Psychological, Sociocultural, and Marital Adaptation of Turkish Immigrants in Canada

by

Bilge Ataca

A thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology

in conformity with the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Queen's University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

September, 1998

copyright O Bilge Ataca, 1998 National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Sewices services bibliographiques 395 WeCrington Street 395. WeUingPon OLtawaON K1AW OttawaON KIAûN4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowïng the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distriiute or seU reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/nIm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copy~@tin this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract

This study examined the acculturation and adaptation of married Turkish immigrants in Canada A comparative approach was employed by uicorporating the two sedentary reference groups of the Turkish migrant group: Turks in Turkey, and Euro-

Cdans.In this sense it is the £htcomplete study of acculturation. Data were coLlected through self-report questionnaires hmthree groups: 200 married Turkish immigrants and 90 married Emo-Canadians living in Toronto, Canada, and 1 14 married Turks living in Izmir, Turkey. Contrary to the general contention that migration inevitably results in negative outcornes, immigrant couples did not necessarily experience more difficulty due to acculturation than the sedentaty groups. Psychologicdly, Turkish immigrant couples experienced no more dBculty than Turkish couples, yet experienced more diniculty than Euro-Canadian couples. They had more sociocultural difncdty than both sedentary groups. In temof maritai problerns, they were not different fiom either group. The psychological, sociocultud, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples and also of Unmigrant men and women were also disthguished using simdtaneous multiple regression and canonical correlation analyses. Consistent with stress and coping models, psychological adaptation of married couples was associated with hardiness, social support, acculturation attitudes, and discrimination. On the other hancl, in line with social leamhg perspectives, sociocultural adaptation was mostly related to English proficiency and contact with members of the dominant group. Marital adaptation was mostiy associated with marital stressors and marital support. There were merences in the differentiation of adaptation between males and fernales. This differentiation was more clear in men than in women; there were also Mkrent variables associated with the adaptation of men and women. Utilking the basic socioeconomic distinction among professional and nonprofessional Turkish immigrants in Canada, the effects of socioeconomic status as well as gender were examined. The two social classes of immigrants had different acculturation experiences and adaptational outcornes. Gender ciifferences were moa apparent in the lower socioeconornic status group. Women in general were psychologically more vulnemble than men; the group that faces more nsk factors were those women of low socioeconomic status. In tenns of acculturation attitudes, Turkish immigrant couples strongly endorsed separation; however, those of hi& socioeconomic status preferred integration and assimilation to a greater, and separation to a lesser extent than those of low socioeconomic status. Euro-Canadian couples prefemed immigrants to adopt integration. The greater incompatibility between the attitudes of Euro-Canadians and those of low socioeconomic status is likely to foster greater conflichial relations. Acknowledgements

Now that the looong jouniey is over, it is time to give credit to al1 those who helped me find the way. TMN.TO YOU,

John W. Berry, for providing the rnost excellent opportunity to open rny eyes to

"culture," for broadening my horizons, and for your unquestioning trust in me.

Ronald Holden, for seeing me through the program, for your invaluable attention and assistance, and for statistical guidance.

Dorothy Cotton, for your extraordinary wit that lightened each meeting, and for providing prompt and critical feedback.

Leandre Fabrigar, for your help with data analysis, for your patience and efforts in uniting my world with the world of stats, and solving ail of my problems.

The Turkish community in Ottawa and Toronto, and the Turkish participants in hmir, for welcoming us to your homes and sharing your most valuable expenences, and the Euro-Canadian participants in Ottawa and Toronto, for showing interest in the study.

This study could have not been realized without your enthusiasm.

Ebru and Emre, for the pains you took to collect the Turkish data in the very first few months of your engagement, for sharhg my joy and grief, and for always king there.

My "dear" niends, especially, Cemile, Sonia, Dan, Kyunghwa, Steve, Stevo,

Sheelagh, Mesfin, and Bruce, for your contributions to this work at various stages, but most of dl, for enriching my Me in Canada and making it an unforgettable experience.

My friend, coach, and counsellor, for drawing my attention to the existence of other "styles," thereby lifting the clou&, bringing the energy back to fight, and your full confidence and support. 1 am grate M...

Mom and Daci, for the very heparents you are, for king always at my back, for taking pride in me, and for your unconditional love. 1 dedicate this work to you... Table of Contents .. Ab stract ...... u

Aclmowledgements ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Tables ...... W

ListofFigures ...... xiv

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Review of the Literature ...... 4

Acculturation ...... 4

Adaptation ...... 9

Psychological and Sociocultural Adaptation ...... 11

Marital Adaptation ...... 14

Turkish Migration ...... -17

Factors Influencing Adaptation ...... -23

Demographic Factors ...... 23

Gender ...... 23

Socioeconomic status ...... 27

PersonaIity Factor ...... 30

Hardiness ...... -30

Marital Factors ...... 32

Marital shessors and marital support ...... 32

Acculturation Factors ...... 34 vii

hgthof residence ...... 34

Language proficiency ...... 35

Socialsupport ...... 35

Culturai distance ...... -40

Contact with the Iarger society ...... -41

Acculturation attitudes ...... 43

Rejudice and discrimination ...... -49

TheResentStudy ...... 53

ThemesandSpecXcPredictio11s ...... 54

METHOD ...... 60

Participants ...... 60

Tiirkish Immigrant Sample ...... 60

Euro-Canadian Sample ...... -62

Turkish Sample ...... 62

Materiais ...... 63

Demographidsackground Information ...... 63

Persodty ...... 64

Marital Factors ...... 64

Acculturation ...... 66

Adaptation ...... -70

Additional Measures ...... -75 viii

Translation ...... 76

Pilot Study ...... -77

MainStudy ...... 79

Demographic Characteristics of the Samples ...... 82

Turkish Sample ...... -87

Tinkish Immigrant Sample ...... -87

Eure-Canadian Sample ...... 88

Psychometric hperties of the Scales ...... -89

Reliability ...... 96

Validity ...... 97

Validity of the Accutturation Attitudes Scale ...... 100

Adaptation of Turkish Immigrant, Turkish, and Euro-Canadian Couples ..... 114

Acculturation of Turkish Immigrants ...... 119

Psychological. Socioculhual. and Marital Adaptation of T~rkishI~migrants...... 119

Socioeconomic Status and Gender Similarities and DifTerences in Acculturation ...... 140

Acculturation Attitudes of Turkish unmigrants and Euro-Canadians .... 147

Findings Related to Women and Men Across Cultural Groups ...... 153 DISCUSSION ...... 156

Summary of Findings and Implications ...... 163

Adaptation of Tudcish Immigrant, Turkish, and Euro-Canadian Couples . . 163

Psychological. Socioculturd. and Marital Adaptation of Turkish Immigrants ...... 167

Socioeconomic Status and Gender Similarities and Differences in Acculturation ...... 177

Acculturation Attitudes of Turkish Immigrants and Euro-Canadians .... 187

Limitations of the Smdy and Directions for Future Research ...... 192

Sample Issues ...... 192

Measurement Issues...... 194

Design Issues ...... 199

REFERENCES ...... 204

APPENDIX A Turkish Version of the Questionnaire ...... 222

APPENDIX B English Version of the Questionnaire ...... 254

APPENDIX C 1 Turkish Version of the Information and Screening Fom for Turkish Tmmigrants ...... 291

APPENDIX C 2 English Version of the Information and Screening Form for Turkish Immigrants ...... 294 APPENDIX D 1 Demographic Characteristics of Pilot Samples ...... 296

APPENDIX D 2 Descriptive Statistics of Pilot Mnasures ...... 297

APPENDIX E 1 Turkish Version of the Consent Fom for Turkish Immigrants 299

APPENDIX E 2 English Version of the Consent Form for Turkish Immigrants 300

APPENDIX E 3 Consent Fom for Euro-Cansidians ...... 301

APPENDIX F 1 Turkish Version of the Debriefing Form for Turkish Immigrants ...... - ...... - . . 302

APPENDIX F 2 English Version of the Debriehg Form for Turkish Immigrants ...... 304

Data Preparation ...... 306

Intercorrelations Among Study Variables in the Turkish Sample ...... - ...... 309

Intercorrelations Among Snidy Variables in the Turkish Immigrant Sample ...... 3 1O

Intercorrelations Arnong Study Variables in the Eure-Canadian Sample ...... 3 1 1

APPENDIX 1 1 Behavioral Patterns of Turkish Immigrants (Mean, SD, Percentages) ...... 3 12

APPENDIX 1 2 Behavioral Patterns of Turkish unmigrants (Percentages) ...... 3 14

Validity Check for Acculturation Attitude Scale Using the Variable Fnendship Pattern ...... 3 15

APPENDIX J 2 Validity Check for Acculturation Attitude Scale Using the Variable Holiday Celebration ...... 3 16

Validity Check for Acculturation Attitude Scde Using the Variable Newspaper Reaciership ...... 3 17 APPENDIXJ4 Validity Check for Acculturation Attitude SdeUsing the Variable Food &ference at Home ...... 3 18

APPENDIX J 5 Validity Check for Acculturation Attitude Scale Using the Variable Music Preference ...... 3 19

APPENDIX J 6 Validity Check for Acculturation Attitude Scale Using the Variable Ethnic Identity ...... 320

CURRICULUMWTAE...... ,...... ,...... 321 List of Tables

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Tinkish, Turkish Immigrant, and Euro-Canadian Samples ......

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Turkish, Turkish Immigrant, and Em-Canadian Women and Men ......

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Variables ......

Table 4. Constnict Validation for Acculturation Attitudes Scale- Correlations between the Acculturation Attitudes and Acculturation Behavior of TdshImmigrants ......

Table 5. Construct Validation for AccuIturation Attitudes Scale- Correlations between the Acculturation Attitudes of Turkish Immigrants and Adaptation Measures ......

Table 6. htercorrelations among the Acculturation Attitudes of Turkish Immigrants ......

Table 7. Factor Sûucture of the Accultwation Attitudes of Turkish Immigrants

Table 8, Factor Correlation Matrix ......

Table 9. Summaiy of Sirnultanmus Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting the Psychologid Adaptation of Turkish, Turkish Immigrant, and Euro-C~111i!dianCouples ......

Table 10. Siimmary of Simultaneous Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting the Marital Adaptation of Turkish, Turkish Tmmigrant, and Euro-Canadian Couples ......

Table 11. Standardized Regression Coefficienîs and Variance Accounted for by Variables Predicting Adaptational Outcomes of Tinkish Immigrant Couples ......

Table 12. Canonid Correlation Analysis for Turkish Immigrant Couples ...

