack of multicultural policy in Latvia (Muiznieks et al., 2013) does not provide cultural maintenance in the frame of integration, only adoption. In this case, the cultural maintenance becomes an individual or a family deal. There are some parallels in previous research of intercultural relations in Estonia that might also shed light on our results. In Berry’s (1997) terms, the Estonian formulation of integration policy only incorporates the participation dimension, and the political terminology of integration is much closer to the strategy of assimilation. The ethnically connoted nation–state model equates integration with forced assimilation, and as the majority of Estonian Russians do not wish to assimilate, integration for them means “something to avoid” (Kruusvall, Vetik, & Berry, 2009). Our results are in concordance with the study of Kus-Harbord and Ward (2015), who demonstrated that both participation of Russians in Estonian culture and the orientation to the Russian culture’s maintenance predicted positive outcomes only when group devaluation was perceived as low that is not the case in Latvia.

In line with the findings of previous studies on acculturation (Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013; Sam & Berry, 2006), we found the positive relationship of the integration strategy with successful sociocultural adaptation in mothers and higher self-esteem in both generations. Preferences for separation, assimilation, and marginalization had negative impacts on self-esteem in both generations.

This research is the first in which the relatively new construct of motivation for ethno-cultural continuity was used to study the process of acculturation of ethnic minorities in an intergenerational perspective at the family level. We tested how the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity of parents and their strategies of acculturation relate to the strategies of acculturation of youth as well as their sociocultural and psychological adaptation. Our study revealed that the motivation of mothers to preserve their ethnic culture had positive impact on the motivation for the ethno-cultural continuity of youth but had no effect on the youth’s acculturation preferences. Such results mean that MEC could be transmitted to younger generations within families. However, we have mixed results about intergenerational transmission of acculturation preferences. In our research, the only preference for assimilation among youths was determined by their mothers’ preference for assimilation, no other acculturation preferences of youth were predicted by the same preferences of their mothers. Sociocultural adaptation and self-esteem of mothers and youth are positively correlated with each other, and these findings are novel for intergenerational studies. Previous research has found the mother–adolescents relationships of life satisfaction in Roma families (Dimitrova et al., 2014).

We can conclude that our within-generational hypotheses have received at least partial support: MEC promoted acculturation strategies directed on cultural maintenance (integration and separation) and prevented the strategies that implied cultural loss (assimilation and marginalization) in both generations. MEC also positively related to the self-esteem of mothers in cases of integration, separation, and marginalization, but not in the youth. The strategy of integration promoted better sociocultural adaptation and higher self-esteem, while other strategies (assimilation, separation, and marginalization) negatively related to sociocultural and psychological adaptation in both generations.

As to the intergenerational level, our data fully support all the hypotheses except Hypothesis 6, postulated that acculturation preferences of parents positively relate to the same preferences of their children. MEC and sociocultural and psychological adaptation of parents were positively related to those of their children. As to acculturation preferences, mothers and youth in Russian families in Latvia share the only low preference for assimilation. These results supported the idea about collective (at least at the family level) way of acculturation of ethnic minorities rather than individual paths. At the same time, lack of direct relations between maternal and youth acculturation preferences suggests that there is room for individual agency of youth despite the inevitable influence of the family.

In our study, mothers transmit to their children high MEC and low preference for assimilation. Low preference for assimilation means higher focus on ethnic culture maintenance and in this sense, our results do not contradict the previous studies that revealed the pivotal role of mothers in maintenance of cultural heritage in their offspring (Dimitrova et al., 2014; Sabatier & Berry, 2008).

