Acculturation and Psychological Distress Among Adolescent ImmigrantsFrom the Former Soviet Union: Exploring the Mediating Effect of Family

Relationships

Dina Birman and Tina Taylor-RitzlerUniversity of Illinois at Chicago

The present study investigated the potential mediating effect of adolescents’ perceptions of familyrelationships using a structural equation modeling approach. The sample consisted of 226 immigrantadolescents from the former Soviet Union resettled in a suburban county in the mid-Atlantic region ofthe U.S. who were selected at random from the local public schools. The study included independentassessment of acculturation to the host (American) and native (Russian) culture. Results confirm themediational role of family relationships on the impact of Russian acculturation on reduced distress. Inaddition, family relationships partially mediated the link between American acculturation and reducedpsychological distress for these youth. The findings suggest that for this immigrant population nativeacculturation was related to less distress only when linked to positive familial relationships, whereasAmerican acculturation was related to less distress directly, as well as through its positive impact onfamilial relationships.

Keywords: acculturation, family relationships, adjustment, immigrants, adolescents

Acculturation has been defined as changes in the cultural pat-terns of one or more culturally distinct groups resulting fromintercultural contact (Berry, 1980). Psychological acculturation, orthe ways in which individuals undergoing cultural transitionsincorporate the new and old cultures in their lives, has become animportant area of investigation in understanding adaptation ofimmigrants. The link between acculturation and psychologicaladjustment has been extensively studied in multiple immigrantpopulations. However, several reviews of this large body of re-search conclude that the findings are contradictory, suggesting thatacculturation has positive, negative, or curvilinear effects on psy-chological adjustment, depending on the study (Escobar, HoyosNervi, & Gara, 2000; Moyerman & Forman, 1992; Rogler, Cortes,& Malgady, 1991).

One possible explanation for the contradictory nature of at leastsome of these findings is that the relationship between accultura-tion and adjustment may be mediated by contextual factors (Op-pedal, Roysamb, & Sam, 2004; Shen & Takeuchi, 2001). Oneimportant potential mediator is the family context, particularly thedegree to which family relationships are supportive, cohesive, andsatisfying. The family context may be particularly important foradolescent well being in light of research showing that accultura-tion unfolds at different rates for immigrant parents and children,thus resulting in acculturation gaps between immigrant parents andtheir children (e.g., Szapocznik, Scopetta, Kurtines, & Aranalde,

1978). The purpose of the present study was to examine whethera positive family context serves as a mediator of the relationshipbetween acculturation and adjustment for immigrant adolescentsfrom the former Soviet Union, resettled in the U.S.

Acculturation and Psychological Adjustment: ThePotential of Mediating Variables

Many of the studies reporting on the relationship of accultura-tion to psychological adjustment have adopted a “black box”perspective that assesses the direct relationship between variedacculturative styles and psychological outcomes without specify-ing the processes by which it occurs. However, research findingsare contradictory. The studies reporting a positive relationshipbetween level of American acculturation and adjustment (e.g.,Escobar, Randolph, & Hill, 1986; Mehta, 1998; Miranda &Matheny, 2000; Neff & Hoppe, 1993; Ngo, Tran, Gibbons, &Oliver, 2001; Nguyen, Messe, & Stollak, 1999) infer that immi-grants benefit from acculturation to the host culture because theyacquire skills to cope in their new country, such as facility with theEnglish language, as well as awareness of and comfort withAmerican cultural norms and values. In turn, these skills maytranslate to behavioral engagement with the society’s institutionsand citizens, which can facilitate social support, access to re-sources, and contribute to a sense of self-efficacy (Rogler et al.,1991). The studies reporting negative impact of American accul-turation on adjustment (e.g., Burnam, Hough, Karno, Escobar, &Telles, 1987; Caetano, 1987; Escobar & Vega, 2000) suggest thatacculturation can alienate immigrants from traditional supportivegroups and lead to internalization of damaging stereotypes (Esco-bar & Vega, 2000; Rogler et al., 1991).

While seemingly contradictory, it is plausible that all thesefindings are true; that is, the level of host culture acculturation can

Dina Birman, Department of Psychology, and Tina Taylor-Ritzler, De-partment of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois atChicago.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to DinaBirman, 1007 W. Harrison MC 285, Chicago, IL 60607. E-mail:dbirman@uic.edu

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association2007, Vol. 13, No. 4, 337–346 1099-9809/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1099-9809.13.4.337

337

have both positive and negative implications for adjustment, de-pending on mediating contextual factors unspecified in the studiesreported above. In their study of Chinese Americans, Shen andTakeuchi (2001) demonstrated that acculturation level had bothpositive and negative indirect effects on mental health, mediatedby different factors. On one hand, higher acculturation levels toAmerican culture contributed to more stress, which in turn con-tributed to worse psychological adjustment. On the other hand,higher acculturation was associated with higher SES, which had apositive effect on mental health. Thus, one way of moving towarda coherent research base in the study of the relationship of accul-turation to adjustment involves developing testable theories ofmediating factors and measuring, rather than assuming, the factorsthemselves.

An additional concern in much prior literature relating accultur-ation to adjustment has been the use of so-called “one-dimensional” (Nguyen et al., 1999) measures. These measuresconceptualize acculturation to the host and the native culture asmutually exclusive (Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980; Suinn, Knoo,& Ahuna, 1995). As a result, those endorsing high acculturation tothe host culture would simultaneously be endorsing low attach-ment to their native culture. This type of measure complicates theinterpretation of findings. For example, the negative impact ofAmerican acculturation on psychological adjustment found insome studies may not be a function of American acculturation inits own right, but rather of loss of attachment to the native culture,which is confounded with American acculturation on these mea-sures. Therefore, most scholars now agree that both acculturationto the host as well as the native culture can have a positive impacton immigrant adjustment (e.g., Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, &Vedder, 2001).