Table 13. Canonid Correlation Analysis for Males and Females ......

Table 14. Standardized hgression Coefficients for Mcthgthe Adaptational Oldcomes of Immigrant Men and Women ...... Table 15. Descriptive Staîistics oi Variables for Turkish unmigrants as a Functioo of Socioeconomic Staîus and Gender ...... 141

Table 16. Descriptive Statistics of Acculturation Attitudes for Turkish Immigrant and EdamdianCouples ...... 148

Table 17. Intercorrelations among Acculturation Attitudes and Variables for Immigrant Men and Women ...... 152

Table 18. Descriptive Statistics of Variables as a Function of Group and Gender 154 List of Figures

Figure 1. A Wework for understanding accdturative stress and adaptation in response to acculturation (Berry? 1992) ...... 1O

Figure 2. Annual immigration fiom Turkey to Canada (KIinnan, 1994) ...... 21

Figure 3. Intended occupations of immigrants fiom Turkey (Karman, 1994) ... .22

Figure 4. Acculturation strategies (Bq,1984) ...... -44

Figure 5. Overview of variables in the samples ...... 55

Figure 6. Relations of predictors to psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation ...... 57

Figure 7. Factor scree plot of 44 acculturation attitude items ...... 108

Figure 8. Varimax-rotated canonicd loadings for the adaptational outcomes and predictors of Turkiçh immigrant couples: Factor 1 - Marital and psychoiogical adaptation; Factor II - Sociocultural adaptation ..... 127

Figure 9. Varimax-rotated canonid loadings for the adaptational outcomes and predictors of Turkish immigrant couples: Factor II - Sociocultural adaptation; Factor III - Psychologid adaptation ...... 128

Figure 10. Varimax-rotated canonid loadings for the adaptational outcomes and predictors of Turkish immigrant couples: Factor 1 - Marital and psychological adaptation; Factor III .Psychological adaptation .... 129

Figure 1 1. Varimax-rotated canonid loadings for the adaptational outcomes and predictors of male immigrants: Factor 1 - Marital and psychological adaptation; Factor II - Sociocdnwl adaptation ...... 133

Figure 12. Varimax-rotated canonical loadhgs for the adaptationai outcomes and predictors of deimmi~ts: Factor II - Sociocultural adaptation; Factor DI - PsychologÏcal adaptation ...... 134

Figure 13. Varimax-rotated canonical loadings for the adaptational outcomes and predictors of deimmigrants: Factor 1 - Marital and psychological adaptation; Factor iIi - Psychological adaptation ...... 13 5 Figrire 14. Varimax-rotated canonid IoAdings for the adaptationai outcornes and predictors of fdeimmigrants: Factor 1 - Socioculturaï and psychological adaptation; Factor II - Marital and psychological adaptation ...... 136

Figure 15. Acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrant men and women of hi& and low socÏoeconomic *tus ...... 144

Figure 16. Psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant men and wornen of high and low socioeconomic status . 146

Figure 17. Acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrant and Euro-Cansdian Couples...... 149

Figure 18. Psychologid, sociocdtural, and marital adaptation of Turkish (T), Turkish immigrant 0,and Euro-Canadian (EC)couples ...... 164 INTRODUCTION

Turkish Unmigrants constitute a small cuiturai group in Canada. However, their size has been rapidly iucreasing diiring the last few years and this presents a need to understand how they live through the process of acculturation and adapt to iife in Canada.

Voluminous research in various disciplines has accumulated on Turkish guest workers' issues in Europe (see Abadan-Unat & Kemiksiz, 1986 for a review). There is also some research on Turkish immigrants in Australia (e.g., Akçelik & Elley, 1988). However, the acculturation of Turkish immigrants in Canada has not ken studied extensively; in particular, there has been no shdy on the acculturation of married Turkish immigrant couples. This study was designed to shed some light on the acculturation and adaptation of married Turkish immigrants in Canada

Turkey started participating in international migration in the early 1960s by exporthg labor to meet a general labor shortage in Northern Emopean countries. Labor migration meant economic benefits for both the sending and the receiving countries.

Turkish workers, with nual backgrounds, have usudly migrated to have better paying jobs. Referred to as "guest workers," immigrants were employed for a limited period of the, so no efforts were undertaken for thek integration into the larger society (Abadan-

Unai, 1982). Most of the literature on Turkish migration has focused on labor migration into Europe because Turkish workers constituted the greatest proportion of immigrant labor. Research in the arahas concentrated maïdy on blue-collar workers and ignored white-collar workers and professionals (Kagitçibqi, 1988). Migration to Canada and the US., on the other hand, was encouraged both for economic and demographic reasons. Immigrants were accepted as potential citizens on selective admission criteria such as education and level of skill. Still, not al1 immigrants have been fkom hi& socioeconomic backgrounds. In Canada, for example, there ha been an iocrease in the number of non-professional Turkish immigrants since 1980. A major feature of the Turkish immigrants in Canada at present is the distinction between the upper middle class professionals migrating as what is called the "brain drain," and the lower middle class workers. However, und now, no study has paid attention to this basic socioeconomic distinction among the Turkish immigrants.

Psychological acculturation and its outcorne, adaptation, have been the focus of much psychological research on immigration (Berry, 1997). Acculturative stress (stress occurring during acculturation) has particularly attracted attention in order to help aileviate the adaptation problems of immigrants. Seveml cultural and psychological factors have been identified as signincant factors in the relationships among acculturative stressors, stress, and immigrant adaptation. These moderate the impact of acculturative stressors on the formation of mental health problems such as depression, awiety, psychological and psychosomatic symptoms, influencing the eventual adaptation of immigrants (Berry & Kim, 1988). More recently, attempts have been made to distinguish the two outcornes of acculturation, psychological (emotionaVaf5ective) and sociocultural

(behavioral) adaptation, and to constnict predicîive models for each. Psychological adaptation is defined in terms of psychological well-being and satisfaction; socioculhual adaptation is defined in ternis of behavioml cornpetence (Ward, 1996). Turkish culture is identified as collectivistic in the seminsii work of Hofstede

(1980) in the area of individualism-coUectivismsmFamily integrity and interdependence

with sociability are the two important aspects of collectivism. Hierarchy is emphasïzed

and men usually superordinate women. Harmony, saving face, security, and conformity

are highly valued (Triandis et al., 1986). Collectivistic cultures are also descrïbed as

''cultures of relatedness" (Kagitçibay, 1985) referring to the family culture and the

dependent-interdependent nature of human relations. Relational concephialization of the

self is important in this context where sensitivity to others and social responsibility are

encomged in socialization and intergenerational interdependence is required for family

Livelihood (Kagitçibqi, 1990, 1996). As such, family life is very important in Turkish

culture; close emotional ties, accountability, loyalty, interdependence, and relatedness

characterise the family interaction pattern. The family is the social institution which

provides care and support for the individual, helping one in adapting to life changes

(Kiray, 1985). Hannony between spouses is basic to marital satisfaction and thereby,

well-being in general. Canadian immigration policy also stresses the importance of farnily by encouraging family reunification; hence, kedcouples constitute a large portion of

immigrants. Given the importance of family, the study of marital adaptation as a third fom of adaptation in the context of migration is necessary. Marital adaptation may have an important influence on the process of acculturation and the positive adaptation of immigrant couples.

Psychological acculturation studies usually discuss the experience of "'the immigrant," paying Little attention to the ways in which men and women live through the process. However, immigrant women and men have different experiences in the new cultural context and a better understanding of these diierences is possible if immigrant women and men in the same context and under similar influences are studied concurrently. Acculturation literature suggests that women immigrants may be more minerable to mental heakh problems arising from accuiturative stress than are men

(Anderson, 1985; Beiser et ai., 1988; Saigado de Snyder, 1987a).

The present study develops the area of acculturation research by considerhg four new aspects: First, it airns to distinguish among the psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples in Canada. Second, it examines socioeconornic and gender ciifferences in the process of acculturation. Third, the attitudes of Euro-Canadians toward immigrant acculturation as well as the acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrants are examined. Fourth, a comparative approach is employed to the study of immigrant acculturation by comparing the acculturation of married Turkish immigrants with both of the two reference groups that remained in their own countries

("sedentary" groups): Turkish couples in Turkey and Euro-Canadian couples in Canada.

Review of the Literature

Accufhiratiog

AU immigrants expenence cultural changes when they change their culturai sumunding. Accdmrefers to these culture changes that result fkom continuous, ht-hand contact among groups of individuals having different cultures (Redneld,

Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Psycholoeical accultuniti~n(Graves, 1967) refers to the 5

psychological changes in the individual members of a culturd or ethnic group as a result

of experiencing acculturation. These psychological changes can be grouped under two

categories: wviwand acculturative stress (Berry, 1976, 1980). The first group

of changes relates to leaming behaviors fiom the new culture and unlearning (shedding)

behaviors nom the origîd culture (Berry,1992). An individual changes previously

leamed meanings, leanis new cdturai values, role expectations, behavior patterns, and

acquires new skills (Spradley & Phillips, 1972) and sheds previous patterns that are not

valid in the new culhue. The second group of changes is related to the psychological,

social, and physicai health consequences of acculturation. Drawing on the general stress-

coping framework (Lazanis & Folkman, 1984), acculturative stress refers to a stress

reaction in response to stressors that originate in the experience of acculturation, inducing

tension in the individual. The manifestations of acculturative stress include lowered

mental health status (particularly aaxiety, depression), feelings of marpinaiity and

alienation, and heightened psychosomatic and psychological symptom Ievel (Berry, Kim.

Minde, & Mok, 1987). Hence, acculturative stress can be studied under the more general

concept of mental health, which includes the presence of psychological well-being as weil as the absence of ihess, distress, and dysfunction (WHO, 1982). In line with this conceptualization, acculturation studies have also addressed the positive aspects of mental health such as emotional stability and satisfaction with life. Korean-Canadians in

Toronto who had fewer psychological problems, adaptation difnculties, and experiences of discrimination were found to have higher levels of satisfaction (Kim, 1988). Turkish immigrants in Montreai who had shorter durations of unemployment, higher employment 6 status, more positive seIf-concept, and who were les stressed and alienated, were more satisfied (Aycan & Berry, 1996).

Immigration constitutes a set of major life changes; since stresses associated with such changes can have mental health consequences (Holmes Br Rahe. 1967), immigrants might be considered a high risk group for psychological disturbance. The association between immigration and mental health has long drawn the attention of researchers.