Nevertheless, successful adaptation means not only cultural maintenance but also the adoption to mainstream culture and society. How can minorities’ parents help their children to follow integration in the context perceived as devaluating their ethnic culture? According to Szapocznik and Kurtines (1993) and Vatz-Laaroussi (2001), a family in which parents accept the values of the national society and adolescents accept the cultural values of their parents can be considered as an open system, and, as a consequence, a healthy condition for psychological adaptation. Minority youth have to deal with several cultural systems, the system of the national society and the one of their parents’ culture of origin besides the common developmental tasks of achieving a balance between individuation and familial connectedness (Sabatier & Berry, 2008). The family is at the core of the process of acculturation and adaptation of youth and adolescents from migrant’ and minorities’ families as well as national educational and social systems. We share the concern of Sabatier and Berry, based on the results of their study in France, about the programs “that have to support parents in their role as educators if we wish second-generation adolescents to contribute in an active and positive way to the collective life of the evolving national society” (Sabatier & Berry, 2008, p. 181). The mainstream society should help minority families to teach younger generations to achieve a balance between ethnic heritage and national cultures in the process of their socialization.

Our study has some serious limitations. The main limitation is a relatively small sample size: 107 families (units of analysis) in the models with eight observed variables. However, the necessary sample size varies depending on many factors, and there is no absolute standard concerning an adequate sample size and no rule of thumb that applies to all situations in SEM (Muthén & Muthén, 2002). In some cases, smaller sample size is enough (Wolf, Harrington, Clark, & Miller, 2013). The second limitation is that we studied only mothers as agents of family influence on youth acculturation. The fathers’ role might differ and might have a stronger contribution to the sociocultural adaptation of Russian youth in Latvia. It requires special research attention. A cross-sectional character of used data that does not allow us to infer causality is the third serious limitation of our study. The next limitation is that we have studied only the one group of ethnic minorities, which did not allow us to generalize the results and reveal universalities and country/culture specifics to understand the role of family and context in adaptation of ethnic minorities in the long intergenerational perspective. These limitations can also be viewed as challenges that help us to develop further directions of our theoretical and empirical studies on different levels of acculturation and test our hypotheses in different groups (ethnic, religious, gender, minorities, majorities) in different sociocultural contexts.

In the meantime, our study shed some light on the intergenerational differences of the impact of MEC on the acculturation preferences and demonstrated the importance of providing the policy promoting the maintenance of cultural heritage to avoid the separation instead of beneficial integration in future generations of migrants and ethnic minorities. It also demonstrated how similar individual acculturation paths within the family are and how predictors and outcomes of parental (mothers) acculturation related with those of their grown children. It reveals the acculturation process in a more deep perspective as an individual–family–group process of change and development in different surroundings to preserve cultural continuity and obtain intercultural fluency.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A1.

Motivation for Ethno-Cultural Continuity Scale, and Factor Loadings for Each Item.

Item	Mothers	Youth
Continuing to practice my Russian traditions and celebrations is important to me	.73***	.77***
Ultimately, I would like my children to identify as Russians	.87***	.75***
Long term, I would like my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to continue our Russian heritage	.75***	.77***
I want to transmit to my children a love for and interest in their Russian heritage	.89***	.86***
I think it’s good to create an environment at home where my Russian traditions can be a normal part of life for my children	.71***	.79***

Note. α_youth = .89, α_mothers = .89.

***

p < .001.

Acknowledgements

We highly appreciate the valuable assistance of Professor I. Plotka and the students of The Baltic Psychology and Management University College in organizing and conducting empirical studies of Russian families in Latvia.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was conducted within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.

References

Bao

W.-N.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Hoyt

D. R.

Conger

R. D.

(1999). Perceived parental acceptance as a moderator of religious transmission among adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 362-374. doi:10.2307/353754

Basic facts about citizenship and language policy of Latvia and some sensitive history-related issues. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/society-integration/citizenship-in-latvia/citizenship-policy-in-latvia/basic-facts-about-citizenship-and-language-policy-of-latvia-and-some-sensitive-history-related-issues/

Berry

J. W.

(1990). Psychology of acculturation. In Berman

(Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 37, pp. 201-234). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Berry

J. W.

(1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-68. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x