Coupling the mediational perspective (e.g., Nesdale, Rooney, &Smith, 1997; Shen & Takeuchi, 2001) with measures that consideracculturation to both culture of origin and host culture (e.g.,Birman, 1998; Nguyen et al., 1999) opens up the conceptualpossibility that different mediators may operate on different as-pects of the acculturation process to yield the same outcomes. Thiswas found in a study by Oppedal et al. (2004). These investigatorsexamined acculturation to the host and native culture and alsotested a mediational model of impact of acculturation on mentalhealth in a study of diverse immigrant high school students inNorway. This study found that the influence of ethnic culturalcompetence on mental health was mediated by family support,whereas the influence of host cultural competence on mentalhealth was mediated by support received in the classroom.

The purpose of the present study is to further develop knowl-edge of factors that may mediate the relationship between accul-turation and adjustment for immigrant adolescents. More specifi-cally, a mediational model of acculturation and psychologicaladjustment for former Soviet immigrant adolescents is developedto assess whether family relationships mediate the role of Amer-ican and Russian acculturation in predicting psychological adjust-ment. The model is presented after a discussion of immigrantsfrom the former Soviet Union.

Immigrants From the Former Soviet Union

Since the mid 1970s, approximately 700,000 emigres from theformer Soviet Union have come to the U.S. for permanent reset-

tlement (“Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” 2002). Prior re-search has documented the benefits of American acculturation forthese adolescents (e.g., Birman, Trickett, & Buchanan, 2005) withrespect to school, peer, family, and psychological adjustment.Although former Soviet adolescents do experience discriminationat school, they acquire the English language and become behav-iorally acculturated to the American culture relatively quickly(Birman & Trickett, 2001).

At the same time, some authors have noted that cultural differ-ences between the former Soviet Union and Western nations poseparticular challenges for the adaptation of refugee adolescents withrespect to adjustment in general, and family adjustment, in partic-ular (Aroian, Spitzer, & Bell, 1996; Markowitz, 1994; Mirsky,Barasch, & Goldberg, 1992; Mirsky, Baron-Draiman, & Kedem,2002; Slonim-Nevo & Sheraga, 1997). They have suggested thatformer Soviet families value collectivism and interdependence,and that in Russian culture adolescents are expected to have lessautonomy and have greater deference to parental authority than inWestern countries. In this context, these immigrant children maybenefit from finding ways to integrate involvement with Russianculture into their lives in order to remain connected with theirparents. In light of this, this study sought to understand the com-plex relationship between acculturation and psychological adjust-ment for this group, with family relationships as a mediatingvariable.

Mediational Model

The mediational model is illustrated in Figure 1. Based on theliterature reviewed above, acculturation to the native and hostculture, when assessed independently, can be expected to contrib-ute positively to psychological adjustment for immigrant adoles-cents. Therefore Figure 1 illustrates direct paths from Americanand Russian acculturation to psychological adjustment.

Acculturation and Family Relationships

The model also posits the presence of a significant relationshipbetween acculturation and family relationships (see Figure 1).Immigrant families have been found to have a greater degree ofconflict than nonimmigrant families in several studies (e.g., Dinh,Sarason, & Sarason, 1994; Nguyen & Williams, 1989; Rosenthal,Demetriou, & Efklides, 1989). Several studies have demonstratedthe negative impact of acculturation gaps on family relationships(Buki, Ma, Strom, & Strom, 2003; Farver, Narang, & Bhadha2002; Lee, Choe, Kim, & Ngo, 2000).

For immigrant children, it can be difficult to live with theexpectations and demands of one culture in the home and anotherat school and elsewhere outside the home. Children may not turnto their parents with problems and concerns, believing that theirparents do not know the culture and its institutions well enough toprovide them with good advice or assistance. In addition, they maysee their parents as already burdened with the multiple stresses ofresettlement and as psychologically unavailable more generally. Atthe same time, immigrant parents often rely on children to helpthem with the new language and culture in such situations asdoctors’ appointments, parent-teacher conferences, and with finan-cial and legal documents (Jones & Trickett, 2005; Portes &Rumbaut, 1990). Alternatively, adolescents may embrace the op-

338 BIRMAN AND TAYLOR-RITZLER

portunity to engage in unsupervised activities and may have am-bivalent feelings about their parents’ inability to fully understandtheir experience (e.g., Szapocznik et al., 1986).

The assumption in the literature is that greater attachment to thenative culture on the part of the adolescent helps reduce accultur-ation gaps in immigrant families, which, in turn, may facilitatepositive psychological adjustment. For example, in a study ofChinese immigrants, children’s Chinese language proficiency waspositively related to mother-child cohesion (Luo & Wiseman,2000). Another study of Chinese American children found thatbilingual and Chinese monolingual children experienced less fam-ily conflict than children who are English monolingual (Portes &Hao, 2002). Ramirez (1969) found Mexican American high schoolyouth who reported rejection of Mexican American values hadmore difficulties in their relations with parents. Russian accultur-ation was found to predict perceived support from parents in twostudies of adolescent immigrants and refugees from the formerSoviet Union (Birman et al., 2005; Birman, Trickett, & Vinokurov,2002).