Odegaard (1932) in his pioneer work compared the hospital rates of Norwegian immigrants and native-bom Americans in Minnesota and found that immigrants had higher rates of hospitaiization for schizophrenia than the native bom Amencans. Higher rates of hospital admission among immigrants were also reported in New York state hospitals (Malzberg, 1940) and for the intemal migrants (Malzberg & Lee, 1956).

However, reports fiom Australia, Canada, Norway, and Israel showed that immigrants had either equal or lower rates of mental disturbance than non-immigrants (Murphy,

1973a, 1973b 1977; reviewed by Jayasuriya, Sang, & Fielding, 1992). The alternative research stmtegy of survey studies also produced the same kind of codicting evidence about the rate of psychological distress among immigrants. North fican immigrants in

Montreal exbibited a similar level of mental health to that of the native French-

Canadians. Immigrants' depression levels were lower, psychosomatic symptomatology was similar, and anxiety levels were higher than French-Canadians (Lasry, 1977). On the other hand, while immigrant women, a high risk ~~OUP,display high rates of psychological distress in general (Beiser et al., 1988), Pomiguese immigrant women in

Moneeal did not score signifïcantly differently compared to the standardization group 7

(Roskies, 1978). Korean immigrants living in Toronto did not exhibit significantly higher

levels of stress and depression either (Kim, 1984; Noh, Speechley, Kaspar, & Ww 1992).

The inconclusiveness of the evidence is pdydue to the methodology adopted in

these studies. Due to the nature of the process of acculturation, the ideal way to study

acculturating individuals would involve taking Uito account non-acculturating individuals

both in the society of ongin and in the society of sdement. This is even more crucial in

the case of immigrants, since immigrants are characterized as a group of acculturating

individuals who fiom one society to another voluntar& with the intention of

having a permanent residence in the new society (Berry & Kim, 1988). They cannot be

conceptuaiized apart nom either the group they corne fiom or the group they interact with

on a daily basis. Yet, in practice, the common strategy has ken to examine an immigrant

group in the society of settlement and to arrive at a conclusion based on some published

scores according to risk or iiiness, or on cornparisons with separate studies. One of the

aims of the present study is to reach a more valid understanding of immigrant mental

health by comparing it to that of both reference groups using the same scales of

The body of contradictory evidence on immigrant mental health led to the conclusion that the expenence of immigration, in and of itself, did not determine mental health status. Instead of asking whether immigrants have better or woae mental health,

Murphy (1977) suggested that the focus be tumed to the conditions under which immigrants have higher or lower rates. In this way, factors that govem the relationship between immigration and mental health could be identified and steps could be taken to 8

increase the rate of successful adaptations. Murphy (1977) emphasized the importance of the society of origin. He drew attention to factors unrelated to immigration as well as to those which acquired significance in relation to immigration. The former includes, for example, hi& predisposition of the culture to certain disorders. If the society has a very high rate of a specific disorder, then high rates in immigrants cannot be attnbuted to migration alone. The latter involves such factors as the attitude of the society towards immigration and the information provided to immigrants regarding conditions in the society of settlement. Better settlement conditions exist and hence, fewer problems will redt, in those societies which support cultural diversity. This is both because there is more social support available fiom the network of social and cultural groups making up the multicultural societies, and also because the larger society is less assimilationist and more tolerant of diversity (Murphy, 1965). Accordhg to Murphy (1977), the relative size of the immigrant's own cultural group is the most likely factor to affect mental hedth in the society of settlement. Research shows that in Cda,for example, the mental hospitakation rates for immigrants with the smallest groups are twice the rates of the largest (Murphy, 1973b). Hence, he believes that immigrants should always be encouraged to settle in cultural commulzities.

The former view on inevitably high rates of mental disorder among immigrants has since been replaced by a view that considers the relative importance of certain factors in relation to the vulnerabiiity of immigrants. Immigrants are particularly vuùierable to mental health problems, yet these problems are not inevitable; the very same acculturation expenence may result in different levels of stress among individuals. This is 9

because there are many cultural and psychologicai factors which affect the emergence of

accdturative stress (Berry & Kim, 1988).

The accdturative stress framework of Berry (1 992) identifies these factors which

govern the relatiomhips among acculturation, stress, and adaptation, and depict their role

in immigrants' adaptation (see Figure 1). Acculturation, experienced in varying degrees, may result in varying nurnbers of acculturative stressors, which may lead to v-g levels of accuiturative stress resulting in variations in adaptation. Relationships among these phenornena are probabilistic; their occurrence depends upon a number of moderating

factors. Berry distinguished between the moderating factors that precede the acculturation process and those that exist in the acculturation context. Thus, individuals vaiy in their acculturation experiences due to both precontact variables like an individual's age, gender, education, status, pnor knowledge of the new language, one's migration motivation or cultural similarity (upper box), and contact experiences such as one's acculturation strategy, one's appraisai of the host society's ethnic and racial attitudes, and the presence of social support or coping skills (Iower box).

Adaotation

Ada~tation.varying fiom weil adapted to poorly adapted, is the outcome of psychological acculturation. Changes may occur in both the accuiturating and the dominant group in the larger society, yet acculturation brings more changes in the acculturating group (Berry, 1990a). Accdturating individuals are sometimes believed to change to resemble the larger society, hence, the process has been mostly referred to as Figure 1. A framework for understanding acculturative stress and adaptation in response to acculturation (Berry, 1992). 1 i

&ugp;pmt (Ward & Kennedy, 1993a). However, individuals or groups do not necessariiy become more like the larger society in the process of acculturation; they may resist and try to change the society, or may move away fiom it. In this sense, adaptation is bi-polar, it does not only mean weu-adapted (Berry, 1997). Also, acculturation involves adaptation on the part of the dominant group as well as on the part of the acculturating group. As

Sayegh and Lasry (1993) put it, "it is difficult to imagine a host society which would not be transformed after immigrants have been accepted as full participants into the social and institutional networks of that society" (p. 99).

Psvchologj

What constitutes adaptive responses to acculturation? Researchers, drawing fiom the theoretical fhmeworks of mainstream psychology and applying them to acculturation, have utilized diverse indices of cross-cultural adaptation in the immigrant, sojoumer, and refugee Literature. For example, adaptation has been operationalized and examined in such terms as psychological stress (Berry et al., 1W), health evaluations (Babiker, Cox,

& Miller, 198O), feelings of acceptance and satisfaction (Brislin, 198 1), job performance

(Harris, 1972), acquisition of culturally appropriate behavioa and skills (Fumham &

Bochner, 1982) among many others.

Ward and colleagues have integrated the two popular, but distinct approaches to culture contact and change: stress and coping models and social learning perspectives.

This view is sunilar to the distinction between acculturative stress and behavioral shifts as psychological consequences of acculturation (Berry, 1976,1980). The fïrst is elaborated 12 in the acculturative stress fkmework of Berry (1992) who has applied a stress and coping framework (Lazanis & Follanan, 1984) to the analysis of the acculturation process as discussed above. Stress and coping models are based on the notion that both positive and negative life changes are intrinsically stressfui in that they require adaptive reactions.

Acculturation has been viewed as entailhg such stress-inducing life changes. These changes increase susceptibility to physical and mental illness, however, the level of stress and the coping responses are affecteci by mediating variables, including both personai and situational influences. The second approach draws on a combination of social skilis

(Argyle, 1980) and culture learning (Furnharn & Bochner, 1982) models. Individuals going through a culture change are socially unskiiled in the new cultural setting. Social learning models emphasize the acquisition of social skills appropnate to the new culture, knowledge necessary to negotiate social encouuters through contact with hosts, cross- cultural expenence, and training (Fumham & Bochner? 1982). Culture leaming from the new culture and culture shedding fiom the original culture take place in order to be more skilled and f-ctionbetter in the new society (Berry, 1992).

Ward and colleagues, based on these two approaches, have advanced a bipartite ftamework for the study of acculturation and adaptation. They have distinguished between two outcomes of acculturation: psychological and sociocultural adaptation

(Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward, 1996; Ward & Kennedy, 1993%b). Psychological atatioa associated with a stress and coping fhmework, refers to psychological well- being and satisfaction in a new cultural context. Sociocultlnal adaptation, based on a social leamllig perspective, refm to acquiring culturaUy appropriate knowledge and skills, and thereby, to one's ability to interact with the new culture, to ded with daily problems of living, in short, one's ability to ''fit in." These two forms of adaptation are

interrelateci; dealing successfidiy with problems and positive interactions with members of the dominant culture are likely to impmve one's feelings of well-king and

satisfaction; similarly, it is easier to accomplish tasks and develop positive interpersonal relations if one is feeling good and accepted.

Although related, these two forms of adaptation are conceptuaUy distinct in two ways. FUst, as discussed above, they are best analyzed in two different fi-ameworks.

Second, they are predicted by different factors. Research showed that psychological adaptation, defhed in terms of well-being or mood states (e.g., depression, anxiety, tension, and fatigue), was predicted by personahty7life changes, and social support variables. Searle and Ward (1990) found that extraversion, life events, and satisfaction with hosî national relations predicted psychologicai adaptation in Malaysian and

Singaporean students in New Zealand. Locus of control, life changes, and personal relationship satisfaction accounted for a substantial portion of variance in psychological well-being in student and adult sojoumers (Ward & Kennedy, 1992, 1993a). In contrast, assessed in terms of social difnculty, socioculturai adaptation was predicted by variables which are related more strongly to cognitive factors and social skills acquisition, such as cultural knowledge, cultural distance, culturai identity, language ability, length of residence in the new culture, and amount of contact with hosts (Ward & Kennedy, 1992,

1993% b). Cdanimmigration policy stmses fdyreunification; hence, manieci couples constitute a large portion of immigrants. Similarly, with Turkish immigrants, the family class makes up a sizable proportion of ail the classes (Karman, 1994). In this context, it is valuable to study immigrant couples' marital adaptation, which may be crucial in their adaptation to the new culture. Accommodation of spouses to each other is even a more important issue in the process of acculturation at a tirne when ties with the old support networks are lost (Ward, 1996). Marital problems can make Hemore difficult in the new culture, or conversely, a happy mamage can lead to a successfid adaptation. Moreover, acculturation comtitutes a double transition for married immigrants in that both the individual and the mariage adapt to the new culture. Hence, marital adaptation must be disthguished as yet another facet of the adaptation of married immigrant couples and its relations with the other facets need to be specified.

People who are unhappy in their marital life are likely to be stressed by theu marital situation and this distress wodd be exacerbated by strahs in other areas of their lives (Coyne & DeLongis, 1986). Marital difficulties can be compounded by the broader issues of acculturation, resuiting in psychological problems. Because immigration can be considered a stressful situation, it may increase the amount of codict between spouses.