Berry

J. W.

Phinney

J. S.

Sam

D. L.

Vedder

(2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berry

J. W.

Sabatier

(2010). Acculturation, discrimination and adaptation among second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 191-207. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.11.007

Berry

J. W.

Sabatier

(2011). Variations in the assessment of acculturation attitudes: Their relationships with psychological wellbeing. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 658-669. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.002

Byrne

B. M.

(2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Camilleri

Malewska-Peyre

(1997). Socialization and identity strategies. In Berry

J. W.

Dasen

P. R.

Saraswathi

T. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Vol. 2. Basic processes and human development (2nd ed., pp. 41-68). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

10.

Cara

(2006). The acculturation modes of the Russian-speaking adolescents in Latvia: Perceived discrimination and knowledge of the Latvian language. Europe-Asia Studies, 58, 751-773. doi:10.1080/09668130600732100

11.

Cara

(2010). The acculturation of Russian-speaking adolescents in Latvia: Language issues three years after the 2004 education reform. European Education, 42(1), 8-36.

12.

Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. (2014). Statistical yearbook of Latvia. Riga, Lativa: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia.

13.

Colquhoun

Dockery

M. A.

(2012). The link between Indigenous culture and wellbeing: Qualitative evidence for Australian Aboriginal peoples. Perth, Australia: Centre for Labour Market Research and School of Economics and Finance Curtin University.

14.

Dimitrova

Chasiotis

Bender

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2014). Collective identity of Roma youth and their mothers [Special Issue on Challenges and Resilience of Indigenous Adolescents for Positive Youth Development]. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 375-386. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0043-1

15.

Gil

A. G.

Vega

W. A.

Dimas

J. M.

(1994). Acculturative stress and personal adjustment among Hispanic adolescent boys. Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 43-54. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(199401)22:1<43::AID-JCOP2290220106>3.0.CO;2-T

16.

Gezentsvey

Ward

(2008). Unveiling agency: A motivational perspective on acculturation and adaptation. In Sorrentino

Yamaguchi

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition across cultures. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

17.

Gezentsvey Lamy

M. A.

Ward

Liu

. (2013). Motivation for ethno-cultural continuity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 1047-1066. doi:10.1177/0022022113478657

18.

Hallett

Chandler

M. J.

Lalonde

C. E.

(2007). Aboriginal language knowledge and youth suicide. Cognitive Development, 22, 392-399. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.02.001

19.

Hughes

Hahelskamp

Way

Foust

M. D.

(2009). The role of mothers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of ethnic-racial socialization in shaping ethnic-racial identity among early adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 605-626. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9399-7

20.

Ivlevs

(2013). Minorities on the move? Assessing post-enlargement emigration intentions of Latvia’s Russian speaking minority. The Annals of Regional Science, 51, 33-52. doi:10.1007/s00168-012-0534-0

21.

Ivlevs

King

R. M.

(2012). From immigrants to (non-)citizens: Political economy of naturalizations in Latvia. Retrieved from http://carecon.org.uk/DPs/1018.pdf/

22.

Ivlevs

King

R. M.

(2014). 2004 Minority Education Reform and pupil performance in Latvia. Economics of Education Review, 38, 151-166. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.08.010

23.

Jasinskaja-Lahti

Horenczyk

Kinunen

(2011). Time and context in the relationship between acculturation attitudes and adaptation among Russian-speaking immigrants in Finland and Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37, 1423-1440. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2011.623617

24.

Jasinskaja-Lahti

Liebkind

(2001). Perceived discrimination and psychological adjustment among Russian-speaking immigrant adolescents in Finland. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 174-185. doi:10.1080/00207590042000074

25.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

26.

Kruusvall

Vetik

Berry

J. W.

(2009). The strategies of inter-ethnic adaptation of Estonian Russians. Studies of Transition States and Societies, 1, 3-24.

27.