Higher levels of acculturation to the host culture for immigrantadolescents may be plausibly related to acculturation gaps withtheir parents and lead to poor family relationships. Thus Rick andForward (1992) found that greater acculturation levels of Hmonghigh-school age adolescents predicted greater perceived accultur-ation gaps with their parents. However, there is little evidence ofnegative contributions of adolescent acculturation to the host cul-

ture on the quality of family relationships. Rather, some studieshave demonstrated that higher levels of acculturation to the hostculture were related to positive family relationships. In a study ofmultiethnic Asian American college students, those belonging tothe “acculturated” group reported lower intergenerational conflictthan those in the low acculturated and bicultural groups (Chung,2001). Acculturation to American culture predicted perceivedcompetence as a family member in a study of Central Americanimmigrant adolescents (Birman, 1998). Further, Nguyen et al.(1999) found that acculturation to both the native and the Amer-ican culture were positively associated with family relationshipquality for Vietnamese immigrant adolescents. Birman (1998)suggested that Americanized adolescents were better able to func-tion as culture-brokers for their parents, leading to more positiveassessments of themselves as a family member. Alternatively,parents who were responsible for bringing their children to the newcountry may wish for them to become integrated into its societyand culture.

Overall, the studies reviewed above suggest a link betweenadolescent acculturation and family relationships for immigrantfamilies. A consistent finding of positive effects of native accul-turation on family relationships has been found, and host cultureacculturation has also been found to have a positive effect in somestudies. As a result, both are hypothesized to be associated withpositive family relationships in the proposed model (see Figure 1).

AmericanAcculturation

RussianAcculturation

Family Relationships

Supportfrom Parents

Satisfactionwith Parents

Family Cohesion

Loneliness HopkinsSymptomChecklist

Language Behavior

Language Behavior

.49*.78* .82*

.77*.76* .70*

.90*

Psychological Distress

.52*

.79* .71* .39*

Identity

Identity

Figure 1. The Measurement Model (standardized parameter estimates).

339ACCULTURATION AND DISTRESS

Family Relationships and Psychological Adjustment

The proposed model (see Figure 1) also suggests that familyrelationships predict psychological adjustment for immigrant ad-olescents. A number of authors have noted the importance ofparenting and family relationships for adjustment of immigrantadolescents (Georgas et al., 2002; Miranda, Estrada, & Firpo-Jimenez, 2000; Szapocznik et al., 1986). Two studies have dem-onstrated the negative impact of the acculturation gap not only onfamily relationships, but on the psychological adjustment of theadolescent as well. Farver et al. (2002) found that adolescents infamilies mismatched on acculturation reported lower self-esteemand higher anxiety. Similarly, Pawliuk et al. (1996) studied fam-ilies from diverse immigrant backgrounds and found that childrenwho adopted the same acculturation style as their parents scoredsignificantly higher on social competence than did children whoseacculturation style differed from their parents. Thus, family rela-tionships may play a significant role in psychological adjustmentof immigrant children and adolescents, as is hypothesized in Fig-ure 1.

Testing Mediation

Overall, the literature reviewed suggests that family relation-ships in adolescent immigrant families may be an important me-diator of the influence of acculturation on mental health. Severalmediational models have been tested in the literature (Jasinskaja-Lahti & Liebkind, 2001; Shen & Takeuchi, 2001) to identifypotential explanatory mechanisms for the relationship betweenacculturation and mental health. However, of these, only oneconsidered the impact of acculturation to the host and nativeculture in the same model (Oppedal et al., 2004). In that study, therelationship between ethnic cultural competence and mental healthindicators was mediated by support received from family fordiverse immigrant adolescents living in Norway. The purpose ofthis study was to build on this prior finding by extending this workto immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the U.S. to furtherthe field’s understanding of the mechanisms through which accul-turation to native and host culture may impact on mental health.

Age, gender, and proportion of life lived in the U.S. (residenceindex) were used as covariates in testing the proposed models. Theresidence index, often used as an important correlate of accultur-ation (e.g., Marin, Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, & Perez-Stable,1987), is computed by dividing the child’s length of residence bythe child’s age. A score of 1 would indicate that the child has spentall of his or her life in the U.S. In this sample, the range was from.01 to .86 (see Table 1).

Two models were tested using AMOS 6 for structural equationmodeling (see Figure 2). As Baron and Kenny (1986) stipulate,evidence of mediation exists when significant relationships be-tween predictor and outcome variables are rendered nonsignificantafter the mediating variables are included in a model. In additionto reducing the relationship between the predictor and outcomevariables to nonsignificance, the mediating variable must maintainits significant relationship with both the predictor and the outcomevariable. Therefore, the first step was to assess whether accultur-ation was a significant predictor of psychological distress (Model1). We hypothesized that both Russian and American acculturationwould have significant links to psychological distress. Model 2(see Figure 2) then tested whether these relationships were medi-ated by perceptions of family relationships. The two models(Model 1 being nested within Model 2) were compared using fitindices.

Method

Sample

Participants were 226 adolescents who immigrated to the UnitedStates from the former Soviet Union. They were selected at ran-dom from middle and high school students whose home languagewas Russian attending school in a suburban county in the mid-Atlantic region. Participants were 50% female (N � 113) andranged in age from 11.25 to 18.67 years old, with a mean age of14.73 (SD � 1.98). They were in Grades 6–12, with between 10and 14% of the sample in each grade. Average age of arrival in theU.S. was 10.60 (SD � 3.34), with a range from 2.25 to 17.2 yearsold. Participants had resided in the U.S. an average of 4.15 years

Table 1Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Student age —2. Student residence index �.20** —3. Gendera �.07 .05 —4. American language acculturation �.07 .61** .08 —5. American identity acculturation �.16* .35** .01 .29** —6. American behavioral acculturation �.17* .53** .12 .64** .45** —7. Russian language acculturation .20

**�.46** .01 �.26** �.29** �.38** —

8. Russian identity acculturation .02 �.00 .15* �.02 �.19** �.06 .24** —9. Russian behavioral acculturation .06 �.27** .07 �.13* �.28** �.25** .56** .42** —

10. Support from parents �.21** .20** �.05 .17** .11 .05 .01 .15* .08 —11. Satisfaction with parents �.12 .12 .00 .11 �.00 .02 .15* .18** .11 .60** —12. Family cohesion �.09 .13 �.02 .10 �.02 �.03 .10 .21** .11 .51** .56** —13. UCLA Loneliness Scale .11 �.17* �.19** �.33

**�.19** �.34** .05 �.18** .01 �.23** �.26** �.24** —

14. Hopkins Symptoms Checklist .11 �.08 .01 �.20** �.16* �.20 .03 .12 .06 �.13 �.25** �.10 .47** —

a Gender was coded as follows: male � 0; female � �1.* p � .05. ** p � .01.