Faced with new forms of behavior, the couple may have disagreement over appropnate ways of accdturating.

Research shows that mental health stanis is more associated with marital satisfaction among women than among men (Husaini, Neff, Newbrough, & Moore, 1982; Levenson, Carstemen, & Gotnnan, 1993; Pearlin & Lieberman, 1979). This is particularly the case with Turkish women. Spousal relationships, the support received firom husbands in particular, is very important for Turkish women. KaDtçibqi (1986), in a nationaily representative study, reported that 63% of Turkish women chose "being close to spouse" as the most or second most important Life value, whereas this value was chosen by only 19% of Turkish men. She stressed that these gender differences were especidy noticeable in Turkish culture and may be due to women's subordhate and dependent position, hence, their higher vduation of the spousal relationship. In lhe with this view, Boyacioglu and Karanci (1 992) found that husband's support was a significant predictor of depression among mdedTurkish women.

In order to better understand the marital context of Turkish immigrants, some cultural background is in order. In the traditional nual secton of Turkish society a

"duofocai" family structure exists. Each spouse is the focus of a separate world with its own hierarchy, peer reference group, and spheres of authority. Hence, the conjugal role relatiomhip is segregated with separate interests and activities, and a clear dinerentiation of sex roles (Olson, 1982). The pattern can be characterized as one of distinct sex roles, lack of sharing between spouses, and supportive same-sex kinship and fnendship networks, which extends into the towns and the rurai migrants in uban setlings

(Kandiyoti, 1982). Basic to sex role segregation, male authority, and the subordination of women is the concept of 'bnamus"(honor), which refers to the chastity of women. A husband's honor is dependent on the chaste behavior of his wXe, hence he has the authority to control her actions. In the traditional Twkish family, the husband is the ultimate authority and it is the de's duty to obey him (Kagitqbql& Sunar, 1992). In this regard, the traditional fdenetwork system assures not only wornen some fkedom and independence (Fders & Fallers, 1976), but also men a sense of secunty. However, in urban settings, a joint conjugal role relationship more Iike the Western pattern has recently become apparent. Increased education and urban residence have changed Turkish marriages in the direction of more egalitarïan attitudes in relationships between spouses.

Marital power relations have been changing in the direction of Iess domination by the husband and greater involvement of the dein decision-making (Ataca & Sunar, 1996; hogiu, i 994; Kagitçibqi, 1986).

This cultural context will help understand the changes in the marital relationships of the dTurkish immigrant women in Northern Europe and Australia Women from traditional rurai backgrounds with limited education were isolated in the Western, predominsuitly Christian, industriai urban societies. For the first tirne in their lives they were to live without the support of an extended fedenetwork and in a situation in which limited howledge of Ianguage restxicted them fkom participation in the life of the host society (Hearst, 1985). For women who were unemployed and confined at home, the relationship with the husband took on a more joint conjugal nature due to isolation. The unavailability of the female networks Led to isolation, feelings of insecurity, and restriction by the husband. The husband enforced his authority more because it was more difficult to protect his honor in an unfamiliar setting without the buffer of the old female networks (AbSnan-Unat, 1985; Ke~eli,1988). In familes where women worked and enjoyed greater autonomy and fkedom, adjustments had to be made because of the changing sex roles (Abadan-bat, 1982,1985). Conflicts and stresses between spouses

emerged on matters such as the allocation and control of incorne, and the authority on

decision-making (Kudat, 1975).

The most important socio-economic feature of Western Europe foilowing World

War II has been its dependence on the use of immigrant labor recruited from the Iess

industrialized counnies of Europe, North Anica, and Asia The main reason underlying

labor migration was economic; there was a shortage of labor in Europe and a high

unemployment rate in the less industnalized countries. Initially, most receiving countries

recruited labor on a temporary basis; for example, in Germany, foreign workers are

referred to as "guest" workers. However, with time it became difficult for immigrants to

return home and hence, foreign labor has become a permanent feature of the European

society and economy (Abadan-Unat, 1976; KagitCibap, 1987; Koçtürk, 1992).

The fkst labor agreement to send workers fiom Turkey was negotiated with West

Germany in 196 1. Agreements with Austria, the Netherlands, France, Belgium,

Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Autdia followed (Abadan-Unat, 1976). By 1 970,

Turkey had become the second largest supplier of labor to Western Europe &er

Yugodavia In the mid- 198Os, an estimated three miilion Turks were living in Westem

Europe. At present, the greatest representation of Turkish workers is in Gemany They constitute 34% of the total fmign population with an approximate population of two million. Turks in the Netherlands constitute the greatest proportion of foreign workers (27%) (Koçtiirk, 1992). This migration and its social and economic consequences have

been the subject of volinninous research. Various discipiines have s~idiedseveral areas

such as migration from the Twkish and fiom the foreign perspective; economic issues

such as remittances, worker's companies, investments and social security; the social

situation of the migrant worker, including the effect of migration on family structure,

migrant women, problems of the second and third generation; educational problems;

linguistic problems; problems of cultural assimilation and of personal identity; and issues

in re-entry, which have been reviewed in an annotated bibliography by Abadan-Unat and

Kemiksiz (1986).

The majority of Turkish workers in Europe are fiom rurai or low-incorne urban backgrounds with Iow levels of education. In Turkey, the majority of men were self- employed as farmers, small businessmen, or craftsmen. Women fiom the mal areas were mostly engaged in agriculture. Most of the Turkish immigrants have got ernployed in manual jobs, including factory and construction work, cleaning, and dishwashing, which require minimal qualifications (Abadan-Unat, 1982). Turkish workers have had the lowest socioeconomic status in the German labor market and have been a particularly disadvantaged group (Cades, 1984). The work environment has been socially isolated; they have mostly worked with Turks or other immigrant groups. This created a vicious circle which prevented social mobility. Their educatiod background and the nature of their jobs have made it difncult for them to have contact with the host society and to leam the language, which in tum wouid have helped them acquire new skills to improve their status (Koçtürk, 1992). Nevertheless, it is reported that Tipkish-owned businesses and the economic success of the Turkish Unmigrants have ken increasing ui recent years

(Rabinbach, 1993).

The fast transition fiom a traditionai to an industrial way of Life in an Unfamiliar setting and the lack of language cornpetence have produced psychological disturbances, especially among women immigrants. The most common symptoms have ken intense anxiety accompanied by hart or chest pains, stomach ulcers, sleeplessness, lack of appetite, sexual problems, head and back aches. Somatic cornplaints have been fiequently encountered and the recurrent patterns have resulted in the acknowledgement of a new type of disorder, Iabeiled as the "guest worker syndrome" or 'Toreign worker's disease"

(Abadan-Umt, 1982; Mirdal, 1984).

Talent migration, referred to as "brain drain," fkom Turkey started during late

1950s and was led mostly by scientists, engineers, and medical doctors. The countries that

Turkish professionals most often chose to emigrate have been Germany, the United

States, England, France, Switzerland, and Canada. In the period between 1962 and 1966,

535 professionals migrated to the U. S., 161 to Canada, and 134 to France. Between 1956 and 1970 l,5O 1 Turkish scientists, engineers, and medical docton were admitted to the

United States (0- 1976). The most comprehensive ernpincal study on Turkish brain drain is by O@hn (1975). He studied Turkish PhD's working abroad, mostly in the U. S., Canada, Germany, France, and England. Three-fourths of the respondents were natural scientists and engineers. The professional reasons for immigration ranked the highest, followed by economic, social, culturai, political, personal or family reasons. 20

The generd pattern of Turkish migration to Canada in the 20th century is seen in

Figure 2. It reached its peak before World War 1, stopped until after World War II, and

peaked out during late l96Os, early 1980~~and has been rapidly increasing during the last

few years (Karman, 1994). According to the 1996 Census Data, 14,430 Turkish

immigrants who were bom in Turkey Live in Canada (Statistics Canada 1997). The

participants in this study are Turkish immigrants in Toronto, which has the largest

Turkish population in Canada. According to the 1996 Census Data, there are 5,350

Turkish immigrants (2,680 fendes and 2,670 males) in Toronto. This number was only

2 15 before 1961, and the numbers of newcomers have been increasing: 1,O3 0 during

1961-70; 1,090 during 1971-80; 1,285 during 1981-90; and 1,725 during 1991-96

(Statistics Canada, 1997).

The distinction between the professional and the non-professional groups have

grown during 1980s. Figure 3 shows the intendeci occupations of Turkish immigrants in

two time periods. Arnong the categories, occupations not elsewhere classified @ex) and

not classined have gram greatly during the 1980- 199 1 penod (Karman, 1994). The distinction between these categones, the fabricating, assembhg, repairing category. and the sciences, engineering and mathematics is clearly evident. Another noteworthy point in

Figure 3 is the spouse category, which ranks at the top. This group comprises mostly women who have migrated with their husbands and who are not gainfully employed. Years

Fiwe 2. Annual immigration from Turkey to Caaada Fimire 3. Intended occupatiox~~of immigrants hmTuricey (Karman, 1994). The vast litexahne on acculturation has dtedin several hixneworks that illustrate factors which affect an individual's adaptation (Berry,1992; Rogler, 1994;

Ward, 1996). The foilowing is an overview of the factors predicted to be significant in the adaptation of marrïed immigrant couples, and hence, are those of major interest in the present study. The discussion commences with demographic factors (gender, socioeconomic status) and is followed by persodty (hardiness), mmïage (marital stressors, marital support), and acculturation (length of residence, language proficiency, social support, cultural distance, contact, acculturation attitudes, and discrimination) factors.

Dernoga~hicFactors

Gender. The extensive iiterature on depression has consistently shown important sex Merences, with women reporting more emotional problems and depressive symptomatology than men (Billings & Moos, 198 1; Menaghan, 1982; Peariin &

Schwler, 1978). The addition of acculturative stress to ongoing üfe stress redts in immigrant women king even more distressed. Studies show that women immigrants may be more vulnerable to mental health problems arising fkom accdturative stress than men.

Anderson (1985) reported that East-Indian and Greek immigrant women experienced greater depression than men because feelings of loneliness and isolation were more stressfid to women. A significant relation was observeci between accultumtive stress and depressive symptomatology among married Mexican immigrant women and £hdings 24 suggested that they may be at high risk for the development of psychopathology (Salgado de Snyder, 1987a). Cuban immigrant women were found to be more at risk for anxiety. depression, and exnotional dadjustment than immigrant men (Naditch & Momssey,

1976). The correlation between life events and psychoneurotic symptoms indicated that

Portuguese immigrant women were more sensitive to stressfd life events than men

(Roskies, Iida-Miranda, & Strobel, 1978). Moreover, Pomiguese immigrant wornen showed no decline in psychoneurotic symptoms with time whereas men showed a si&cant decline (Roskies, 1978). Turkish immigrant women in Europe were reported to derfiom psychological disturbances of mostly somatic nature (Abadan-UM~1982;

MirdaI, 1984).

