Acculturation and School Adjustment of Early-Adolescent Immigrant Boys and Girls in Germany: Conditions in School,Family,and Ethnic Group

Abstract

Navigating between cultures in addition to developmental changes and challenges in early adolescence can be difficult. We investigated school, family, and ethnic group as conditions for acculturation and school adjustment among early-adolescent boys and girls. Analyses were based on 860 mostly second- and third-generation immigrant students from 71 countries (50% male; M_age = 11.59 years), attending German secondary schools. Perceived support for inclusion and integration in school and family were associated with a stronger orientation toward both cultures (integration) and better adjustment (e.g., higher school marks, more well-being). Perceived cultural distance and ethnic discrimination were associated with a stronger ethnic and weaker mainstream orientation (separation), and lower adjustment. Boys perceived contextual conditions more negatively, had a weaker mainstream orientation, and showed more behavioral problems but did not differ from girls in the associations between contextual conditions and acculturation and adjustment. Implications for research, policy, and practice are discussed.

Keywords

acculturation school adjustment context gender differences

On top of regular developmental tasks, early-adolescent immigrants have to find their way between different cultures. Immigrant students—including those representing the second and third generation—are therefore often found to score lower on school adjustment and general psychological well-being than their mainstream peers (e.g., Frankenberg, Kupper, Wagner, & Bongard, 2013). There are individual differences as well as differences between immigrant groups. Across different immigrant groups, boys are often found to have more adjustment problems than girls, to lag behind their female age mates in academic achievement (Feliciano, 2012), and to be particularly at risk of becoming delinquent and disengaged from the mainstream society (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Titzmann, Silbereisen, & Mesch, 2014). Analyses of German PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) data suggest that gender differences in educational outcomes are larger in most immigrant groups than in the general population, pointing toward immigrant boys as being particularly disadvantaged (Segeritz, 2014). Yet, the aspect of gender is neglected in much research on acculturation and adjustment of adolescent immigrants (for a review, see Güngör & Bornstein, 2013; Suárez-Orozco & Qin, 2006).

Boys and girls are confronted with different expectations concerning their role in the family and the society (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). For immigrant boys and girls, this may also imply different expectations concerning their acculturation orientations (Güngör & Bornstein, 2013). In addition, they may be confronted with different stereotypes in the mainstream society, and as a result, they may differ in their discrimination experiences as well as the perception of the interethnic climate in different contexts (Berry et al., 2006; Greene, Way, & Pahl, 2006; Suárez-Orozco & Qin, 2006). In order to understand gender differences in adjustment, it is therefore crucial to consider potential differences in the experience of context as well as the mechanisms linking these experiences to adjustment.

Drawing on ecological theories and models of acculturation (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2006; Berry, 1997; Bourhis, Moise, Perrault, & Senecal, 1997) and development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; García Coll et al., 1996), we are interested in how gender-specific experiences of context may explain differences in acculturation and adjustment of early-adolescent immigrant boys and girls. Our analysis of context focuses on school, family, and ethnic group as the most important contexts for adolescent immigrants’ acculturation and adjustment (Motti-Stefanidi, Berry, Chryssochoou, Sam, & Phinney, 2012). In particular, we consider references to and aspects relevant for acculturation and intercultural relations in each of these contexts.

In the following sections, we first lay out our conceptual framework and introduce the role of context in developmental and acculturative processes in early adolescence. We then review the role of each context (school, family, and ethnic group) in acculturation and intercultural relations. We thereby identify some of the most important conditions in each context and how they are expected to be associated with acculturation orientations and adjustment. Finally, we explore different trajectories of acculturation and adjustment in immigrant boys and girls and how these may be rooted in different perceptions of contextual conditions.

Contextual Conditions for Acculturation and Adjustment in Early Adolescence

Early adolescence is a rapidly changing developmental period, marked by pubertal and cognitive development, the redefinition of social roles (including gender roles), and the transition from primary to secondary school. Gaining greater independence from parents, expanding the peer network, and developing a sense of one’s identity are core developmental tasks (Eccles, Lord, & Roeser, 1996). For immigrants, this period may require (re-)negotiating their acculturation process between ethnic culture and mainstream society in the process of developing their ethnic identity (Phinney, 1989).

Drawing on the bio-ecological theory of human development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), Motti-Stefanidi and colleagues (2012) highlighted school, family, and ethnic group, which are nested in the mainstream society, as the most important contexts for the adaptation of adolescent immigrants. In an acculturation framework, these contexts can be conceptualized as acculturation conditions shaping an individual’s acculturation experience (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2006). Contexts are associated with adjustment outcomes via the individual’s orientation toward ethnic and mainstream culture. Predominantly mainstream contexts, such as the school, tend to be more important for mainstream orientation, whereas predominantly ethnic contexts, such as the family, tend to be more relevant for ethnic orientation. Adjustment outcomes can be psychological, related to general well-being and mental health (“feeling well”), and sociocultural, related to cultural skills and relationships with members of the respective ethnic group (“doing well”; Ward, 2001). Although sociocultural adjustment can be in the domain of the ethnic and the mainstream culture, most research focuses on adjustment outcomes relevant for the adoption of the mainstream culture.

Psychological adjustment at school includes academic self-concept as a positive indicator and school-related behavioral problems and delinquency as negative indicators, which are especially prevalent among boys (Güngör & Bornstein, 2013; Titzmann et al., 2014). Sociocultural adjustment at school (in the domain of the mainstream culture) includes academic achievement and relationships with mainstream peers in the classroom (Vedder & Horenczyk, 2006). In many countries, including Germany, adolescent immigrants are less adjusted in both areas than their native peers (Dimitrova, Chasiotis, & Van de Vijver, 2016; Frankenberg et al., 2013).

Individual and group differences in adjustment have been associated with differences in individual and context-related acculturation conditions and orientations. A strong orientation toward both mainstream and ethnic culture (integration) is usually seen as most beneficial for overall adjustment (see Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013, for a meta-analysis including different age groups). However, a stronger mainstream orientation appears more relevant for sociocultural adjustment, whereas a stronger ethnic orientation seems more functional for psychological adjustment (Ward, 2001). Especially under conditions of heightened discrimination and lack of acceptance by members of the mainstream society, a strong orientation toward the ethnic culture can work as a buffer and promote psychological adjustment (Dimitrova, Aydinli, Chasiotis, Bender, & Van de Vijver, 2015).

School-Related Conditions for Acculturation and Adjustment

The school forms one of the most important acculturative contexts for adolescent immigrants. For many, it is the place where they have most contact with members of the mainstream society, such as teachers and fellow students (Horenczyk & Tatar, 2012). The school climate is known to affect a wide range of outcomes reflecting psychological and school adjustment and can be especially important for immigrant students (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). A good school climate is characterized by positive relationships among and between teachers and students; such a climate can promote not only students’ psychological well-being and mental health but also achievement- and peer-related outcomes. A climate emphasizing fairness and justice, for example, has been found to buffer the potentially negative effects of individually perceived discrimination and victimization by immigrant students (Bayram Özdemir & Stattin, 2013).

Diversity-specific aspects of the school climate have rarely been investigated. Two prominent approaches have been identified in educational contexts, namely, (a) fostering equality and inclusion and (b) acknowledging or even promoting cultural pluralism (Hachfeld et al., 2011). Controlling for school ethnic composition, the individual perception of both climate aspects has been associated with better school adjustment in adolescent immigrants (Schachner, Noack, Van de Vijver, & Eckstein, 2016). However, the promotion of equality and inclusion puts less emphasis on appreciating cultural differences and has been associated with a stronger mainstream orientation, whereas the perception of cultural pluralism has been associated with a stronger ethnic orientation.