340 BIRMAN AND TAYLOR-RITZLER

(SD � 2.66). The families in the sample had immigrated from 11of the 15 former Republics of the Soviet Union, with the majorityhaving come from Russia (64%) or Ukraine (22%). Since the homelanguage of all of these students was listed as Russian by theschool system, we felt it was justifiable to assume that they wereculturally similar.

Procedure

The research protocol was approved by the research office ofCounty public school system, and the study was carried out withcooperation of the English as a Second Language Office. Partici-pants were identified from official lists of all students enrolled incounty middle and senior high schools whose home language wasRussian, regardless of whether or not they had been enrolled inESL. Their addresses and phone numbers were made available to

the research team. With the intention of obtaining a sample of 200,262 names were identified from these lists. Letters in Russian weresent home to parents explaining that the study was an effort by afellow member of the former Soviet emigre community (the firstauthor) to learn about the acculturation and adaptation experiencesof adolescents and parents and share the results with them and thecounty school system. Russian-speaking members of the researchteam born in the former Soviet Union, including the first authorand undergraduate and graduate students, followed up with atelephone call to recruit participation and schedule a home visit.This procedure yielded an 86% response rate, resulting in a sampleof 226 students. Written parental consent and student assent wereobtained prior to data collection. To thank the participants, a smallgift, such as a box of candy, was given to the household and aUniversity t-shirt to the adolescent child during the data collection

Model 1: Acculturation and Psychological Distress

-.20*

-.52*

Psychological Distress

Russian Acculturation

.69*

.-.18* .-.45

Res.Index

American Acculturation

Age

2(59)=138.61, p=.00, 2/df= 2.35; CFI=.90, RMSEA=.08.

Model 2: The Mediational Model

American Acculturation

Russian Acculturation

-.46*

-.09

Res.Index

Age

.-.20*

.70*

.-.48*

.28*

.27*

-.21*

-.31* Family Relationships Psychological Distress

2(55)=107.24, p=.00; 2/df= 1.95, CFI=.94, RMSEA=.06.

* p<.05

Figure 2. Models to Test the Mediational Effect of Family Relationship (standardized parameter estimates).

341ACCULTURATION AND DISTRESS

visit. In addition, a brief summary of the results of the study, inRussian and English, was mailed to the participants after thecompletion of the project and shared with the relevant offices inthe county school system.

Pilot testing of the measures with several groups of formerSoviet adolescents known to the researchers and conducted bySoviet-born research staff suggested that they prided themselveson having sufficient English language competence, and that somemay feel insulted if asked to complete measures in Russian. Othersstated that, because they had been so young at immigration theirreading and writing skills in Russian were not well developed andtheir Russian vocabulary insufficient to respond to the question-naires. Based on these considerations, as well as our desire to beconsistent with measurement, all measures were administered inEnglish. Bilingual research assistants were on hand during admin-istration to answer any questions, and Russian translations of themeasures were available for consultation when needed.

Measures

Descriptive statistics including Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities forall measures used in the study are presented in Table 1.

Acculturation Measures

The Language, Identity and Behavioral Acculturation Scale(LIB; Birman & Trickett, 2001), previously used in several studiesof this population (Birman et al., 2005; Birman et al., 2002) wasused to assess acculturation to the Russian and American culturesindependently. The Language competence subscales consist ofnine parallel items asking respondents to rate their ability to speakand understand Russian and English. Sample items ask respon-dents, “how would you rate your ability to speak Russian/Englishon the phone” and “how well do you understand Russian/Englishon TV or in movies.” The Behavioral Acculturation subscales askparticipants to rate the extent to which they engage in behaviorsassociated with each culture (e.g., language use, media, music,entertainment, food, and friends from that culture) in nine parallelitems, such as “how much do you eat Russian/American food.”The Identity Acculturation subscales consist of seven parallelstatements regarding the degree of identification with each culture(e.g., “I consider myself American/I consider myself Russian”)and the extent to which respondents regard this identificationpositively (e.g., “I am proud to be American/Russian”). The re-sponse format for each subscale consists of a four point Likertscale ranging from not at all to very well, like a native for theLanguage subscales, and not at all to very much for the Identityand Behavioral subscales.

It is important to note that in the LIB term “American” is notdefined for the respondents, and they are left to interpret forthemselves what constitutes U.S. music and food, as well as whichof their friends are “American” and which are not. However theterm “Russian” can be problematic for emigres from the formerSoviet Union, particularly with respect to the construct of Russianidentity. Many of the emigres were not considered “Russian” in theformer Soviet Union, but rather as belonging to Jewish, Ukrainian,Byelorussian, and other national/ethnic groups (see Persky &Birman, 2005, for a comprehensive discussion of these issues). Toaddress this problem, the instructions to the Russian acculturation

questions in the LIB indicate that we recognize that this is the case,but that since in the U.S. most Americans refer to emigres from theformer Soviet Union as “Russian” because of the language andculture, respondents are asked to use this term to refer to thatculture which is shared by all emigres from the former SovietUnion.

Family Relationship Measures

Cohesion Subscale of the Family Environment Scale. Moosand Moos (1981) define cohesion as the degree of commitment,help, and support family members provide for one another. Thisscale includes nine true/false items (e.g., “there is a feeling oftogetherness in our family).