On the whole, immigrant women are less likely to speak either of the official languages of Canada than immigrant men (Beiser et al., 1988). Lack of language brings many social and fdyproblems and has indirect effects on mental health. This inability exacerbates the problems of settlement and employment, and increases the dependency of the woman on her husband. She feels isolated due to her inability to speak the language.

Meanwhile, her husband and school-going children leam the language quickly since they are in contact with the society daily. She cannot participate in her children's school activities, has problems communicaihg with teachers, doctors, and govemment agencies.

Not king able to speak the language starts becoming an embarrassrnent for her; the loss of seKconfidence and the feeling of isolation bring on frustrations which lead to mental health problems (Beiser et aL, 1988). Naidoo (1985) reported that low knowledge of

English is one of the most strongly related factors to high feelings of disturbance among 25

South Asian women in Canada,

Atthough both male and female immigrants tive through similar experiences wtiich lead to feelings of lowered self-esteem, the stress of migration is much heavier on females than on males because of the additional reasons for a negative self-image on women's part. An immigrant woman &ers fiom poor ianguage skills, the concomitant under-lm-employment, and is coniÏonted with prejudice/discrimination fÏom the host society. She carries major burden of the famiy in the absence of accustomed support fiom famiy and fliends. She faces the confiict of maintaining the old and familiar ways for the cornfort of her family while adapting to a whole variety of new demands (Naidoo,

1992; Warren, 1986).

Language acquisition is the key to the socioeconornic advancement of wornen immigrants. Not knowing the ianguage of business and of social discourse, immigrant women who wish to work usuaily have to take jobs in the service industries, garment factories where extensive verbal instruction is not necessary to do the task, or within their own ethnic commmities. Since these women work with other marghally employed immigrants and immigrants of same ethnicity, it is not possible for them to learn the language. And without Ianguage, it is unlikely that they cm leave these low-ski11 occupations for hi&-su ones and move up the social ladder (Boyd, 1986).

Once in the new country, the immigrant woman's work at home as a mothedwife becomes intemified The family members perceive home as nondemanding and familiar, where the woman symboiizes the traditional way. She is responsible for giving emotional and material support to her husband and children during their adaptation to the new 26 culture. She is expected to perfom her fernale role by understanding and helping with the

specific stress each family member has to deal in the new life. She must adapt to new life

styles weii enough to be able to offer advice and practicai solutions. Yet at the same time, she must maintain her own culture to transmit its values and traditions. This causes great conflict especially when raising children. There are also more womes like the husband's employment and the troubles children might get themselves into. Children's school activities are also considered part of housework, since she is seen to be responsible for their success at school. Ail this has to be managed by the immigrant woman with less help and less female adult support than in her country of ongin (Ng, 1988; Smith, 1980;

Young, 1984).

There is a greater need for rnoney in the household, so in order to maintain a minimum living standard in Canada, immigrants have to work harder in the paid Iabor force. Many immigrant women are admitteci into Canada as dependents or sponsored immigrants. This places her in low-paying jobs, making it impossible to earn enough money to maintain herselfand be Muential in the decision-making of the fdy.Since the husband is the sole breadwinner, her work in the home revolves around his needs and demands (Ng, 1988). Furthemore, as a result of acculturative stress and the self-doubt it bruigs, the man &en enforces the traditional female role more tightly in order to gain a sense of control. If the wife fhds a job on the other hand, her wage eaming role may

Merinmase his sense of failure intensifjing marital discord (Boyd, 1986).

Immigrant women are also doubly discriminated due to being female and foreign bom and tnply discriminated when race is taken into consideration as well. There is 27 evidence that Canadian workplace is sex-segregated and immigrant women occupy subordinate positions within the women's sector (Boyd, 1986). They are restncted to jobs in the service and production sectors which have no permanency and pay minimum wage.

The 1979 Quaiity of Life Slwey conducted by the Institute for Behavioral Research at

York University in Toronto codïmed the less-desirable work conditions for immigrant women. On the average, immigrant women eam les, work for a non-govemment employer or in their own business rather than for a governmental organktion, and are more likely to be paid by the hour than saiaried compared to the native bom women

(Boyd, 1986). Women, who in many cultures are socialized to be more dependent upon the views of others than are men, may be more influenced by this negative discrimination of the host society (Warren, 1986)-

However, not ail immigrant women are disadvantaged. Canadian immigration policy stresses labor recruitment and family reunincation, thus, neither all immigrants are working class nor all experience negative discrimination. Immigrant women concentrate both in the highly skilled and professional se~ceand in the processing-fabricating occupations. Wornen who are nom industrialized cokesador well-educated know

English/French well and are Likely to be dedto men with similar characteristics. This relatively higher socio-economic status group is not limiteci to ethnic-linguistic markets or low-skiU occupations.

Soc1~c Social class variation has often been excluded hm research on cross-cultural and ethnic psychology which generally focus on cu1tu.deth.i~ 28 variation. This is probably because ethnic variety, brought to the society by immigrants, is the most obvious feature of the largely middle-class societies of the industrialized world.

It is also because immigrants usually occupy the lower social strata; hence, ethnicity and low social class standing often overlap (Kagitçibay & Berry, 1989). This has especially been the case for immigrants to Western Europe, where immigration meant importing economically productive manpower to reduce the shortage of labor in areas of industrial growth. Recruitment of temporary labor led to immigration fiom less-developed countries and in tum, immigrants represented the lower strata in the host country. Canadiau immigration policy, on the other han& adrnits potential citizens on the basis of both family and labor market criteria. Hence, neither aU immigrants are working class nor do they al1 have low socioeconomic statu. Birthplace and class membership are not uniform, they straw the foreign population instead of creating a homogeneous underclass (Boyd, 1986).

Social class is a major determinant of Me styles and hence, has an impact on psychological variables. Thus, its effects should be investigated apart fiom the effects of cultudethnicity. Unless these two effects are disentangleci, obtained differences between groups can not be atûibuted to ethnicity or culture alone (Kagitçibqi & Berry, 1989). In the context of Canadian immigration, then, it is even more important to separately explore the effects of social class and ethnicity since not ali immigrants have low socioeconomic status.

Tmmigrants derhigh rates of unemployment Lack of howledge of language, of training, and discrimination force many immigrants into low-skill jobs. Conversely, high levels of education, occupational skills, and professional training received in the home country are usually not recognkd by Canadian authorities, resulting in underemployment. For example, it whs reporteci that the majority of well-educated and qualined Turkish immigrants in Montreal expenenced barriers to successful integration into the labor force, followed by a decline in income and overall statu in the first su months of arrival. This was mainly due to lack of cornpetence in both official languages, recognition of credentials, and Canadian work experience. A full recovery in income, but not in occupational status, was made over tirne (Aycan & Berry, 1996).

Under-/un-employment, low incornes, and the concomitant loss in one's socioeconomic status constiMe sources of stress and are relatecl to psychological syrnptoms, including depression. Satisfactory employment in the country of settlement, on the other han& is related to life satisfaction and emotional well-king (Beiser et al.,

1988; Kim, 1988). Duration of unemployment and loss in socioeconomic statu had critical implications for Turkish immigrants' psychological well-king and adaptation in

Canada. The longer the immigrants were unemployed, the more likely that they suffered ikom acculturative stress, negative selfancept, and alienation fkom the society. The loss in statu was associated with acculturative stress and less satisfaction with life (Aycan &

Berry, 1996). In this context, it was found that low socioeconomic status and prestige by occupation and fdyincome was highly associated with high feelings of disturbance among South Asian women in Canada (Naidoo, 1985). Socioeconomic status was again found to be an important predictor of stress in the studies with Latin American immigrants (Lein, 1983), black and Mexican American fernales (Quesada, Spears, & 30

Ramos, 1978; Vega, Kolody, Vaile, & Weir, 199 1), and Korean-American women (Shin,

1994). l?=Qwu Hardiness. Personality factors such as control, mastery, hardiness, self-esteem, and competence have been shown to be related to mental health. These factors al1 share the assumption that individuais who view themeives positively, Le., feel they are worthwhile and effective in Muencing events, are abb to cope better with life events that are stressful (Kobasa, 1986). Most of the research on control indicates that individuals who have an intenial locus of control, i.e., those who beiieve that events are contingent upon their behavior, are less likely to become il1 in the face of life stressors than those with an extemal locus of control (Kobasa, 1986). Husaini et al. (1982) reported that addts who have a sense of personal competence are less iikely to expenence depression when dealing with life events. Sixnilarly, Wheaton ( 1982) found that flexibility and low fatalism moderated the impact of stress on depression and schizophrenic symptoms. Pearlin and Schooler (1 978) drawing on the Transitions Study, a large scale shidy of 2300 adults on social stressors and coping, reported "mastery" to be one of the general resources that bugers the emotional impact of chronic stressors.

The concept of hardïness, as a stress-resistance resource, was mostly studied by

Kobasa and coileagues using samp1es of business executives (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa,

Maddi, & Courington, 198 1; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982). The studies consistently found that hardy persons remaineci hdthier, either mentally or physicaiIy, under stress 3 1

than those who lacked hardiness and displayed alienation, powerlessness, and threat when

faced with change.

Hardy persans, according to Kobasa (1 979) possess three basic characteristics.

Corn(as opposed to powerlessness) is the beiief in one's ability to control or influence

life events which pemiits one to exercise greater control over courses of action.