Family-Related Conditions for Acculturation and Adjustment

In the family context, educational support and involvement as well as cultural attitudes and behavior have been identified as important conditions for adolescent immigrants’ acculturation and school adjustment (Schachner, Van de Vijver, & Noack, 2014b). Although parental school involvement is an important condition for school-related outcomes for all students (see Hill & Tyson, 2009, for a review), it is particularly important for students of low socioeconomic status or with an immigrant background (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006). Effects among immigrant students are partly mediated by a stronger mainstream orientation (Schachner et al., 2014b). At the same time, cultural attitudes and behavior are passed from parents to children in a process of cultural transmission (Schönpflug, 2009). Transmission rates between parents and their adolescent children for ethnic identity and acculturation orientations in particular have been found to be very high (Dimitrova, Chasiotis, Bender, & Van de Vijver, 2014). Perceived parental expectations for ethnic maintenance and mainstream adoption can be positively correlated and have both been associated with better adjustment of adolescent immigrants (Schachner et al., 2014b). Yet, the expectation for ethnic maintenance was associated with a stronger ethnic orientation and better psychological adjustment, whereas the expectation for mainstream culture adoption was associated with a stronger mainstream orientation and better sociocultural adjustment. Taken together, parents who are interested in their children’s school life and support ethnic maintenance as well as the adoption of the mainstream culture are expected to provide favorable conditions for their children’s acculturation and adjustment.

Conditions for Acculturation and Adjustment Related to Ethnic Group Membership

Acculturation and adjustment of different ethnic groups are often associated with the degree of cultural differences (or cultural distance) of a group from the mainstream society as well as the relative group status within that society (García Coll et al., 1996; Verkuyten, Hagendoorn, & Masson, 1996). Usually, the two are connected in that a group’s status reflects its perceived difference from the majority culture, with groups that are perceived to be more similar to the mainstream culture having a higher status (Hagendoorn, 1995). Perceptions of cultural distance have also been linked to perceived ethnic discrimination (Verkuyten, 2002). Muslim immigrants have a particularly low status in Germany and many other European countries and perceive high levels of discrimination (Güngör, Fleischmann, Phalet, & Maliepaard, 2013). Ethnic groups with a high share of Muslims are therefore often found to experience more acculturation and adjustment problems than other groups (Ward, 2013).

Early adolescents already have very adequate perceptions of the degree of cultural distance between ethnic groups (Schachner, Van de Vijver, & Noack, 2014a). Therefore, it seems likely that perceptions of cultural distance, belonging to a stigmatized group (Muslim) as well as perceived discrimination of their ethnic group in the mainstream society will affect their acculturation process and adjustment. As proposed in the rejection–identification model (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999), belonging to a low-status group and being exposed to ethnic discrimination can trigger a stronger orientation toward the ethnic culture in order to buffer negative effects on psychological adjustment and well-being. Adolescent Muslim immigrants are often found to have a strong ethnic and weak mainstream orientation (Güngör et al., 2013). This is especially the case in countries with less supportive multicultural policies and climate, as has been found in a study of Turkish immigrants in different receiving societies (Yağmur & Van de Vijver, 2012). Although a higher ethnic orientation may be connected with better psychological adjustment (Berry et al., 2006; Dimitrova et al., 2015), the lower orientation toward the mainstream culture may hinder sociocultural adjustment, including academic achievement. This is a particular risk in countries with a high pressure to assimilate (Schachner, He, Van de Vijver, & Heizmann, 2016). Taken together, perceiving high levels of cultural distance and discrimination as a member of one’s ethnic group, as well as belonging to a stigmatized low-status group (Muslim) are expected to promote a stronger ethnic group orientation and lower levels of adjustment.

Gendered Pathways to Acculturation and Adjustment

Immigrant boys are often found to be lower in sociocultural adjustment and higher in delinquency, whereas immigrant girls show more internalizing psychological problems (Güngör & Bornstein, 2013; Stevens & Vollebergh, 2008). Although gender differences in internalizing and externalizing problems have also been found for adolescents representing the cultural majority (Leadbeater, Kuperminc, Blatt, & Hertzog, 1999), these gender differences seem to be exacerbated in immigrant children and youth (Stevens & Vollebergh, 2008).

Research suggests that one of the reasons for this may be that the (re-)negotiation process between ethnic and mainstream culture, as well as between different social contexts, which takes place in adolescence, may differ between immigrant boys and girls (Güngör & Bornstein, 2013; Suárez-Orozco & Qin, 2006). Boys are often found to experience more personal and group-level discrimination (Güngör & Bornstein, 2013). This has been explained by more negative stereotypes of immigrant boys compared with girls (boys often being depicted as delinquent and displaying sexist attitudes toward women). The lower (sociocultural) adjustment of boys might therefore be explained by heightened discrimination experiences, resulting in a stronger ethnic and weaker mainstream orientation, which is referred to as separation. Indeed, girls seem to be more successful at integrating their orientations toward ethnic and mainstream culture than boys (Berry et al., 2006). Girls also seem to find it easier to adapt to the mainstream culture (Güngör & Bornstein, 2013). Another reason for this difference in acculturation orientations besides differential discrimination experiences may be that girls find it easier to adapt to more egalitarian gender roles in Western societies than boys.

More negative (sociocultural) adjustment among boys could also be explained by differences in the effects of contextual conditions. For example, first-generation immigrant boys were found to be more susceptible to risk factors in the school and family than they would respond to protective factors (Titzmann, Raabe, & Silbereisen, 2008). In addition, girls tend to be more protected by their parents and spend more time at home, whereas boys have more exposure to the mainstream culture (Güngör & Bornstein, 2013). This suggests that experiences at school as a predominantly mainstream context and the status of their ethnic group in the mainstream society may have a stronger impact on boys, whereas the family as a predominantly ethnic context (and potentially a protective one) may be more important for girls. At the same time, being more protected by their parents and spending more time at home may come with a higher parental expectation for cultural maintenance for girls (Suárez-Orozco & Qin, 2006). Taken together, girls and boys may differ not only in their experiences of context but also in the associations between contextual conditions and adjustment.

The Present Study

A review of the literature shows that school, family, and ethnic group, and particularly reflections of intercultural relations within these contexts, are central for acculturation and school adjustment of adolescent immigrants. But what is their relative importance in early adolescence and does this differ for boys and girls? On one hand, this period is characterized by an increasing independence from parents and the family and an increasing importance of other, more distal contexts (e.g., Eccles et al., 1996). On the other hand, as an ethnic context, the family may be important for the development of an ethnic identity (Phinney, 1989), and form a protective factor, especially under conditions of high ethnic discrimination. In addition, early adolescence is a critical period for gender-role development (Ruble et al., 2006), which may imply boys and girls having different experiences of context and possibly different trajectories linking context to adjustment.

Usually, studies focus on the experience and effects of a single context as opposed to simultaneously investigating multiple contexts (see Berry et al., 2006, for an exception based on older adolescents). In addition, studies treating acculturation orientations (i.e., attitudes toward maintaining their ethnic culture and adopting the mainstream culture, including the identification with these cultures) as a mediator linking (contextual) conditions with adjustment are still rare (see Schachner et al., 2014b, for an exception). Finally, most of the research that has been conducted in this area is based on older samples and there is a dearth of studies in early adolescence and studies focusing on gender differences. We use a process model including conditions in relation to multiple contexts (school, family, and ethnic group), acculturation orientations as mediators, as well as a wide range of school adjustment measures as dependent variables. Such a model is needed in order to get a comprehensive picture of gender-specific acculturation experiences and processes. This comprehensive picture allows detecting the most crucial points for intervention and can provide important information for practitioners and policy makers. To our knowledge, our study is the first to test a mediation model with this level of comprehensiveness and in this age group, and the first to systematically test for gender differences at different stages of the acculturation process. In order to do so, we test the conceptual model in Figure 1 with the following expectations:

Hypothesis 1: All three contexts (school, family, and ethnic group) are associated with acculturation and school adjustment:

Perceived support for inclusion and pluralism in the school context and perceived involvement and support for integration in the family context promote a stronger orientation toward ethnic and mainstream culture (Hypothesis 1a).

Perceived distance and discrimination as a member of one’s ethnic group promote a stronger ethnic and a weaker mainstream orientation (Hypothesis 1b).

Hypothesis 2: Ethnic and mainstream orientations are equally important for overall adjustment. However, ethnic orientation is more relevant for psychological adjustment and mainstream orientation is more relevant for sociocultural adjustment.