Kus-Harbord

Ward

(2015). Ethnic Russians in post-Soviet Estonia: Perceived devaluation, acculturation, wellbeing, and ethnic attitudes. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 4(1), 66-81. doi:10.1037/ipp0000025

28.

Lebedeva

N. M.

Tatarko

A. N.

(Eds.). (2009). Strategii mezhkul’turnogo vzaimodeystviya migrantov i naseleniya Rossii: Sbornik nauchnykh statey [The strategies of intercultural interaction of migrants and the population of Russia: Collection of scientific articles]. Moscow, Russia: RUDN Publishing House.

29.

Moeke-Pickering

(1996). Maori identity within whanau: A review of literature. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.

30.

Muiznieks

Rozenvalds

Birka

(2013). Ethnicity and social cohesion in the post-Soviet Baltic states. Patterns of Prejudice, 47, 288-308. doi:10.1080/0031322X.2013.812349

31.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

32.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 599-620. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8

33.

Nguyen

A. M.

Benet-Martínez

(2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 122-159. doi:10.1177/0022022111435097

34.

Rosenberg

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

35.

Rudmin

(2010). Steps towards the renovation of acculturation research paradigms: What scientists’ personal experiences of migration might tell science. Culture & Psychology, 16, 299-312. doi:10.1177/1354067X10371140

36.

Sabatier

(1991). Les relations parents – enfants dans un contexte d’immigration: Ce que nous savons et ce que nous devrions savoir? [Parent-child relationships in a context of immigration: What we know, and what we should know?]. Santé Mentale au Québec, 16(1), 165-190. doi:10.7202/032209ar

37.

Sabatier

(2013). Socialisation pour l’acculturation: La dynamique de la transmission familiale de l’adaptation en pays d’accueil. Alterstice, 3(1), 47-60.

38.

Sabatier

Berry

(2008). The role of family acculturation, parental style and perceived discrimination in the adaptation of second generation immigrant youth in France and Canada. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 159-185. doi:10.1080/17405620701608739

39.

Sam

D. L.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Sani

Bowe

Herrera

(2008). Perceived collective continuity and social well-being: Exploring the connections. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 365-374. doi:10.1002/ejsp.461

41.

Sani

Herrera

Bowe

(2009). Perceived collective continuity and ingroup identification as defence against death awareness. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 45, 242-245. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.019

42.

Schmid

(2008). Ethnicity and language tensions in Latvia. Language Policy, 7, 3-19. doi:10.1007/s10993-007-9068-1

43.

Szapocznik

Kurtines

W. M.

(1993). Family psychology and cultural diversity: Opportunities for theory, research and application. American Psychologist, 48, 400-407. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.400

44.

Vatz-Laaroussi

(2001). Le familial au coeur de l’immigration. Les strate’gies de citoyennete’ des familles immigrantes au Que’bec et en France [Family in the heart of immigration. Civic strategies of immigrant families in Quebec and France]. Paris, France: L’Harmattan. doi:10.7202/008929ar

45.

Verkuyten

Thijs

Stevens

(2012). Multiple identities and religious transmission: A study among Moroccan-Dutch Muslim adolescents and their parents. Child Development, 83, 1577-1590. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01794.x

46.

Virta

Sam

D. L.

Westin

(2004). Adolescents with Turkish background in Norway and Sweden: A comparative study of their psychological adaptation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 15-25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00374.x

47.

Ward

(1996). Acculturation. In Landis

Bhagat

(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 124-147). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

48.

Ward

(2008). Thinking outside the Berry boxes: New perspectives on identity, acculturation and intercultural relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 105-114. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.11.002

49.

Wilson

(2013). Exploring the past, present and future of cultural competency research: The revision and expansion of the sociocultural adaptation construct (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

50.

Wolf

E. J.

Harrington

K. M.

Clark

S. L.

Miller

M. W.

(2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 913-934. doi:10.1177/0013164413495237