(as opposed to alienation) is the ability to believe in the tnah and

importance of who one is and what one is doing. This sense of purpose alleviates

perceived threats from a stressfut environment, gets oneself fully involved in the many

situations of life. Qgdlew (as opposed to threat) is based in the belief that life is

dynamisrn rather than stability. A person with challenge seeks out change, takes nsks in

facing uncertainties, and approaches new experïences with cognitive Aexibility and

Previous studies have been deficient in conceptualizing personality factors that

distinguish between immigrants and non-immigrants. In relation to immigrant research,

hardy personality is an obvious topic for investigation. Since the hardy person is

perceived as someone who is adventurous and vigorous in pumiing new goals, the

investigation of hardiness in immigrant research seems very pertinent. Considering the

volutariness of the immigrant to iive through the major Me change immigration

involves, the basic characteristics of the hardy person, Le., the belief in one's own control

of Me events, in the ability to take risks easily, to feel confident in personal ability, and to

tolerate uncertainty comfortably, pose a fhitfbl avenue for immigrant research. Kuo and

Tsai (1 986) examineci the relatiomhip between intd-external control aspect of 32 hardiness and mental heaith in a sample of Asian immigrants in the U. S. They found that hardiness was negatively related to depression among Chinese, Filipino, and Korean immigrants in Seattle. Operationalizing hardiness in tem of a composite of perceived personal control and self-esteem, Dion, Dion, and Pak (1 992) found that it moderated the relation between experienced discrimination and psychological symptoms among the

Chinese community in Toronto. However, hardiness is a constellation of psychological characteristics that should be regarded as interrelated aspects resembling each ok.

Hence, they cannot be studied in isolation fkom each other (Kobasa, 1979). in this respect, the present study incorporates ail three dimensions of the hardy personality in the investigation of its effect on immigrant adaptation.

Factors

sumort. Stress is an inevitable part of family life, whether the problems lie in interna1 changes conceming farnily members or in changes in extdsituations (Fbek, 1982). A family tries to maintain continuity by coping with stressors and adapting to stress. The nature of one's maritai relationship can be a sigdicant source of distress and affect one's psychological well-being. Marital problems coDstitute a major source of stress leading to disagreement between spouses. These problems reflect on other areas of Nie and lead to feeiings of depression (Crowther, 1985;

Meaaghan, 1982; Ma& 8t Liebernian, 1986). The Transitions Shidy on social stressors and coping showed that among di current social stressors, marital stressors had the highest correlations with depression. Parentin& job, and financial stresses had lower correlations (IEeld, 1982).

Marriage is an institution cbatacterized by its potentid to be a source of intense and available support (Pearlin, Liebernian, Menaghan, & Mullan, 1981). The literature mggests that the marital relationship is the most important source of support; when the spouse is not perceived as available, other confiding relationships cannot substitute

(Brown & Harris, 1978; Liebennan, 1982). Brown and Harris (1978) found that a connding relationship with a parent, sister, or frïend did not compensate for a woman's lack of support nom her spouse in temis of VUlflerabiiity to depression. Further reports of the Transitions Study showed that the group of respondents who were best off in ternis of distress, anxiety, depression, and seKesteem were those who had a confiding marital relationship, regardless of a confiding relationship outside the marriage (Brown, 198 1 as cited in Lieberman, 1982). Research Merindicated that Merentiating between the constructs of marital support and marital contlict, constnicts usually combined as marital adjustrnen&may be more useful in determinhg the specific role of marital relationships in feelings of depression (Monroe, Bromet, Co~ell,& Steiner, 1986).

A spouse can be the most instrumental person in helping the other cope with difncdt accuituration events. She can provide informational, material, and emotional support. Immigrant women in Canada emphasized the need to feel as if they belonged and the need to receive personal support (Lynam, 1985). Some women who felt isolated and that their needs were not shared by others in Canada reported that they derived satisfaction hmtheir marital relations. For others, the absence of fiendships and meanin@ relationships outside of the family increased their expectations of support 34 hmtheir spouses adding stress to their marital relations (Lynam, 1985). Dyal, Rybensky, and Somers (1988) reported that maritai stressors were the strongest predictor of both

Indo- and Euro-Canadian women's marital stress. They also had an effect on hdo-

Canadian women's depressive and psychosomatic symptoms. Naidoo (1985) found that

South Asian women in Canada who had supportive husbands were less stressed.

of resid- The length of time one has experienced acculturation has an effect on adaptation. Research on sojouniers has conceptualized adaptation in stage-Iike terms. For example, the popular Ucurve of adaptation asserted that the initial phase of culture contact is relatively unproblematic, more serious problems follow after a certain amount of the, and a positive adaptation is reached in the long m. However, there has not been much evidence for such a standard course as research has been predominantly cross-sectional, whereas longitudinal studies would more adequately evaluate the proposition Recent longituninal research with sojoumers has suggested that sociocultural adaptation resembles a 1ea.gcurve, improving over theand reaching a plateau evenhially (Ward, 1996).

The variability in experience fiom the initial contact to the long-term adaptation can be captured better if changes in the nature of problems over time are considered

(Berry, 1997). In line with the social skills approach, sociocultural adaptation is based on the acquisition of cultrwlly appropriate skilis, which *ove over the. Length of residence in the new culture is associated with increased culture-specific knowledge and 35 skills, and thereby, a better sociocuitural adaptation. The thespent in the new country is one of the variables which consistently predict sociocuitural adaptation (Ward &

Kennedy, 1992,1993b).

aroficiency. Knowledge of the language is hdamental in order to enter into a culture. Adequate communication is regarded as the major component of intercultural effectiveness and has been used as a measure of intercultural competence

(see Ward, 1996). Language ability has been found to be related to increased contact with members of the larger society and decreased socioculturai adaptation problems (Ward &

Kennedy, 1993a). Research suggests that the major reason for the isolation and the role strain problems of immigrant women is the lack of language proficiency, which leads to increased dependency on the husband and the children (Beiser et al., 1988; Boyd, 1986).

The relationship of language competence to psychologicd adaptation, however, has not been clear. Lack of language fluency was associated with psychological and psychosornatic syrnptoms in Indian immigrants to the U. S. (Krishnan & Berry, 1992) and

Korean immigrants to Canada (Kim, 1988). However, such a relationship between language competency and psychological adaptation was not documented in New

Zealander students studying abroad (Ward & Kennedy, 1993a) or in Chinese students in

Caoada (Chataway & Berry, 1989).

Social The extensive Literature on stress and coping has shown that social support is linked to psychological well-being (see reviews by Cohen & Wilis, 1985; 36

Lazanis & Folkman, 1984; Leavy, 1983). In generai, social support is assessed in tems of people's perception of their social network as containing individuals in whom they cm confide and their integration into familial, Wendship, and organized groups. The support systems can provide emotionaf support, assistance with task performance, guidance, material support, and hence, can have a substantial impact on an individual's coping with stressful events. Sm& social networks, few close relationships, and perceived inadequacy of relationships contribute to depressive symptoms (Barnett & Gotlib, 1988).

Social support has been dichotomized as either structural or fiuictional (Cohen &

Wills, 1985). Structural support refers to the existence of relationships and functional support relates to the extent these relationships provide certain fiuictions such as esteem support, informational support, social companionship, and instrumental support.

Stnictural measures do not necessarily assess the availability of support functions. One very good relationship may provide adequate fimctional support, yet multiple but superficial relationships wouid not do so.

An important conceptualization is, then, from whom support is received. Research suggests that people draw on those social relations for support that are intimate and tnistful. Hence, the quality of relations within the social network is more important than the extensiveness of the relations or the fkquency of interaction (Pearh et al., 1981). An important distinction is between marital and extrarnarital support. Marital support is an important source of emotional support as intimacy and trust are qualities of marital relations in general (Pearh et ai., 198 1). 37

DBmnt conceptuabations and measurements of social support have resulted in different conclusions about the processes through which social support has produced a positive effect on weil-being (Cohen & Wilis, 1985). Cmss-sectional and longitudinal studies provide evidence for main and interaction (buffe~g)effects of social support.

The social support main effect indicates that individuals with higher levels of support have less distress independent of their exposure to stressors (Aneshensel & Frerichs,

1982; Bell, LeRoy, & Stephenson, 1982; Dean & Ensei, 1982; Husallii et ai., 1982;

Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Other studies report signifiant buBering effects of social support, that is, those experiencing life events are less likely to suffer illness when social support is hi& (Brown & Harris, 1978; Tumer, 1981). Cohen and Wills (1985) concluded that the perceived availability of functional support buffers the effects of stress by enhancing coping abilities. Structural support, or the degree of Uitegration in a social network, on the other hanci, reduces negative outcornes in both high- and low-stress circumstances, having a direct positive effect on weiI-king. The consistent pattern observed in ail these studies is the negative relationship between social support and psychologicai distress.

The disruption of social support networks and reestablishing them in a different sociocdtural context constitute an important part of immigration. The loss of the social networks composed of close contacts is stressfid (Rogler, 1994). Relatives, fiiends, ethnoculturai cornrnunity groups, social and health service agencies are the major sources of support to immigrants, helping deviate stress resulting kminsecurity and loneliness.

The access to and the amount and effectiveness of support hmthese sources are critical 38 in satisfactory adaptation and have a direct influence on mental health (Beiser et al.,

1988). Social support was one of the most effective coping resources in a sample of Indo-

Canadian and Euro-Canadian women in reducing the impact of accuiturative stressors on psychopathological symptom formation @yd et al., 1988). Idormal social supports nom relatives and fnends at the time of arriva1 had long-lasting effects on the mental health of

Korean immigrants in Toronto (Noh et al., 1992). Having a strong social support network was related to less depression in a grop of Greek-Canadians (Sands & Berry, 1993).

Family members most often provide the major support; fiiendships between people of the same ethnic group and between the immigrants and the larger society &O help in reducing loneliness. In Naidoo's (1 985) study on South Asian women, supportive relationships with the husband md the Canadian neighboa emerged as one of the most signincant facilitahg variables in adjustment. Vega et al. (1991) reported on the relatiomhip of emotional support and depression among Mexican immigrant women.

Relatives of the family of origin as a source of emotional support had an important impact on depressive symptomatology. Although fiend support came out to be correlated with

Iower depression as weil, famiIy emotional support was more salient for the personal well-being of the immigrant women. Furthermore, women who had confidant support were less depressed than those who lacked such support (Vega, Kolody, Vde, & Hough,

1986).

Ethnic social networks contribute to a great extent to the successful adaptation of immigrants. They serve important fiinctions like assisting newcomers practically and promoting weli-being by affimiing cultural and personal identity. unmigrants who belong 39 to the same ethnic group usually live in the same neighborhoods in order to take part in muhial support. They provide personal and intimate relations with whom one can question and discuss the cultural beliefs and values of the larger society and at the same time, practice and reafnmi the values and nomof the heritage culture in a de environment. Hence, beliefs are validated by comparing them with those of others (Beiser et al., 1988; Salgado de Snyder, l987b). In a sample of Korean immigrants in Toronto,

Noh and Wu (1991) found that supports received nom the Korean community had both direct and indirect positive effects on the mental health of immigrants, whereas those derived fiom the larger, non-Korean networks had a minimal protective effect.