Hypothesis 3: Boys and girls differ in levels of and associations between variables:

Compared with girls, boys perceive a lower expectation for ethnic maintenance at home, and higher levels of inequality and discrimination at school, and as members of their ethnic group. They also have a stronger ethnic and weaker mainstream orientation, and show lower adjustment (Hypothesis 3a).

Associations between conditions in school and ethnic group and adjustment are stronger, and associations between conditions in the family and adjustment are weaker among boys compared with girls (Hypothesis 3b).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of contextual conditions for acculturation and school adjustment.

Method

Participants and Procedure

This study formed part of a larger survey on acculturation and interethnic relations in multi-ethnic schools (64% immigrant students on average, ranging from 25% to 98%). We targeted students in their second year at secondary school for two reasons: Students by then should have (a) had sufficient time to build up some stability in terms of school marks and friendships following school transition, and (b) sufficiently experienced their new school environment to be able to have a clear perception of it, which might be associated with adjustment. The questionnaire was administered during class time in the language of instruction (German). Participation was voluntary and subject to permission from school authorities and parents.

As schools were promised feedback about their diversity climate, the participation rate was very high (87%). For the purpose of this study, self-reports of the 902 early adolescents with an immigrant background (by both parents) were used. A missing value analysis revealed that 41 cases had missing values on more than 20% of the variables. We decided to exclude these cases. As data values were not missing completely at random (χ² / df (N = 901) = 1.04, p < .01), expectation maximization (EM) was used to impute missing values for the remaining 860 cases (Little & Rubin, 2002). The average age in the final sample was 11.59 years (SD = .70); 50% of the participants were male.

Most of the participants (87%) were born in Germany or migrated at a very young age ( $\bar{x}$ = 4.78 years, SD = 3.66), and can therefore be classified as second-generation or beyond. For most of the adolescents (85%), their parents came from the same country, representing a total of 71 countries of origin. The largest group came from Turkey (36%), followed by Italy (8%); Croatia, Greece, and Kosovo (all 5%); Russia and Bosnia (both 4%); Poland (3%); and Kazakhstan, Iraq, Iran, Portugal, Romania, and Serbia (all 2%). The remaining countries made up 1% or less. This composition reflects the major immigration waves to Germany. In the 1960s and 1970s, guest workers from Turkey and Southern Europe made up a first wave, and in the 1990s, refugees from Eastern Europe and the Balkan made up a second wave.

The sample was balanced across the three main secondary school tracks in Germany, with 26% attending the low-vocational, 43% attending the medium-vocational, and 31% attending the high-academic track. The proportion of immigrant students is usually lower on higher tracks (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2010). We therefore specifically targeted schools with a similar proportion of immigrants in each track, resulting in an average of 72% at the low-vocational track, 60% at the medium-vocational track, and 59% at the high-academic track.

Measures

Measures are described below in the order they occur in the conceptual model (see Figure 1). Students’ perceptions of school-, family-, and ethnic group–related conditions as well as psychological and sociocultural adjustment each consists of several components. Details of individual scales (number of items, exemplary item, response scale, and reliability) can be obtained from Table 1. Measures not originally available in German were translated using a translation back-translation method (A. J. R. Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Ideas for the generation of new measures and the adaptation of existing measures had been generated on the basis of qualitative interviews with 14 immigrant students. Where we adapted existing measures, this was mainly to make items more comprehensible for our age group (by simplifying the language and replacing some abstract concepts with concepts that are more accessible for early adolescents), and to tailor them to the German context (e.g., by replacing references to race with ethnicity). All items and scales were then tested in a pilot study with 51 immigrant students of the target age group.

Table 1.

Measures, Scale Reliabilities, and Descriptive Statistics by Gender.

Higher order constructCONSTRUCT—Scale	Number of items, example and response format^a	Boys		Girls
Higher order constructCONSTRUCT—Scale	Number of items, example and response format^a	α	$\bar{x}$ (SD)	α	$\bar{x}$ (SD)
School context
ET—Equal treatment by teachers	Six items, for example, “German children can take more liberties in front of the teacher than foreign children.” (reverse item)	.86	3.86 (1.06)	.85	4.17 (0.94)
ET—Equal treatment by students	Six items, for example, “In my classroom, foreign children are often teased by the other children.” (reverse item)	.83	3.85 (0.97)	.86	3.91 (1.02)
CC—Support contact and cooperation by teachers	Eight items, for example, “Our teachers want German and foreign children to help each other with course work.”	.85	3.38 (0.98)	.84	3.58 (0.90)
CC—Support contact by students	Eight items, for example, “German and foreign children like to sit next to each other in my classroom.”	.94	3.71 (1.04)	.94	4.03 (0.91)
CC—Support for cooperation by students	Five items, for example, “The German and the foreign children in my classroom stick together.”	.88	3.51 (1.16)	.85	3.78 (1.06)
CP—Interest in ethnic background	Six items, mirrored for students and teachers, for example, “Fellow students/teachers are interested in foreign children’s countries of origin.”	.86	3.22 (.98)	.87	3.53 (.96)
CP—Learning about multicultural topics	Five items; for example, “In class, we often talk about festivities and traditions from other countries.”	.83	3.02 (0.96)	.85	3.16 (0.99)
CP—Learning about intercultural relations	Three items, for example, “At school we are taught to respect each other even if we are from different countries.”	.74	3.66 (1.06)	.73	3.91 (1.01)
Family context
Parental school involvement	Three items, for example, “My parents often ask me what we are doing at school.”	.64	4.17 (0.80)	.63	4.07 (0.84)
Parental expectation ethnic maintenance	Six items, for example, “My parents want me to get to know the customs and traditions from my other country.”	.84	4.02 (0.85)	.82	4.05 (0.82)
Parental expectation mainstream adoption	Six items, mirrored from parental expectation for ethnic maintenance	.88	3.52 (1.00)	.85	3.58 (0.98)
Ethnic group context
Perceived cultural distance	Six items, for example, “How similar or different do people dress in Germany and your other country?”; responses ranging from (1) very similar to (5) very different	.87	3.46 (0.93)	.87	3.50 (0.95)
Perceived discrimination	Five items, for example, “Have you ever been teased or insulted because you are from your other country?”; responses ranging from (1) never to (5) very often	.84	2.12 (0.95)	.79	1.94 (0.81)
Muslim	Dummy variable with (0) non-Muslim and (1) Muslim	—	.52 (0.50)	—	.57 (0.50)
Acculturation orientations
ETHNIC—Orientation	Nine items, for example, “I like the way families live in my other country.”	.83	3.80 (0.79)	.82	3.88 (0.78)
ETHNIC—Identity	Five items, for example, “I have a lot of pride to be a member of my ethnic group.”	.88	4.22 (0.84)	.90	4.26 (0.85)
MAINSTREAM—Orientation	Nine items, mirrored from ethnic orientation	.87	3.31 (0.91)	.84	3.57 (0.84)
MAINSTREAM—Identity	Five items, mirrored from ethnic identity	.95	2.58 (1.22)	.94	2.81 (1.12)
Psychological adjustment
WB—Academic self-concept	Five items, for example, “Learning new things is easy for me.”	.82	3.57 (0.79)	.83	3.45 (0.77)
WB—Social self-concept	Seven items, for example, “I make friends easily.”	.88	3.95 (.81)	.88	3.95 (.80)
WB—Life satisfaction	Five items, for example, “I am satisfied with my life.”	.80	3.69 (0.88)	.84	3.74 (0.92)
PP—Depression	Five items, for example, “I worry a lot”; responses ranging from (1) almost never to (5) very often	.79	1.74 (0.74)	.85	1.87 (0.87)
PP—Physiological stress symptoms	Five items, for example, “I feel dizzy and faint”; responses ranging from (1) almost never to (5) very often	.70	1.84 (0.64)	.76	1.88 (0.71)
BP—Disruptive behavior at school	Five items, asking about occurrence of a particular situation in the last four weeks, for example, “How often did you chat with your neighbor during class in the last four weeks?”; responses ranging from (1) never to (5) very often	.70	2.18 (0.76)	.60	2.02 (0.14)
BP—School-related delinquency	Six items, asking about occurrence of a particular situation in the last 12 months, for example, “How often have you destroyed school property in the last 12 months?”, responses ranging from (1) never to (5) once a month or more	.73	1.41 (0.56)	.57	1.21 (0.35)
Sociocultural adjustment
Academic achievement	Three items, comprising last end of year marks in the three main subjects (English, Mathematics and German); ranging from (1) excellent to (6) unsatisfactory (German original marking system, later reverse coded)	.73	4.01 (0.68)	.72	4.14 (0.61)
Mainstream language competence	Single item, “How well do you speak German?”; responses ranging from (1) not at all to (5) very good	—	4.34 (0.71)	—	4.42 (0.67)
Mainstream friends	Count variable ranging from (0) no German friend to (2) two or more German friends	—	.95 (0.86)	—	.82 (0.83)

Note. ET = equal treatment; CC = contact and cooperation; CP = cultural pluralism; WB = well-being; PP = psychological problems; BP = behavioral problems.