Social Support Microsystems Scales- Support from the parentssubscale. The parent subscale of the Social Support Microsys-tems Scales (Seidman et al., 1995) was used to assess perceivedsocial support from parents. These scales were originally devel-oped to assess perceived social support in the family, peer, andschool microsystems. Respondents are asked to rate each of sev-eral potential providers of support, using a three-point scale rang-ing from not at all to a great deal, in terms of how helpful they are“when you have a personal problem,” “when you need money andother things,” and “how much fun” you have with them. In a priorstudy with a former Soviet adolescent sample (Birman et al., 2002)a factor analysis demonstrated a distinct factor for parents (motherand father combined).

Satisfaction with parents. This study employs the satisfactionwith parents subscale of the Adolescent Family Life SatisfactionIndex (Henry, Ostrander, & Lovelace, 1992). This seven-itemsubscale asks adolescents to respond to the statement “I am satis-fied with. . .” different aspects of their relationships with theirparents (e.g., “the amount of freedom my parent(s) give me tomake my own choices”). Responses are on a five-point Likert scalethat ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Measures of Psychological Distress

UCLA Loneliness Scale. This is a 13-item shortened version ofthe third version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russel, 1996).This scale assesses a sense of social isolation. Sample itemsinclude, “how often do you feel left out,” rated on a 4 point Likertscale from never to always.

The Hopkins Symptom Checklist. This is a 14-item scale thatrepresents a shortened version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-21, developed by Green, Walkey, McCormick, and Taylor (1988).The scale assesses symptoms of depression and anxiety. Items askrespondents to indicate the degree of discomfort or worry con-nected with some problem during the past week, such as “diffi-culties in speaking when you’re excited” and “your feelings beingeasily hurt.” Ratings are on 4-point scale anchored by not at alldistressing and extremely distressing.

Results

Assessing the Measurement Model

Before testing the measurement model, correlational analysesamong all the study variables were conducted (see Table 1), andthe data were screened for univariate outliers. Table 2 contains

342 BIRMAN AND TAYLOR-RITZLER

descriptive statistics for each of the variables assessed in the study.As can be seen in the table, the data do not indicate majordeviations from the normality assumption of structural equationmodeling. In addition, as noted above, the measures used in thisstudy all showed sufficient reliability.

The measurement model assessed the degree to which indicatorsof American acculturation, Russian acculturation, perceptions offamily relationships, and psychological distress loaded on theirhypothesized latent constructs. As indicated in Figure 1, factorloadings of the indicators on their respective latent constructs wereall significant and ranged from .39 to .90.

Assessing Model Fit

Although initially paths between age, residence index, and gen-der were drawn to each of the latent variables, only the pathsbetween age and family relationships, and residence index andRussian and American acculturation were significant. The otherpaths and the covariate of gender were then dropped from themodels. The path between the error terms for the latent variablesof Russian and American acculturation was also not significantand dropped from the model.

In addition, to improve model fit, the standardized residualcovariance matrix was examined. As suggested by Cronbach andMeehl (1955) and Campbell and Fisk (1959), method variance ina study such as this one that relies on a single method (self-reportquestionnaires) may be substantial. In fact, the correlations be-tween the error term of the Russian Identity Acculturation variablewith the error terms for Russian Behavioral Acculturation (r �2.768), the UCLA Loneliness Scale (r � �2.818), and the Hop-kins Symptom Checklist (r � 1.717) were relatively high. Theidentity component is the most psychological of the acculturationdimensions, as it assesses the extent to which respondents feelattachment to the culture and have a positive evaluation of it. Inaddition, as noted above, the Russian identity dimension of theLIB acculturation scale has been noted as potentially problematicwith this population, given the differences in the meaning of theterm “Russian” outside and within the Soviet Union. As a result, it

is possible that respondents experienced some anxiety in complet-ing this section of the questionnaire, resulting from some confu-sion with the term “Russian.” This may have produced the corre-lations of the error term with the error terms of the twopsychological indicators. A similar confusion may have emergedin responding to some of the questions on the Russian Behavioralquestionnaire, such as when considering what are “Russian” songs,food, or clubs or parties, resulting in correlations between the errorterms of these two measures. With this theoretical justification, theerror variances were covaried in the two models. The final models,Model 1 nested within Model 2, are presented in Figure 2.

Chi-square statistics, �2(59) � 138.61 and �2(55) � 107.24 forModels 1 and 2, respectively, indicated that both models weresignificantly different ( p � .00) from a saturated model and,therefore, not a good fit for the data. However, given the sensitivityof the chi-square test to a large sample size, the chi-square statisticwas considered an unreliable measure of model fit, and we com-puted the �2/df as suggested by Kline (2005). For Models 1 and 2,the �2/df ratios were 2.35 and 1.95. While there is some disagree-ment about the desirable range of chi squared ratios, with someconsidering values as high as 5 (Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, &Summers, 1977) or 3 (Carmines & McIver, 1981) as acceptable,there seems to be some agreement that the more stringent criterionof values less than 2 indicates an adequate fit (Byrne, 1989).Therefore, while the fit of Model 1 may be considered adequate bysome (e.g., Marsh & Hocevar, 1985), the fit of Model 2 can moredefinitively be described as acceptable.