Being a "culture of relatedness" (Kagitçibap, 1985), farniliaVcornmunal relatedness is inherent in the Turkish culture. Material and emotional interdependence among individuals and between generations is characteristic of the traditional rurai agrarian interaction pattern. Social relationships are based on mutual support and loyalty among kinship groups. The closely-knit humdfamily relations also characterize the modem urban patîem, where although materiai interdependencies weaken, emotional interdependencies still continue (Kagitçibqi, 1990, 1996). Research shows that close kin and community ties dso continue among immigrants nom niral to urban areas (see

Kagitçibwi, 1987). This points out that kinship-comm~ty-neighborhoodrelations prevail among Turkish families.

These networks become even more important in the context of international migration. Feelings of relatedness and belonging, and farnily-kinship-community ties provide strong support to the immigrants. New communal ties can replace the severed ties with the old networks by securing the indigenous culture of relatedness and the closely

knit interpersonal ties of the Turkish immigrants (Kagitçiba~i,1987). Ethnic associations

and positive interaction with the larger society help maintain a sense of well-king and

belongingness.

Cultural di- Emphasis on culture-leaming in sociocultural adaptation

introduces the notion of cultural distance. AU immigrants need to leam new nomand

values and to adapt (possibly even abandon) their old ones. The gap between the original

and the host culture determines the amount one must leam. The greater the distance, the

fewer are the culturaily appropriate skills and the more difficult to acquire them. Ward

and coileagues observed a robust relationship between cultural distance and sociocultural

adaptation: those who perceived more dissimilarity between original and host cultures

expenenced more social difficulty during culture contact (Searle & Wad, 1990; Ward &

Kennedy, 1992, 1993%b). Socioculhiral adaptation problems were also greater in

sojourner groups who made large, compared to small, cross-cultural transitions.

Malaysian and Singaporean students in New Zealand expenenced greater social difficulty

than Malaysian students in Singapore (Ward & Kennedy, 1993b). Similady, Chinese

sojourners in Singapore experienced less sociocultural difnculty than non-Chinese

(British, American, and New Zealand) sojourners (Ward & Kennedy, 1998). Furnham and

Bochner (1982) also reported differences in the sociocultural adaptation of European,

Middle Eastern, and Asian students in England. 41

The same pattern was observed when cornprisons were made between sojoumers and members of the host culture. Zheng and Berry (1991) found that Chinese sojoufllm had more Ianguage, communication, and adaptation problems and more diffculty making fiends than non-Chinese and Chinese-Canadian students. Chataway and Berry (1 989) reported that Hong Kong Chinese students had more problems with communication difnculties, prejudice, and geneml adaptation, and lower perceived social support of firiends than English- and French-Canadians.

Sojourners were also shown to have more socioculnn?tl, but not psychological, problems than their sedentary compatriots. New Zealand students studying abroad were found to experience greater sociocultural difficuity in the management of everyday social situations than the students resident in New Zealand; however, the two groups did not show signincant Merences in psychologid adaptation (Ward & Kennedy, 1993a).

There were no differences in somtic and psychological stress between Chinese sojomers in Canada and Chinese in China (Zheng & Berry, 1991). By compa~g psychological and socioculhwi adaptation between accuiturating and nonaccdturating groups, these studies have also allowed for a more systematic investigation of cross- cultural transitions (Ward & Kennedy, 1993a). Yet, most often comparative approaches have not been employed in the study of immigrant acculturation.

ontact wth the Ia~gersocie&- Contact with the larger society has been noted to be an important factor in the psychological adaptation of acculturating individuals (Berry et al., 1987). However, the studies on the importance of contact have produced controversial hdings. According to Chance (196S), the key factor in experiencing acculturative stress is the incongruity between desireci contact and achlal contact, with high incongruity resuiting in high stress. Kostovcik (1983) found that desired and actual contact, but not contact incongnllty, were significantly related to les acculturative stress among Malaysian students in Canada Minde (1985) reporteci that actual contact was more important than desired contact; stress was associateci with lower contact and higher contact incongruity among international students at Queen's University. Zheng and Berry

(199 1) found that desired and actual contact, and contact inwngruity were ail signifïcantly related to the subjective adaptation for the Chinese sojoumers and Chinese-

Canadians. ûther studies, on the other han& have found that more contact between sojomers and the host society was related to increased psychological distress. High contact was associated with mood disturbance in New Zealand adults (Ward & Kennedy,

1992) and Malaysiaa students (Ward & Kennedy, 1993b) in Singapore.

Although the evidence regarding the relationship between contact and psychological well-king is inconclusive, there is common agreement on the relationship between amount of contact and socioculhual adaptation. Contact with members of the dominant society creates oppomuiities to leam skills specific to the culture, aihg the individual in hider sociocultural adaptation (Ward, 1996). Research shows consistentty that sojoumers who have more interactions with the host culture and who are satisfied with these relationîhips experience less sociocultural adaptation problems (Searle &

Ward, 1990; Ward & Kemedy, 1993a, b). e attitudes, The term acculturation has been usually used to mean assimilation, where an accultrrrafing individuai loses hifier original cultural identity and moves into the Iarger society. However, assimilation is not the ody outcorne of acculhuation and there are other alternatives than a single dimension inevitably leading to one's absorption into the dominant culture (Berry,1984). How to acculturate is an important issue for individuais in both the dominant and the non-dominant groups in culhwlly plural societies. Berry's (1984) mode1 of acculturation attitudes identifies two issues that must be dealt with: cultural maintenance (retaining one's cultural identity and .. . characteristics) and contact (seeking relations with the larger society).

For conceptual reasom, the responses to these issues can be treated as dichotomous; positive or negative responses intersect to form a foirrfoid model. Attitudes and behavios related to these four ways of acculturating constitute acculturation strategies (see Figure

4). Preferences for these four ways (acculturation attitudes) have been measured in a variety of acculturating groups including immigrants, ethnic groups, native people, and refugees (reviewed in Berry, Kim. Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989). The kUid of attitude acculturating individuals hold towards their own identity and their contact with other groups define integrahon, assimilation, separation, and marginaiuation. 1-n n involves the maintenance of cultural identity as well as the active participation in the larger society. Sepration is exclusive involvement in the original culture's way of life while avoiding interaction with the larger society. When accdturating individuals iden* solely with the culture of the dominant society and abandon their original culture and

.. . S.. identiîy, assimilation is deEined. Lady, refm to losing interest in the 1 ISSUE I 1s it considered to be of value to maintain one's identity and characteristics?

ISSUE 2 "YES" 1s it considered to be of value to maintain # relationships with larger society? "NO"

mre4. Acculturation strategies (Berry, 1984). 45 maintenance of original identity as well as in the culture of the dominant society (Berry,

1984).

htegration has been fond to be the most preferred strategy arnong immigrants, including Korean-, Portuguese-, Hungarian- (Berry et ai., 1989), Greek- (Almyroudis,

1991) and East indian- (Dhawan, 1997; Sahai, 1993) Canadians. Whiie immigrant groups diffa in their second most preferred strategy, it is usually thai of separation, which suggests that immigrants value holding on to their culhual identity and characteristics in the new society (Berry & Sam, 1997). Piontkowski, Florack, and Hoeiker (in press) found that majority of Yugoslavians in Gennany and in Switzerland, and Hungarians in

Slovakia favored integration, however, most Turks (46%) in Gerrnany supported separation, followed by integration.

Research has show that acculturation strategies have significant relationships with positive psychological adaptation. While integration is the most adaptive strategy for immigrants leading to better psychological outcornes, marginalizaâion is the least adaptive, resultiog in higher levels of stress. Separation, the resistance to intergroup relations, also brings stress, while assimilation representing cultural loss, is associated with intermediate levels (Berry et al., 1987; Knshnan & Beny, 1992; Sands & Berry,

1993; Schmi~1992).

Acculturation strategies were also found to affect socioculhiral adaptation. In their study of New Zealenders on ovefieas assipnents, Ward and Kennedy (1994) found that strong identification with the host culture was associated with better sociocultural adaptation. The greatest amount of social difnculty was experienced by those who 46 adopted separation; assimilation and integration, on the other hand, were the most effective stmtegies. This is consistent with their eariier findings wÏth New Zealand students studying abroad and Malaysian -dents in Singapore, in which strong cultd identity and cultural separation were associated with increased social difficulty (Ward &

Kennedy, 1993%b).

The acculturation process involves an interaction between immigrants and the dominant group. It is a mutual process of adaptation in which each side changes in response to the other (Shuval, 1982). As Sayegh and Lasry (1993) state, "acculturation occurs within the two groups, immigrants and host, with changes in each interacting together to influence the direction and outcome of that change" (p. 107). Although many studies point out to this fact, they tend to focus on the non-dominant group's perspective, neglecting the dominant group. It is just as important to understand the kind of attitudes the dominant group holds towards immigrants as it is to understand the attitudes of the immigrants themselves (Berry, 1974, 1991 ; Bourfiis, Moise, Perreauit, & Senecal, 1997;

Piontkowski, Florack, & Hoellcer, in press).

Berry (1974) elaborated on the role of the dominant group in influencing the orientations of accdturating groups. Members of the dominant group who support integration accept that Unmigrants can maintain their cultural identity and allow them to participate actively in the larger society. Those who hold assimilationist attitudes want immigrants to abandon their cultural identity and have contact and interaction with the larger society. Segregation occurs when the dominant group does not want Mmigrants to intenict with the larger society while allowing than to maintain their cultural identity. 47

Those with a marpuiaiiiration attitude accept neither maintenance of the original culture nor interaction with the larger society. The major ciifference between the dominant and the immigrant group's dturation attitudes is that of power (Berry, 1974). The dominant group's acculturation attitudes indicaie whether they allow immigrants to maintain their original culture and have contact with the larger society whereas immigrants' attitudes conceni the way they should deal with the maintenance and the contact issues (Piontkowski et al., in press).

The attitudes of the dominant group may be reflected in the national policies, which in turn influence the acculturation attitudes of the immigrant group members.

Policies seeking ass~ationexpect cultural groups to become like the dominant group.

Those which are integrationist accept the cultural identities of the groups. Some have ais0 advocated forced exclusion (segregation) and marginaiuation of unwanted groups (Berry,

1990). Canada has adopted a multicultural policy in 1971, which promotes the maintenance of cultural diversity, and intergroup contact and participation in the larger society, which is an htegration policy in Berry's (1 974, 1984) terms.