Responses ranging from 1 (no, that’s not right) to 5 (yes, that’s right) unless stated differently.

School context

The support for inclusion and pluralism in the school context was measured with two subscales tapping into equal treatment by fellow students and teachers, three subscales on support for contact and cooperation by fellow students and teachers, and three subscales tapping into schools valuing cultural pluralism (perceived interest of fellow students and teachers in children’s ethnic background, learning about intercultural relations, and learning about multicultural topics). Subscales on equal treatment, contact, and cooperation were adapted from the School Interracial Climate Scale (Green, Adams, & Turner, 1988; Molina & Wittig, 2006) and assessed the perceived descriptive norms for interethnic contact of students and teachers. Subscales on cultural pluralism were developed for the purpose of this study.

Family context

Support for integration and involvement in the family was measured by three scales, including perceived parental acculturation expectations (support for ethnic maintenance and cultural adoption) and parental school involvement. The scales on parental acculturation expectations were adapted from Arends-Tóth and Van de Vijver (2007). Items tapped into the public and private life domain were mirrored for ethnic and mainstream dimensions. The scale on parental school involvement was newly developed, and it emphasized personal aspects of involvement and a general interest in their children’s school life.

Ethnic group context

Measures of the ethnic group context tapped into three different aspects related to cultural distance. These were (1) perceived cultural distance, (2) perceived discrimination by members of the mainstream society, and (3) whether the participant is Muslim. The scale on perceived cultural distance was adapted from Galchenko and Van de Vijver (2007) and measured how similar or different early adolescents perceived their culture of origin and the German culture, tapping into public and private life domains relevant and familiar to early adolescents, such as family life, dress, and general way of life. For perceived discrimination, we used the general measure from the International Comparative Study of Ethnocultural Youth (ICSEY) survey (Berry et al., 2006).

Acculturation orientations

For immigrants, ethnic identity and acculturation orientations are closely linked (Ward, 2001). The combination of the two was therefore used in the model. For acculturation orientations, the items measuring perceived parental acculturation expectations, which had been adapted from Arends-Tóth and Van de Vijver (2007), were reformulated and extended to tap into additional aspects. Ethnic and mainstream identities were measured with the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) by Phinney (1992).

Psychological adjustment

This was measured by a combination of scales tapping into general psychological well-being as a positive indicator, and scales tapping into psychological and behavioral problems as negative indicators. Well-being comprised the widely used Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) as a measure of general life satisfaction, the most general subscale from a German measure of academic self-concept (Schöne, Dickhäuser, Spinath, & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2002), and the relations with peers subscale of the Self-Description Questionnaire for early adolescents (SDQ I; Marsh, 1988) as a measure of social self-concept. Psychological problems comprised measures of physiological stress symptoms and depressive mood from the ICSEY study (Berry et al., 2006). Behavioral problems comprised selected items measuring disruptive behavior, which were considered characteristic for the age group and context of our study (Jenkins, 1995), and a school delinquency scale (Mc Carthy & Hoge, 1987).

Sociocultural adjustment

Measures on sociocultural adjustment included academic achievement based on actual school marks, self-reported competence in the mainstream language, and the number of mainstream friends in the classroom. Participants were instructed to identify their five best friends in class and write down their number on the class list as well as their own number on the class list. With this number, we could then identify their friends’ questionnaires and obtain information on their friends’ ethnicities from there. For students who did not participate in the study, the ethnicity was obtained from the class teacher.

Results

We first established the reliability of the individual scales and conducted factor analyses in order to compute the observed variables for our conceptual model. In the next step, we tested for mean differences between boys and girls on individual variables measuring contextual conditions, acculturation orientations, and school adjustment. In the third step, we used structural equation modeling to test our conceptual model.

Preliminary Analyses—Measures

Individual scales were reliable, with most alphas above .80. Only the reliability of parental school involvement was lower (.63), as well as the two scales on behavioral problems for girls (around .60 for both scales). Reliabilities, means, and standard deviations for each scale are displayed in Table 1. Next, we computed the observed scores for our path model. In order to use the information from multiple scales without making our model too complex, we combined these scales into a smaller number of constructs in two steps. In the first step, we computed the mean across (sub-)scales to get values for first-order constructs where these were measured by more than one scale (such as the equal treatment dimension of the school context or well-being). These first-order constructs were also used to form the indicators of our observed context variables and our latent outcome variables. In the second step, we therefore computed exploratory factor analyses on these first-order constructs (comprising of one or more scales), combining them into second-order constructs (such as school context or psychological adjustment). The hierarchical structure of the measures is laid out in Table 1.

In the first step, scales measuring different aspects of the school context were combined into three unifactorial constructs (equal treatment, contact and cooperation, and cultural pluralism). Ethnic and mainstream orientations were combined with the respective identity components. For psychological adjustment, scales measuring well-being, psychological problems, and behavioral problems were combined into three unifactorial constructs. All scales were combined by computing mean scores with the exception of behavioral problems, where we used a factor score as the response range differed between scales.

In the next step, we computed exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) to test whether the indicators of a higher order construct indeed loaded onto a single factor. This was confirmed for all five higher order constructs in our model (school, family, ethnic group, and psychological and sociocultural adjustment), with indicator loadings between .46 and .88 and proportions of variance explained by these factors between 41% and 63%. Factor scores comprising conditions in school, family, and ethnic group were saved forming the observed context variables for our model. Correlations between components of higher order constructs and acculturation orientations among male and female adolescents are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Correlations Between Components of Higher Order Constructs and Acculturation Orientations Among Boys and Girls.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
1	School ET	—	.50**	.27**	−.03	.16**	.13**	−.24**	−.49**	−.06	.29**	−.03	.16**	−.33**	−.23**	.12*	.11*	.10*
2	School CC	.49**	—	.48**	.18**	.33**	.19**	−.16**	−.23**	.09	.30**	.11*	.34**	−.25**	−.16**	.01	.12*	.11*
3	School CP	.29**	.60**	—	.25**	.30**	.10*	−.06	−.14**	−.03	.30**	.18**	.25**	−.09	−.04	−.02	.07	.02
4	Family ethnic	.00	.14**	.21**	—	.33**	.12*	.19**	.05	.14**	−.01	.51**	.19**	.00	.01	−.08	.04	−.03
5	Family mainstream	.18**	.39**	.33**	.32**	—	.21**	−.19**	−.15**	.03	.58**	.00	.26**	−.10*	−.05	.01	.13**	.16**
6	Family involvement	.02	.19**	.17**	.21**	.32**	—	.02	−.12*	.03	.04	.10*	.34**	−.22**	−.29**	.08	.00	.10*
7	Ethnic distance	−.20**	−.18**	−.07	.18**	−.13**	.01	—	.26**	.16**	−.25**	.12*	−.14**	.08	.08	−.07	−.19**	−.16**
8	Ethnic discrimination	−.47**	−.28**	−.16**	.15**	−.14**	−.03	.24**	—	.05	−.25**	.06	−.26**	.40**	.16**	−.07	−.12*	−.11*
9	Ethnic Muslim	−.12*	.00	.01	.04	−.11*	−.01	.06	.12*	—	−.03	.17**	.20**	−.09	.00	−.08	−.08	−.16**
10	Orientation toward ethnic culture	.38**	.39**	.27**	−.04	.58**	.07	−.23**	−.31**	−.14**	—	−.19**	.20**	−.11*	−.07	.05	.25**	.24**
11	Orientation toward mainstream culture	−.03	.09	.08	.54**	.01	.21**	.22**	.11*	.10	−.26**	—	.30**	−.12*	−.02	−.04	−.02	−.15**
12	Psych. - well-being	.08	.28**	.25**	.21**	.22**	.32**	−.00	−.09	.04	.11*	.24**	—	−.54**	−.19**	.15**	.19**	.07
13	Psych. - psychological problems	−.28**	−.17**	−.09	−.04	−.11*	−.22**	.09	.34**	.01	−.07	−.11*	−.40**	—	.29**	−.05	−.04	−.03
14	Psych. - behavioral problems	−.32**	−.21**	−.08	−.06	−.12*	−.10*	.01	.25**	.05	−.23**	−.06	−.15**	.27**	—	−.25**	−.03	−.10*
15	Soc. – achievement	.12*	.02	−.01	−.04	.03	.07	−.03	−.06	−.09	.07	−.03	.11*	−.06	−.06	—	.12*	.07
16	Soc. - language	.07	.03	.03	.02	.17**	.11*	−.01	−.09	−.05	.18**	.05	.25**	−.06	−.04	.05	—	.11*
17	Soc. - friends	.17**	.20**	.05	−.08	.18**	.06	−.13**	−.12*	−.16**	.32**	−.08	.03	.01	−.00	.21**	.13**	—