The following additional indices were considered to asseswhether the Models 1 and 2 were an adequate fit for the data:Comparative Fit Index � .91 and .94; and RMSEA � .08 (95%Confidence interval: lo .06 and hi .09) and � .06 (95% Confidenceinterval: lo .04 and hi .08); for Models 1 and 2, respectively.According to Hu and Bentler (1999), CFI indices close to 1 andRMSEA of less than .08 represent adequate fit for the data. Thus,Model 2 was a better fit than Model 1. Next, �2diff was computedto compare the two models. The �2diff (31.37, df � 4) wassignificant ( p � .001), suggesting that the mediated model, Model

Table 2Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Variable Number of items M Range SD Skewness Kurtosis �

Age — 14.76 10.92–18.67 2.00 .02 �1.02 —Residence index — .34 .01–.86 .21 .21 �.97 —American acculturation

Language 9 3.65 1.56–4.00 .53 �1.70 2.22 .94Identity 7 2.50 1.00–4.00 .83 .03 �.95 .90Behavior 9 3.41 1.89–4.00 .46 �.96 .34 .79

Russian acculturationLanguage 9 3.28 1.11–4.00 .75 �.90 �.10 .94Identity 7 3.10 1.00–4.00 .76 �.82 .13 .90Behavior 9 2.26 1.11–4.00 .47 .22 �.08 .78

Family relationshipsSupport from parents 6 2.45 1.17–3.00 .47 �.53 �.56 .82Satisfaction with parents 7 3.58 1.00–5.00 .86 �.27 �.44 .88Family cohesion 9 .73 0–1.00 .26 �1.03 .44 .77

Psychological distressUCLA Loneliness Scale 13 1.87 1.00–3.69 .56 .70 �.42 .90Hopkins Symptom Checklist 14 1.82 1.00–4.00 .58 1.03 1.58 .89

343ACCULTURATION AND DISTRESS

2, was significantly different from Model 1 and a better fit for thedata.

Structural Models: Testing Mediation

The two structural models (see Figure 2) were tested to assesswhether family relationships mediated the relationships betweenadolescents’ American and Russian acculturation and their psy-chological adaptation. Results of these are presented below.

Model 1. As can be seen in Figure 2, results indicated that bothAmerican and Russian acculturation were significant negativepredictors of adolescents’ psychological distress. Higher levels ofboth Russian and American acculturation were related to lessdistress. This finding is one of the prerequisites for testing medi-ation (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Model 2. Model 2 tested our hypothesis that family relation-ships would mediate the relationship between Russian and Amer-ican acculturation on adolescents’ psychological distress. BothAmerican and Russian acculturation were significant predictors ofperceived family relationships, which in turn significantly pre-dicted psychological distress (see Figure 2). But whereas the directpath between American acculturation and psychological distressremained significant, the direct path between Russian acculturationand psychological distress did not remain so. Sobel tests confirmedthe mediating role of family relationships on the relationshipsbetween both American acculturation and psychological distress(Sobel test � �2.04, p � .05) and Russian acculturation andpsychological distress (Sobel test � �2.14, p � .05). As such, wecan conclude that family relationships partially mediated the rela-tionship between American acculturation and psychological dis-tress and fully mediated the relationship between Russian accul-turation and psychological distress.

The strength and direction of the relationships between thevariables of interest were consistent with what we expected. Spe-cifically, adolescents’ American acculturation was found to sig-nificantly predict their perceptions of their family relationships,with higher levels of American acculturation predicting morepositive perceptions (see Table 2). The direct path between Amer-ican acculturation and psychological distress was also significantwith higher levels of American acculturation predicting lowerlevels of psychological distress. In addition, adolescents’ Russianacculturation was found to be a significant predictor of theirperceptions of their family relationships, with higher levels ofRussian acculturation predicting more favorable perceptions offamily relationships. As expected, perceptions of family relation-ships significantly predicted reduced psychological distress.

Discussion

The study demonstrated a significant full mediational effect ofadolescents’ perceptions of their family relationships on the linkbetween their Russian acculturation and psychological distress anda partial mediational effect on the link between their Americanacculturation and psychological distress. As found in other studiesof immigrant adolescents in the U.S. (Birman, 1998; Nguyen et al.,1999), American acculturation was a significant predictor of bothpsychological distress as well as family relationships, so thatgreater American acculturation was related to less distress andbetter family relationships. In addition, the relationship between

American acculturation and psychological distress was partiallymediated by family relationships. Therefore, elevated Americanacculturation appeared related to lower levels of psychologicaldistress for these adolescents, regardless of their perceptions offamily functioning.

As noted above, the benefits of American acculturation forfamily adjustment and reduced psychological distress for formerSoviet adolescents can be explained by a number of factors.Psychological distress can be lessened for all immigrants by givingthem the skills necessary to develop relationships and negotiatevarious life tasks in their new country. With respect to familyrelationships, as suggested elsewhere (e.g., Birman, 1998), parentsmay feel positively about their children’s integration into theAmerican culture because they see this is a route to success.Further, children who are Americanized are better able to assisttheir parents with negotiating the American culture, as they seemto be frequently called on to do (Jones & Trickett, 2005).

On the other hand, the relationship of Russian acculturation toreduced psychological distress was entirely mediated by perceivedfamily relationships, as hypothesized in the model presentedabove. These findings provide an explanation for the benefits ofhaving these immigrant adolescents maintain their attachment totheir native culture, by suggesting that its influence on their psy-chological distress occurs indirectly through improving their fam-ily relationships. The findings confirm prior research that tested asimilar mediational model for immigrant adolescents in Norway(Oppedal et al., 2004). The implications of these findings is thatone way to intervene to facilitate immigrant adolescents’ adjust-ment may be to emphasize the importance of retaining affiliationto their culture of origin so that positive family relationships can bemaintained. Further, family level interventions that help reduceacculturation gaps between parents and children found useful forU.S. Hispanics (e.g., Szapocznik et al., 1986) may be useful forformer Soviet adolescents as well. As a result, the study confirmsthe proposition of biculturalism theories (Berry, 1980; Phinney etal., 2001; Szapocznik et al., 1986) that immigrant adolescents canbenefit from both, learning the skills to be able to become inte-grated into the host culture as well as native cultural maintenance.Overall, the current data suggest that for this immigrant populationnative acculturation is related to less distress only by contributingto positive familial relationships, whereas American acculturationis related to reduced distress regardless of the nature of theserelationships.