Note. Numbers above the diagonal reflect correlations among girls and numbers below the diagonal reflect correlations among boys. N = 837 (23 adolescents did not state their religion); ET = equal treatment; CC = contact and cooperation; CP = cultural pluralism; Psych. = Psychological adjustment; Soc. = Sociocultural adjustment.

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

Gender Differences

In order to test for mean differences between boys and girls, we conducted a MANCOVA with the individual components of the constructs in our conceptual model as dependent variables and age as covariate. Although the age range in our sample was very limited, there was a significant multivariate main effect for age, F(16, 842) = 1.89, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04. However, an inspection of the univariate effects revealed only a small (Cohen, 1988) significant age effect for psychological problems, F(1, 857) = 10.43, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, with older adolescents having more problems. This is in line with previous research demonstrating a rise in psychological issues in adolescence (e.g., Michel, Titzmann, & Silbereisen, 2012). Although we did find a significant main effect for gender, F(16, 842) = 6.94, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .12, effect sizes of univariate effects were small. Boys held a more negative perception of the diversity climate at school, concerning equal treatment, F(1, 857) = 9.18, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, support for contact and inclusion, F(1, 857) = 21.42, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02, and valuing cultural pluralism, F(1, 857) = 17.11, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02, and in general perceived more discrimination, F(1, 857) = 8.76, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. They also had a weaker mainstream orientation, F(1, 857) = 15.23, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02, and reported more behavioral problems, F(1, 857) = 29.39, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03.

Model Test Using Structural Equation Modeling

We then tested the conceptual model of Figure 1 among male and female early adolescents using a multigroup analysis in AMOS (Arbuckle, 2010). Our conceptual model assumes full mediation of associations between contextual conditions and school adjustment by adolescents’ acculturation orientations. Yet, modification indices suggested to add three direct paths from conditions to adjustment outcomes, namely, from school- and family-related conditions to psychological adjustment and from conditions related to the ethnic group to sociocultural adjustment. To improve model fit, we allowed correlated errors between ethnic and mainstream orientation, between psychological and sociocultural adjustment, between behavioral problems and achievement, and between behavioral and psychological problems.

In the next step, we tested for differences between boys and girls in the association between contextual conditions and acculturation orientations, as well as differences in the direct effects of the contextual conditions on adjustment. For this purpose, we added nine models where each path from the three contextual conditions to either acculturation orientation as well as to the adjustment outcomes was released individually. If releasing a path did not decrease the comparative fit index (CFI) as an indicator of model fit by more than .01, we assumed that the path was equal between girls and boys. Boys and girls did not significantly differ from each other on any of these paths. The structural residuals model was accepted as the most restrictive model with an adequate fit and a change in CFI of no more than .01 from the previous model (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Fit statistics for all models (from unconstrained to measurement residuals) are displayed in Table 3. Standardized coefficients and significance levels for individual paths can be seen in Figure 2. Because all paths were constrained to be equal between groups, coefficients are valid for boys and girls.

Table 3.

Fit Statistics for Multigroup Analysis.

Model	χ²/df	RMSEA	TLI	CFI	ΔCFI	AIC
Constrained across sex
Unconstrained	3.01***	.05	.85	.92	—	324.40
Measurement weights	3.07***	.05	.84	.91	.01	332.35
SW: School → EO released	2.74***	.05	.87	.91	.00	318.70
SW: School → MO released	2.74***	.05	.87	.91	.00	318.49
SW: Family → EO released	2.74***	.05	.87	.91	.00	318.56
SW: Family → MO released	2.74***	.05	.87	.91	.00	318.83
SW: Ethnic group → EO released	2.74***	.05	.87	.91	.00	318.84
SW: Ethnic group → MO released	2.73***	.05	.87	.91	.00	317.94
SW: School → Psych. released	2.74***	.05	.87	.91	.00	318.52
SW: Family → Psych. released	2.74***	.05	.87	.91	.00	318.77
SW: Ethnic group → Soc. released	2.73***	.05	.87	.91	.00	317.81
Structural weights	2.71***	.05	.87	.91	.00	318.91
Structural covariances	2.58***	.04	.88	.91	.00	310.71
Structural residuals	2.46***	.04	.89	.91	.00	303.71
Measurement residuals	3.14***	.05	.84	.86	.05	371.36
Constrained across predictors^a (dependent variable—constraint)
EO—All constrained	2.64***	.04	.88	.90	.01	320.83
EO—School released	2.46***	.04	.89	.91	.00	304.65
EO—Family released	2.96***	.05	.85	.88	.03	348.61
EO—Ethnic group released	2.90***	.05	.86	.88	.03	342.78
MO—All constrained	4.76***	.07	.71	.76	.15	515.33
MO—School released	3.58***	.06	.80	.84	.07	406.22
MO—Family released	4.34***	.06	.75	.79	.12	474.20
MO—Ethnic group released	2.57***	.04	.88	.90	.01	315.02
Psych.—All constrained	4.76***	.05	.85	.88	.03	350.24
Soc.—All constrained	3.58***	.05	.86	.88	.03	343.50

Note. Most restrictive model with a good fit is in italics. RMSEA = root mean square error approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; AIC = Akaike information criterion; SW = structural weights; EO = ethnic orientation; MO = mainstream orientation; Psych. = psychological adjustment; Soc. = sociocultural adjustment.

Model fit as is compared with structural residuals model without constraints by outcome (ΔCFI).

***

p < .001.

Figure 2.

Final multigroup model and standardized estimates.

The proportions of variance explained were 14% for ethnic orientation and 25% for mainstream orientation. For psychological adjustment, 21% of the overall variance could be explained, with 21% for psychological problems and 3% for behavioral problems. For sociocultural adjustment, 46% of the overall variance was explained; these values were 5% for achievement, 16% for mainstream language skills, and 16% for mainstream friends. The relationships between variables were largely as expected in both groups. Support for inclusion in the school context, and support for integration in the family context were associated with stronger orientations toward both cultures. The association was stronger within the ethnic or mainstream domain than between domains; so, the (predominantly mainstream) context at school was more strongly linked to adolescents’ mainstream orientation (to the point where the association with ethnic orientation did not reach significance), and the predominantly ethnic context at home was more strongly associated with adolescents’ ethnic orientation. As expected, distance and discrimination experiences as part of one’s ethnic group were associated positively with adolescents’ ethnic orientation and negatively with their orientation toward the mainstream culture. In order to compare the relative effect of each context on the ethnic and mainstream orientation, we set equality constraints on all paths to the respective orientation. If a constraint led to a decrease in model fit by a drop in CFI of more than .01, this was taken as an indication that the strength of the relationship was significantly different. It turned out that contextual conditions significantly differed in their associations with mainstream orientation but not with ethnic orientation (Table 3).

In the next step, we tested the relationships between acculturation orientations and adjustment. In line with predictions, a stronger ethnic orientation was associated with better psychological adjustment, and a stronger mainstream orientation was mainly associated with better sociocultural adjustment. However, we also found a small significant effect on psychological adjustment. Testing equality constraints as described before also confirmed that ethnic and mainstream orientation significantly differed in their associations with psychological and sociocultural adjustment (Table 3). Using bootstrapping procedures with 1,000 samples and a 95% confidence interval, we confirmed that where the individual paths from conditions to acculturation orientations and from acculturation orientations to adjustment were significant, the indirect effects were also significant (Table 4). In addition, school and family support for inclusion and integration had a positive direct effect on psychological adjustment. Cultural distance and perceived discrimination as part of one’s ethnic group had a direct negative effect on sociocultural adjustment.

Table 4.

Indirect Effects of Contextual Conditions on School Adjustment.

Path (IV → Mediator)	School adjustment
	Psychological		Sociocultural
	Parameter estimate	SE	Parameter estimate	SE
School total	.05***	.01	.03**	.01
School → EO	.03**	.01	.00	.01
School → MO	.02*	.01	.04***	.01
Family total	.07***	.02	.03*	.01
Family → EO	.06***	.02	−.01	.01
Family → MO	.02*	.01	.04***	.01
Ethnic group total	.01	.01	−.03***	.01
Ethnic group → EO	.02***	.00	.00	.00
Ethnic group → MO	−.01*	.01	−.02**	.01

Note. Significance based on bias-corrected percentiles. IV = independent variable; EO = ethnic orientation; MO = mainstream orientation.

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

Discussion

School, family, and ethnic group are central contexts shaping acculturative and developmental processes among adolescent immigrants. In this study, we investigated their relative importance in explaining differences in acculturation orientations and school-related psychological and sociocultural adjustment among early-adolescent immigrants, paying particular attention to gender differences. Within each context, we focused on individual characteristics and perceptions relevant for acculturation and intercultural relations. By including acculturation orientations as mediators, we were also able to better understand the underlying mechanisms by which contextual conditions affect psychological and sociocultural aspects of school adjustment. Our results confirmed that (a) all three contexts contribute to acculturation and school adjustment among immigrants of this age group (Hypothesis 1). (b) Perceived support for inclusion and integration in the school and the family context is associated with a stronger orientation toward both cultures and better adjustment (Hypothesis 1a). Perceived distance and discrimination as part of one’s ethnic group on the other hand are associated with a tendency toward separation (higher ethnic and lower mainstream orientation) and lower adjustment (Hypothesis 1b). Although the orientations toward both cultures are associated with better adjustment, their associations with psychological and sociocultural aspects of adjustment differ (Hypothesis 2). (c) Overall, there are not many differences between boys and girls (Hypothesis 3). Boys perceive the context to be more negative, have a weaker mainstream orientation, and show more behavioral problems; yet differences are small (Hypothesis 3a). Boys do not differ from girls in the way contextual conditions are associated with acculturation and school adjustment (Hypothesis 3b). We first discuss the most important findings in relation to each context, adolescents’ acculturation orientations, as well as sex and age differences. We then draw conclusions and identify implications for research, policy, and practice.

Relative Importance of School, Family, and Ethnic Group

Conditions in all three contexts are associated with adolescents’ acculturation orientations and adjustment to a similar extent, supporting previous research which had identified these three contexts as relevant for the adjustment of adolescent immigrants (Motti-Stefanidi et al., 2012). However, relationships between specific conditions and adjustment outcomes differ in strength. Whereas the attitudinal climate in the school as a predominantly mainstream context is more relevant for adolescents’ mainstream orientation, the family as a predominantly ethnic context is more crucial for adolescents’ ethnic orientation. This suggests that the transmission of mainstream and ethnic orientations is—to some extent—domain specific (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2004). Looking at direct relationships of contextual conditions with adjustment outcomes, it seems that more proximal contexts (school and family) are more strongly associated with psychological adjustment, whereas the ethnic group and its overall position in the mainstream society as a more distal context are associated more strongly with sociocultural adjustment.

This observed stronger effect of more proximal contexts supports what is proposed by ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), that more proximal contexts tend to have a greater effect—at least concerning (psychological) outcomes that are more central to the individual. In particular, it seems that the family still plays an important role for early-adolescent immigrants. It can promote the development of a balanced or integrated identity and acculturation style (between ethnic and mainstream culture), and contributes to psychological adjustment. This finding is in line with previous studies showing strong support for integration in immigrant families (Dimitrova et al., 2014), and contradicts public discourse, which often depicts immigrant families as strongholds of ethnic maintenance, promoting separation tendencies in their children.

In previous research, it was found that religious maintenance, which is particularly salient in Muslim families, is associated with separation from the mainstream society (Güngör et al., 2013; Schachner et al., 2014b). In our study, being Muslim was positively associated with perceived cultural distance and discrimination, and this combination was associated with a stronger ethnic and lower mainstream orientation among adolescents. This pattern is in line with the rejection–identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999). It confirms the low status of Muslim immigrants in Western societies (Güngör et al., 2013) and findings of a stronger negative association between ethnic and mainstream orientation and identity in less supportive multicultural climate and policies (Yağmur & Van de Vijver, 2012).

Findings suggest that even if mainstream and ethnic orientations seem to be compatible in immigrant families, the perception of distance and discrimination as members of their ethnic group may drive them into separation. Perceived distance and discrimination as a member of one’s ethnic group also had a strong direct effect on adjustment, being associated with lower sociocultural adjustment. This finding confirms previous research showing detrimental effects of perceived discrimination and (low) ethnic group status for the acculturation of adolescent immigrants (Berry, 1997), and the development of ethnic minority children and adolescents (García Coll et al., 1996).

The Mediating Role of Acculturation Orientations

Most of the associations of contextual conditions with adjustment outcomes are indirect, via acculturation orientations. This confirms the central role of acculturation orientations in the acculturation process (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2006; Berry, 1997; Ward, 2001). We also find that ethnic and mainstream orientations seem to differ in their associations with psychological and sociocultural adjustment and therefore seem to fulfill distinct functions in the acculturation process, as suggested in previous research with mostly adult samples (Ward, 2001). In particular, adolescents’ ethnic orientation is an important resource for psychological well-being and adjustment, whereas a stronger mainstream orientation is associated primarily with better sociocultural adjustment. The additional positive association between mainstream orientation and psychological adjustment may result from our psychological adjustment measures being mostly related to the school as a mainstream context.

Overall, we can conclude that the endorsement of both orientations (integration) was associated with the best overall adjustment. This is in line with a recent meta-analysis showing the positive effect of integration on various adjustment outcomes (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013). However, as Ward (2013) suggested in her recent review, integration can only work if the mainstream society allows this. When perceiving high levels of discrimination and belonging to a stigmatized group such as Muslim immigrants, it may be more functional for one’s psychological well-being and adjustment to turn to one’s ethnic group, even if it means turning away from the mainstream society (Branscombe et al., 1999).