Limitations of the Present Study and Future Research

The present study has several limitations. The data are correla-tional and, while the findings can be used to generate hypothesesabout causation, it is important to treat them as preliminary and inneed of testing in a longitudinal design. The study relied exclu-sively on self-report data and could be strengthened by inclusion ofparent perceptions of family relationships or other measures. Fur-ther, the present study assessed only indicators of adolescents’psychological distress, such as loneliness, anxiety, and depression.Inclusion of measures of positive psychological adjustment wouldresult in a more complete understanding of the impact of accul-turation on adolescent psychological adaptation.

In addition, as done by Oppedal et al. (2004), a broader range ofmediating and adaptation variables would provide a more compre-

344 BIRMAN AND TAYLOR-RITZLER

hensive picture of the ways that different kinds of acculturationinfluence different contexts of functioning. Self-esteem has been avariable seen as important in mediating these relationships in otherstudies (Jasinskaja-Lahti & Liebkind, 2001; Nesdale et al., 1997),and indeed native acculturation and ethnic identity may strengthenadolescents’ self esteem, which may in turn be related to psycho-logical adjustment. Other potential mediators include relationshipswith others beyond family members, as well as adaptation in otherlife domains, such as school (Oppedal et al., 2004). In addition,experiences of discrimination in peer groups, neighborhoods, andschool may significantly impact the adaptation processes of im-migrant adolescents in general (Oppedal et al., 2004) and from theformer Soviet Union in particular (Birman et al., 2005; Jasinskaja-Lahti & Liebkind, 2001).

References

Aroian, K. J., Spitzer, A., & Bell, M. (1996). Family stress and supportamong former Soviet immigrants. Western Journal of Nursing Research,18(6), 655–674.

Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinc-tion in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statis-tical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,1173–1182.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M.Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory models and some new findings (pp.9–25). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Birman, D. (1998). Biculturalism and perceived competence of Latinoimmigrant adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology,26, 335–354.

Birman, D., & Trickett, E. J. (2001). Cultural transitions in first-generationimmigrants: Acculturation of Soviet Jewish refugee adolescents andparents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 456–477.

Birman, D., Trickett, E. J., & Buchanan, R. (2005). A tale of two cities:Replication of a study on the acculturation and adaptation of immigrantadolescents from the former Soviet Union in a different communitycontext. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 87–101.

Birman, D., Trickett, E. J., & Vinokurov, A. (2002). Acculturation andadaptation of Soviet Jewish refugee adolescents: Predictors of adjust-ment across life domains. American Journal of Community Psychology,30, 585–607.

Buki, L. P., Ma, T. C., Strom, R. D., & Strom, S. K. (2003). Chineseimmigrant mothers of adolescents: Self-perceptions of acculturationeffects on parenting. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology,9, 127–140.

Burnam, M. A., Hough, R. L., Karno, M., Escobar, J., & Telles, C. A.(1987). Acculturation and lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disordersamong Mexican Americans in Los Angeles. Journal of Health andSocial Behavior, 28, 89–102.

Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and pro-gramming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Caetano, R. (1987). Acculturation and drinking patterns among U.S. His-panics. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 789–799.

Campbell, D. T., & Fisk, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminantvalidation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,56, 81–105.

Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unob-served variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt, & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Socialmeasurement: Current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chung, R. (2001). Gender, ethnicity, and acculturation in intergenerationalconflict of Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity andEthnic Minority Psychology, 7(4), 376–386.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychologicaltests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.

Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale forMexican American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences, 2, 199–217.

Dinh, K. T., Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1994). Parent-child relation-ships in Vietnamese immigrant families. Journal of Family Psychology,8, 471–488.

Escobar, J., Hoyos Nervi, C., & Gara, M. (2000). Immigration and mentalhealth: Mexican Americans in the United States. Harvard Review ofPsychiatry, 8, 64–72.

Escobar, J., Randolph, E. T., & Hill, M. (1986). Symptoms of schizophre-nia in Hispanic and Anglo veterans. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry,10, 585–596.

Escobar, J., & Vega, W. A. (2000). Mental health and immigration’sAAAs: Where are we and where do we go from here? Journal ofNervous & Mental Disease, 188, 736–740.

Farver, J. A., Narang, S. K., & Bhadha, B. R. (2002). East meets west:Ethnic identity, acculturation, and conflict in Asian Indian families.Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 338–350.

Georgas, J., Mylonas, K., Bafiti, T., Poortinga, Y. H., Christakopoulou, S.,Kagitcibasi, C., et al. (2002). Functional relationships in the nuclear andextended family: A 16-culture study. International Journal of Psychol-ogy, 36, 289–300.

Green, D. E., Walkey, F. H., McCormick, I. A., & Taylor, J. W. (1988).Development and evaluation of a 21 item version of the HopkinsSymptom Checklist with New Zealand and United States Respondents.Australian Journal of Psychology, 40, 61–70.

Henry, C., Ostrander, D., & Lovelace, S. (1992). Reliability and validity ofthe adolescent family life satisfaction index. Psychological Reports, 70,1223–1229.

Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices incovariance structure analyses: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., & Liebkind, K. (2001). Perceived discrimination andpsychological adjustment among Russian-speaking immigrant adoles-cents in Finland. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 174–185.

Jones, C., & Trickett, E. J. (2005). The adolescent culture broker role: Astudy of adolescents and mothers from the former Soviet Union. Journalof Social Psychology, 145, 405–427.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation mod-eling. (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Lee, R. M., Choe, J., Kim, G., & Ngo, V. (2000). Construction of the AsianAmerican Family Conflicts Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology,47, 211–222.