Gender Differences in Context Perceptions and Effects

Overall, differences between boys and girls were few and small. In line with our expectations and previous research (e.g., Berry et al., 2006), boys had more negative perceptions of their environment, particularly in relation to inclusion and equal treatment by members of the mainstream society. Boys also had a weaker mainstream orientation and reported more behavioral problems than girls, confirming results by Stevens and Vollebergh (2008). Interestingly, we did not find differences in sociocultural adjustment as they are usually found, particularly in relation to academic achievement (Güngör & Bornstein, 2013). Boys and girls also did not differ in the associations between conditions and outcomes, suggesting similar processes. The heightened susceptibility to risk factors and higher resistance to protective factors in the school and family context were previously only confirmed in first-generation immigrants (Titzmann et al., 2008). In our sample, most adolescents belonged to the second or further generations of immigrants. Also, our sample comprised early adolescents, whereas the study by Titzmann and colleagues was based on boys in mid- to late adolescence. Previous research also suggests that gender differences in acculturation increase in mid- to late adolescence (Güngör & Bornstein, 2013). Yet, the mean differences we found suggest that early-adolescent boys are already more at risk than girls of developing a negative acculturation trajectory by feeling more discriminated against, separating from the mainstream society and engaging in delinquent behavior at school.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the overall comprehensiveness of our study, there are some shortcomings to be mentioned. First, our design is cross-sectional and therefore does not allow conclusions about causal relationships between variables. Second, we focused on early-adolescent immigrants, and the age range in our sample was quite narrow. Future research should target a broader age range in order to get a clearer idea of developmental processes. For example, effects of the school context may become larger, and effects of the family context may become smaller with increasing age. Third, although we have some more objective measures on the outcome side (friends and school marks), on the context side, we only used adolescents’ self-reports. Future studies should include multiple informants, such as parents, teachers, and peers representing the mainstream society, for more objective information on contextual conditions. Effects may be weaker if more objective measures are used, especially as there is still some degree of projection when early adolescents are asked about the attitudes of close others (Gniewosz & Noack, 2006). It would be interesting to investigate these relationships in specific ethnic groups. To some extent, this has been done in relation to family-related conditions (Schachner et al., 2014b). However, notably in the school context, it would be interesting to study ethnic group differences in the perception of the school context, and how they are associated with differences in outcomes. Such perceptions and their effect may depend, for example, on the relative size of the ethnic ingroup and the status of the ethnic ingroup in the mainstream society. Finally, although we were interested in gender-specific experiences of context, we did not explicitly measure these (e.g., by asking participants about perceived gender-role expectations or gender-specific stereotypes in different contexts). More explicit measures would help to better understand the nature of gender differences in the perception of context and their implications for acculturation orientations and adjustment.

Conclusion and Implications

Our study is novel in several ways. First, it is one of very few studies that systematically investigated gender differences in acculturation conditions and their effects among early-adolescent immigrants. Second, to our knowledge, it is the first one that simultaneously addressed (perceived) conditions in the context of school, family, and ethnic group, and their relationships with both acculturation orientations, and a broad range of school-related aspects of psychological and sociocultural adjustment among adolescent immigrants. Many of the studies referenced before (including the ICSEY study; Berry et al., 2006) were conducted among older adolescents and have only investigated relationships between acculturation conditions and either orientations or adjustment outcomes. There are very few studies such as ours, which are based on early adolescents and which treat acculturation orientations as a mediator. Yet, this is important in order to understand the processes by which conditions are associated with adjustment. Studying all these conditions and adjustment outcomes in a single study as we have done it is the only way to obtain information about the relative importance of each of these contexts for the acculturation and adjustment of adolescent–immigrant boys and girls. This in turn is a prerequisite for the identification of appropriate intervention points and the design of suitable intervention measures.

Our results confirm that inclusive and integrative climates at school and at home promote integration and adjustment of adolescent immigrants, especially concerning psychological aspects of adjustment. On the contrary, perceived discrimination and exclusion as part of one’s ethnic group are a major risk factor associated with separation tendencies and lower sociocultural adjustment. This risk seems to be heightened for boys. Promoting inclusion and positive intergroup attitudes in order to lower perceived discrimination among adolescent immigrants should therefore have a high priority in (educational) policy and practice, both concerning the attitudinal climate in the (mainstream) society at large and in the school as a more proximal (mainstream) context. Discrimination may have become more subtle, yet it is still noticeable for adolescents with an immigrant background, especially for boys.

In diversity policy and practice in schools, equality and non-discrimination are often particularly emphasized (Hachfeld et al., 2011). Yet, if cultural differences are neglected, assimilation to a common mainstream culture is implicitly promoted (Schachner, Noack, et al., 2016)—which again can be perceived as discrimination by ethnic minority students. The scarcity of male role models in educational settings may further enhance the feeling of being excluded among boys. Our results also show that ethnic maintenance does not exclude the simultaneous adoption of the mainstream culture and can have many beneficial effects, particularly for psychological well-being and adjustment.

In public discourse, ethnic maintenance is often equated with separation and perceived as a threat by members of the mainstream society. Yet, it is actually the majority group’s lack of endorsement of ethnic maintenance which leaves no option for immigrants but to fully assimilate or separate. In the light of discrimination, separation is usually preferred in order to retain psychological adjustment (Branscombe et al., 1999). Contrary to public opinion, incorporating students’ ethnic culture in the school context does not lead to more separation but contributes to integration (Schachner, Noack, et al., 2016). It is therefore crucial to change this perception, both in the wider society and in educational settings. This requires not only a more adequate representation of this issue in the media and on the political stage but also the implementation of training for practitioners in educational settings in order to develop more evidence-based knowledge in this area and learn about ways to include students’ ethnic culture in curricula and everyday school life. Finally, increasing the number of teachers with an immigrant background may provide role models for immigrant students and create a bridge between immigrant students and predominantly mainstream schools.

Footnotes

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: This study was funded by the federal program “ProExzellenz” of the Free State of Thuringia, Germany, which also provided a scholarship to the first author at the Graduate School of Human Behavior in Social and Economic Change in Jena.

Author Biographies

Maja K. Schachner is a postdoctoral researcher in Inclusive Education at the University of Potsdam, Germany, as well as a fellow in the College for Interdisciplinary Educational Research. She also has active roles in the young scholar groups of the German Psychological Society and the European Association of Developmental Psychology (EADP). Her main research interests include cultural diversity in schools, cross-ethnic friendships, acculturation, and school-related outcomes of adolescent immigrants. She is the recipient of the 2015 George Butterworth Young Scientist Award of the EADP.

Fons J. R. Van de Vijver is a professor of Cross-Cultural Psychology at Tilburg University, the Netherlands, and has extraordinary chairs at North-West University, South Africa, and the University of Queensland, Australia. He has published about 400 publications, and he is the recipient of the 2013 International Award of the American Psychological Association. He is president of the European Association of Psychological Assessment and President-Elect of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology.

Peter Noack is a professor for Educational Psychology at Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany. He has published extensively on a wide range of topics in the area of adolescent development and was the president of the European Association for Research on Adolescence from 2006 to 2008. His main research interests include development and socialization in family and friendship relations; attitudes, learning behavior, and school achievement of students; and civic socialization.

References

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2010). IBM SPSS Amos 19 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Amos Development.

Arends-Tóth

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2004). Domains and dimensions in acculturation: Implicit theories of Turkish-Dutch. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 19-35. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.09.001

Arends-Tóth

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2006). Issues in the conceptualization and assessment of acculturation. In Bornstein

M. H.

Cote

L. R.

(Eds.), Acculturation and parent-child relationships: Measurement and development (pp. 33-62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Arends-Tóth

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2007). Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1462-1488. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00222.x

Bayram Özdemir

Stattin

(2013). Why and when is ethnic harassment a risk for immigrant adolescents’ school adjustment? Understanding the processes and conditions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1-14. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0038-y

Berry

J. W.

(1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-34. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x

Berry

J. W.

Phinney

J. S.

Sam

D. L.

Vedder

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

Bourhis

R. Y.

Moise

L. C.

Perrault

Senecal

(1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369-386. doi:10.1080/002075997400629

Branscombe

N. R.

Schmitt

M. T.

Harvey

R. D.

(1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135

10.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, 6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

11.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233-255. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5

12.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Dearing

Kreider

Simpkins

Weiss

H. B.

(2006). Family involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 653-664. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.653

14.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

15.

Dimitrova

Chasiotis

Bender

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2014). Collective identity and well-being of Bulgarian Roma adolescents and their mothers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 375-386. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0043-1

16.

Dimitrova

Aydinli

Chasiotis

Bender

Van de Vijver

A. J. R.

(2015). Heritage identity and maintenance enhance well-being of Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-German adolescents. Social Psychology, 46, 93-103. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000230

17.