Luo, S-H., & Wiseman, R. L. (2000). Ethnic language maintenance amongChinese immigrant children in the United States. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 24, 307–324.

Marin, G., Sabogal, F., Marin, B. V., Otero-Sabogal, R., & Perez-Stable,E. J. (1987). Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 183–205.

Markowitz, F. (1994). Family dynamics and the teenage immigrant: Cre-ating the self through the parents’ image. Adolescence, 29(113), 151–161.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factoranalysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher-order factormodels and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97,562–582.

Mehta, S. (1998). Relationship between acculturation and mental health forAsian Indian immigrants in the United States. Genetic, Social, & Gen-eral Psychology Monographs, 124, 61–78.

Miranda, A., Estrada, D., & Firpo-Jimenez, M. (2000). Differences infamily cohesion, adaptability, and environment among Latino families in

345ACCULTURATION AND DISTRESS

dissimilar stages of acculturation. Family Journal: Counseling & Ther-apy for Couples & Families, 8, 341–350.

Miranda, A., & Matheny, K. B. (2000). Socio-psychological predictors ofacculturative stress among Latino adults. Journal of Mental HealthCounseling, 22, 306–317.

Mirsky, J., Barasch, M., & Goldberg, K. (1992). Adjustment problemsamong Soviet immigrants at risk part I: Reaching out to members of the“1000 families” organization. Israel Journal of Psychiatry Related Sci-ence, 29(3), 135–149.

Mirsky, J., Baron-Draiman, Y., & Kedem, P. (2002). Social support andpsychological distress among young immigrants from the former SovietUnion in Israel. International Social Work, 45(1), 83–97.

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Environmental Scale Manual.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moyerman, D. R., & Forman, B. D. (1992). Acculturation and adjustment:A meta-analytic study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14,163–200.

Neff, J. A., & Hoppe, S. K. (1993). Race/ethnicity, acculturation, andpsychological distress: Fatalism and religiosity as cultural resources.Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 3–20.

Nesdale, D., Rooney, R., & Smith, L. (1997). Migrant ethnic identity andpsychological distress. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 569–588.

Ngo, D., Tran, T. V., Gibbons, J. L., & Oliver, J. M. (2001). Acculturation,premigration traumatic experiences, and depression among VietnameseAmericans. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,3(3/4), 225–242.

Nguyen, H., Messe, L. A., & Stollak, G. E. (1999). Toward a morecomplex understanding of acculturation and adjustment: Cultural in-volvements and psychosocial functioning in Vietnamese youth. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 5–31.

Nguyen, N., & Williams, H. (1989). Transition from East to West: Viet-namese adolescents and their parents. Journal of the American Academyof Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 505–515.

Oppedal, B., Roysamb, E., & Sam, D. L. (2004). The effect of accultura-tion and social support on change in mental health among young immi-grants. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 481–494.

Pawliuk, N., Grizenko, N., Chan-Yip, A., Gantous, P., Mathew, J., &Nguyen, D. (1996). Acculturation style and psychological functioning inchildren of immigrants. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 111–121.

Persky, I., & Birman, D. (2005). “Ethnic” identity in acculturation re-search: A study of multiple identities of Jewish refugees from the formerSoviet Union. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 1–16.

Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnicidentity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective.Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 493–510.

Portes, A., & Hao, L. (2002). The price of uniformity. Language, family,

and personality adjustment in the immigrant second generation. Ethnicand Racial Studies, 25(6), 889–912.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1990). Immigrant America. A Portrait:Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ramirez, M. (1969). Identification with Mexican American values andpsychological adjustment in Mexican American adolescents. Interna-tional Journal of Social Psychiatry, 11, 151–156.

Rick, K., & Forward, J. (1992). Acculturation and perceived intergenera-tional differences among Hmong youth. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology, 23, 85–94.

Rogler, L. H., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. (1991). Acculturation andmental health status among Hispanics: Convergence and new directionsfor research. American Psychologist, 46, 585–597.

Rosenthal, D. A., Demetriou, A., & Efklides, A. (1989). A cross-nationalstudy of the influence of culture on conflict between parents and ado-lescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 207–219.

Russel, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, valid-ity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.

Seidman, E., Allen, L., Aber, J., Mitchell, C., Feinman, J., Yoshikawa, H.,et al. (1995). Development and validation of adolescent-perceived mi-crosystem scales: Social support, daily hassles, and involvement. Amer-ican Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 355–386.

Shen, B-J., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2001). A structural model of acculturationand mental health status among Chinese Americans. American Journalof Community Psychology, 29, 387–418.

Slonim-Nevo, V., & Sheraga, Y. (1997). Social and psychological adjust-ment of Soviet-born and Israeli-born adolescents: The effect of thefamily. Israel Journal of Psychiatry & Related Sciences, 34(2), 128–138.

Suinn, R. M., Knoo, G., & Ahuna, C. (1995). The Suinn-Lew AsianSelf-Identify Acculturation Scale: Cross-cultural information. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling & Development, 23, 139–148.

Szapocznik, J., Rio, A., Perez-Vidal, A., Kurtines, W. M., Hervis, O., &Santisteban, D. (1986). Bicultural Effectiveness Training (BET): Anexperimental test of an intervention modality for families experiencingintergenerational/intercultural conflict. Hispanic Journal of BehavioralSciences, 8, 303–330.

Szapocznik, J., Scopetta, M. A., Kurtines, W., & Aranalde, M. D. (1978).Theory and measurement of acculturation. Revista Interamericana dePsicologia, 12, 113–130.

Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977).Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.),Sociological methodology 1977 (pp. 84–136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. (2002). Retrieved November 10, 2003,from http://uscis.gov

346 BIRMAN AND TAYLOR-RITZLER