Dimitrova

Chasiotis

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2016). Adjustment outcomes of immigrant children and youth in Europe: A meta-analysis. European Psychologist, 21, 150-162. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000246

18.

Eccles

J. S.

Lord

S. E.

Roeser

R. W.

(1996). Round holes, square pegs, rocky roads, and sore feet: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. In Cicchetti

Toth

S. L.

(Eds.), Adolescence: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 47-92). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

19.

Feliciano

(2012). The female educational advantage among adolescent children of immigrants. Youth & Society, 44, 431-449. doi:10.1177/0044118x11404441

20.

Frankenberg

Kupper

Wagner

Bongard

(2013). Immigrant youth in Germany: Psychological and sociocultural adaptation. European Psychologist, 18, 158-168.

21.

Galchenko

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2007). The role of perceived cultural distance in the acculturation of exchange students in Russia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 181-197. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.004

22.

García Coll

Lamberty

Jenkins

McAdoo

H. P.

Crnic

Wasik

B. H.

Vázquez García

(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9706060144

23.

Gniewosz

Noack

(2006). Intergenerationale Transmissions- und Projektionsprozesse intoleranter Einstellungen zu Ausländern in der Familie [Intergenerational transmission and projection processes of intolerant attitudes towards foreigners in the family]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 38, 33-42. doi:10.1026/0049-8637.38.1.33

24.

Green

C. W.

Adams

A. M.

Turner

C. W.

(1988). Development and validation of the School Interracial Climate Scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 241-259. doi:10.1007/BF00912525

25.

Greene

M. L.

Way

Pahl

(2006). Trajectories of perceived adult and peer discrimination among Black, Latino, and Asian American adolescents: Patterns and psychological correlates. Developmental Psychology, 42, 218-236. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.218

26.

Güngör

Bornstein

M. H.

(2013). Gender and developmental pathways of acculturation and adaptation in immigrant adolescents. In Chuang

S. S.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(Eds.), Gender roles in immigrant families (pp. 177-190). New York, NY: Springer.

27.

Güngör

Fleischmann

Phalet

Maliepaard

(2013). Contextualizing religious acculturation: Cross-cultural perspectives on Muslim minorities in Western Europe. European Psychologist, 18, 203-214.

28.

Hachfeld

Hahn

Schroeder

Anders

Stanat

Kunter

(2011). Assessing teachers’ multicultural and egalitarian beliefs: The Teacher Cultural Beliefs Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 986-996. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.006

29.

Hagendoorn

(1995). Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 199-228. doi:10.1080/14792779443000058

30.

Hill

N. E.

Tyson

D. F.

(2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740-763. doi:10.1037/a0015362

31.

Horenczyk

Tatar

(2012). Conceptualizing the school acculturative context: School, classroom, and the immigrant student. In Masten

A. S.

Liebkind

Hernandez

D. J.

(Eds.), Realizing the potential of immigrant youth (pp. 359-375). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Jenkins

P. H.

(1995). School delinquency and school commitment. Sociology of Education, 68, 221-239. doi:10.2307/2112686

33.

Leadbeater

B. J.

Kuperminc

G. P.

Blatt

S. J.

Hertzog

(1999). A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1268-1282. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1268

34.

Little

R. J. A.

Rubin

D. B.

(2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

35.

Marsh

H. W.

(1988). The Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ): A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept: A test manual and a research monograph. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

36.

Mc Carthy

J. D.

Hoge

D. R.

(1987). The social construction of school punishment: Racial disadvantage out of universalistic process. Social Forces, 65, 1101-1120. doi:10.2307/2579025

37.

Michel

Titzmann

P. F.

Silbereisen

R. K.

(2012). Psychological adaptation of adolescent immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Germany: Acculturation versus age-related time trends. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 59-76. doi:10.1177/0022022111416662

38.

Molina

L. E.

Wittig

M. A.

(2006). Relative importance of contact conditions in explaining prejudice reduction in a classroom context: Separate and equal? Journal of Social Issues, 62, 489-509. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00470.x

39.

Motti-Stefanidi

Berry

J. W.

Chryssochoou

Sam

D. L.

Phinney

J. S.

(2012). Positive immigrant youth adaptation in context. Developmental, acculturation, and social psychological perspectives. In Masten

A. S.

Liebkind

Hernandez

D. J.

(Eds.), Realizing the potential of immigrant youth (pp. 117-158). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Nguyen

A.-M.A.D.

Benet-Martínez

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

41.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background: Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2009-results-overcoming-social-background_9789264091504-en

42.

Phinney

J. S.

(1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49. doi:10.1177/0272431689091004

43.

Phinney

J. S.

(1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003

44.

Ruble

D. N.

Martin

C. L.

Berenbaum

S. A.

(2006). Gender development. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 858-932). New York, NY: Wiley.

45.

Schachner

M. K.

Van de Vijver

A. J. R.

Heizmann

(2016). Acculturation and school adjustment of immigrant youth in six European countries: Findings from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Manuscript submitted for publication.

46.

Schachner

M. K.

Noack

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Eckstein

(2016). Cultural diversity climate and psychological adjustment at school—Equality and inclusion versus cultural pluralism. Child Development, 87, 1175-1191. doi:10.1111/cdev.12536

47.

Schachner

M. K.

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Noack

(2014a). Characteristics of the country of origin and immigrant children’s psychological and sociocultural school adjustment. In Jackson

L. T. B.

Meiring

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Idemudia

E. S.

Gabrenya

W. K.

Jr. (Eds.), Toward sustainable development through nurturing (or appreciating) diversity (pp. 47-64). Melbourne, FL: International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.iaccp.org/drupal/ebooks

48.

Schachner

M. K.

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Noack

(2014b). Family-related antecedents of early adolescent immigrants’ psychological and sociocultural school adjustment in Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1606-1625. doi:10.1177/0022022114543831

49.

Schöne

Dickhäuser

Spinath

Stiensmeier-Pelster

(2002). Skalen zur Erfassung des schulischen Selbstkonzepts [Scales for measuring academic self-concept]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

50.

Schönpflug

(Ed.). (2009). Cultural transmission: Psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Segeritz

(2014). Bildung und Sozialintegration im Migrationsprozess - Herausforderungen und Bedingungen des Bildungserwerbs von Zuwanderern [Education and social integration in the immigration process - Challenges and conditions of immigrant education]. (Doctoral thesis). Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

52.

Stevens

G. W. J. M.

Vollebergh

W. A. M.

(2008). Mental health in migrant children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 276-294. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01848.x

53.

Suárez-Orozco

Qin

D. B.

(2006). Gendered perspectives in Psychology: Immigrant origin youth. International Migration Review, 40, 165-198. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00007.x

54.

Thapa

Cohen

Guffey

Higgins-D’Alessandro

(2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357-385. doi:10.3102/0034654313483907

55.

Titzmann

P. F.

Raabe

Silbereisen

R. K.

(2008). Risk and protective factors for delinquency among male adolescent immigrants at different stages of the acculturation process. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 19-31. doi:10.1080/00207590701804305

56.

Titzmann

P. F.

Silbereisen

R. K.

Mesch

(2014). Minor delinquency and immigration: A longitudinal study among male adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 50, 271-282. doi:10.1037/a0032666

57.

Van de Vijver

A. J. R.

Leung

(1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

58.

Vedder

Horenczyk

(2006). Acculturation and the school. In Sam

D. L.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 419-438). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

59.

Verkuyten

(2002). Perceptions of ethnic discrimination by minority and majority early adolescents in the Netherlands. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 321-332. doi:10.1080/00207590244000142

60.

Verkuyten

Hagendoorn

Masson

(1996). The ethnic hierarchy among majority and minority youth in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1104-1118. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01127.x

61.

Ward

(2001). The A, B, Cs of acculturation. In Matsumoto

(Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 411-445). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

62.

Ward

(2013). Probing identity, integration and adaptation: Big questions, little answers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 391-404. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.001

63.

Yağmur

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2012). Acculturation and language orientations of Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1110-1130. doi:10.1177/0022022111420145