Although more attention has kengiven to the acculturation attitudes of the nondominant group members, the views of the individuals in the larger society have been studied by way of two national sinveys in Canada (Berry & Kalin, 1995; Berry, Kalin, &

Taylor, 1977). In these Nrveys, a scale of multicuitural ideology was used to assess the support for multiculturalism as a state integration policy. Items advocated integration, assimilation, and segregation. In the 1991 national survey, 69.3% gave support for having a cdturally diverse society in Canada as opposed to 27.3% (Berry & Kaün, 1993, and 48 this showed an increase fkom the 63.9% in favor and 32.9% opposing results of the 1974 mey(Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977). Similar reports by a Globe & MaiVCBC Pol1

(1991 ; 63% vs. 3 1%) and a Reid/Southam Poll(1993; two out of three giving support) showed that Canadians accepted Canada as a culturally diverse society and supponed multiculturalism.

More recently, Berry's (1974, 1984) rnodel has been adopted by researchers to examine the dominant group's attitudes toward immigrants' acculturation. Piontkowski et al. (in press) studied the accuhation attitudes of the dominant and the immigrant groups in Germany, Switzerland, and Slovakia Germans favored integration and assimilation of

Turks and Yugoslavians. The Swiss also preferred integration and assimilation of

Yugoslavians; however, there was major support for separation and marginaiization.

Slovaks' attitudes toward Hungarians were evdy distributed across integration, assixrdation, and rnarmon;support for separation was almost nonexistent. Bourhis and colleagues developed and tested a host comrnunity acculturation scale with French-

Canadian college students in Montreai (Bougie & Bourhis, 1997). Acculturation orientations toward Chinese immigrants, Haitian immigrants, and immigrants in general were assessed. Integration was the most strongly endorsed orientation followed by individualism and assimilation; segregation and exclusion were the least supported for the three target groups.

In their Interactive Acculturation Mode1 0,Bourhis et al. (1997) combined the acculturation strategies of the dominant and the immigrant groups in a single concephial fiamework. According to the model, the degree to which the attitudes of the 49 dominant group and the immigrant group match will determine whether the nature of the relations will be consensual, problematic, or conflictual in the society. When both groups prefer similar acculturation attitudes, the relationship will be consensual. When both groups have both partial agreement and partial disagreement, the relations will be problematic. This can happen, for example, when immigrant group members prefer integration but the dominant group members insist that they should assimilate. Men groups Mer in their preference, the relationship will be conflichial. The IAM mode1 proposes that state integration policies can have a strong effect on the acculturation strategies of both immigrant and dominant groups. Generally, integrationist policies reflecting pluralist ideologies more likely lead to positive and harmonious relations than assimilationist policies. Segregationist policies, on the other hand, more likely yield conflictual relations between the dominant group members and the immigrants (Bourhis et al., 1997).

. * . .. . PptAttitudes of the host society toward immigrants may range from acceptance and tolerance, to hostility or aggression. Expressions of prejudice, intolerance, or aggression may serve as stressors, whereas positive and accepting attitudes help reduce stress (Rose, 1969). According to the Canadian Task Force Report on Mental

Health Issues Anecting Immigrants and Refugees (Beiser et al., 1988), groups that are less accepted experience rejection and discrimination, which have a significant negative effect on one's psychological well-being. The report also notes that the basis for most of the mental health problems of visible ethnic groups in Canada is a moderate, systematic 50 racisrn throughout the society. This experience of racisrn leads to negative psychological effects such as severed seLf-esteem, resultiag in poor long-term adaptation.

Dion and colleagues explored the social psychologid correlates and consequences of kinga victim of discrimination using experhental, correlational, and meystudies (Dion, Dion, & Pak, 1992; Dion & Earn, 1975; Pak, Dion, & Dion, 1991 ).

These studies support the notion that experiencing discrimination personally by a member of a dominant group is stressfixi because "it elicits cognitive appraisals of threat, such that an attribution of disaimination by the victim leads him or her to impute stable, malevolent motives and intentions to the antagonist(s) and to see hiderself as the deliberate target of discriminatory behavior by the antagonist(s)" (Dion et al., 1992, p.

5 18). In their experimentd study exarnining the consequences of anti-Semitism, Dion and

Earn (1975) found that those in the discrimination condition reported feeling more aggression, greater sadness, and higher anxiety than those in the control group. For both

Chinese university students (Pak et al., 1991) and Chinese community members @ion et al., 1992) in Toronto, the experience of discrimination was positively related to reported psychological symptoms.

Prejudice and racism constitute a major problem for ethnic groups in countnes of immigration. Religion is an important basis for discrimination. In particular, fear of

Islamic fiindamentalism and loss of secularity play a major role in acts of hostility to

Muslims in Europe (Cades, 1994). Turks, making up the majority of "guest workers" in

Europe, stand out as an unintegrated ethnic group which has become one of the target groups of mist attacks in recent years (Abadan-Unat, 1985). They are one of the groups most discriminateci against in Empe (Castles, 1984).

Tmkish immigrants have codhnted the most hostility in Germany. They have been increasingly rejected by the German society with increasing xenophobic feelings and restrictive policies. Immigrants have not been granted citizenship, and although some have lived in Germany al1 their lives, they still cannot vote or hold civil service positions such as teaching, police, or postai jobs. There is no law to prevent discrimination

(Rabinbach, 1993). Discrimination is vulgar and cruel as evidenced in common jokes regarding the Turks (Toelken, 1985). The animosity is reflected in the increasing number of neo-Nazi attacks in Germany; hundreds of hate crimes have been committed in recent years with arson murders arnong the most violent (Rabinbach, 1993). Germans are mostly womed by loss of workplace, of criminality among foreigners, of overpopulation, and for the purity of the Geman race. Turks are considered alien and threatening. This anti-

Turkish feeling is partly due to the major differences in language, culture, religion, and appearmce between Germans and Turks. Turks coIlSfitute a discernible Muslirn group by their regular attendance to mosque prayers, women wearing headscarves, boys and girls wearing Koran around their necks and going to Koran courses, which display their faimadherence to Islam (Abadan-Unat, 1985). The hostility has also historical roots, related to the medieval stmggles between Christianity and Islam, and the Turkish expansion westwards dllate seventeenth centmy (Castles, 1984). The racism is open, as cm be seen in an editorial in a major daily newspaper:

Apparently it is not permissible in this country to become conscious of the fact

that there are various degrees of being alien, and that, for natural reasons (or more 52

precisely cultural reasons), coexistence is most diEicult with the particuiarly alien.

Matters are reasonably good with the Eastern, Southem and South-Eastern

Europeans in the Federal Republic. Even a few Italian Mafiosi can be coped with.

That is not surprising, for ever since the period of the historic migrations of

peoples, the interchange between Slav, Romanic, Gennanic and also Celtic

peoples has become a habit. A tacit we-feeling has arisen in one and the same

European culture. But excluded fkom this are the Turk-peoples, and also the

Palestinians, North ficansand others £iom totally alien cultures. They, and only

they, are the 'foreigner problem' in the Federal Republic ("Aliens and too-much-

aliens," 1982 as cited in Castles, 1984, p. 206).

Turks react by isoiating themselves; they withdraw fiom the host society, hold on to their traditional culture and identity, and in fact, prefer the ghetto way of living

(Abadan-Unat, 1985 ; Bendix, 1985; Kagitçlbqi, 1987). They are socially segregated fiom the larger society. Contacts are usually only with family, kin, other Turks or immigrants. Contact with memben of the host society is limited; both groups feel that there is a large cultural distance (Bendix, 1985; Koçtürk, 1992; Toelken, 1985). Ethnic identity is paramount; many even adopt reactionary political and religious ideas (Castles,

1984).

While Canada is a multicdniral society accepting cultural diversity, there are variations in attitudes towards ethnic and immigrant groups. According to the national myon multicultural attitudes in 1991, British are the most and Sikhs are the least 53 preferred groups by Canadians in tenns of cornfort felt king around them. Muslims are ranked as one of the lowest preferred groups (12th among 14) (Berry & Kali.1995).

Visible ethnic groups are more likely to experience prejudice and discrimination because their physical features set them apart f?om the larger society. Studies show a prevalence of negative attitudes and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs in Canada (Abu-

Laban, 1995). Shidies of adaptation of Muslim Canadians have also identified several areas of stress where Isfamic precepts and social practices in the Canadian context contradict.

Islam is the most prominent religion among Turks (99% of Turks in Turkey belong to Islam). However, the Turkish Republic is not an Islamic state; it is constitutionally dehed as secular. Turkish immigrants in Canada might feel prejudice and experience acts of discrimination because of their strong afnliation with Islam. In particular, immigrants of low socioeconornic background practice Islam more than those of high socioeconomic standing, and hence, stand out as a group. This group resembles the guestworkers in Europe and is expected to experience more discrimination fiom the

Canadian socieîy.

The Present Study

Adaptation is multifaceted (Aycan & Berry, 1995). Psychological, socioculturd, and marital adaptation constihite Merent facets of mmied immigrant couples' adaptation. The present study aims to distinguish among these three facets of adaptation.

To this end, it wiU evaiuafe Berry's (1992) acculturative stress framework and Ward's 54

(1996) theor&cal distinction between psychological and sociocuihnal adaptation. It will extend Ward's approach fiom a sojoumer to an immigrant population as weil as fiom individuals to manied couples. A third face that of married immigrants' adaptation, will be introduced and the role of marital factors in the acculturation process will be examined. Socioeconomic and gender merences and similarities in acculturation and adaptation will aiso be noted. The acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrants and the attitudes of Euro-Canadians toward immigrant acculturation will be examined, giving particuiar attention to the degree to which these attitudes match. A comparative approach will be employed by examining immigrant adaptation in relation to the two sedentary reference groups, Turks in Turkey and Euro-Canadians in Canada.

. . emes and Smfic Prdctiom

The samples and variables of interest in each sample are reviewed in Figure 5.

The Turkish immigrant sample as the acculturating group is placed between the two seden- groups, namely, the Turks in Turkey on the le& and the Euro-Canadians in

Canada on the right. The groups of demographic, personality, marital, and acculturation variables constitute the predictors, and adaptation coIlSfitutes the outcome variable.

Gender, socioeconomic status, hardiness, marital stressors, marital support, social support, and psychological, socioculhual, marital adaptation were measured in ail three samples. Length of residence, language proficiency, cultural distance, contact, and discrimination were measured in the Turlcish immigrant sample. Acculturation attitudes were assessecl in the Tufkish immigrant and the Euro-Canadian sample. SAMPLES Turkish Immigrant PREDICTORS

I Social Support I

Accuinvation Attitudts (httgration, Assimilation. Scparation. Marginalization) r Discrimination 1

Adaptation

Marital

Fi- 5. Ove~ewof variables in the samples. 56

In line with the points discusscd above, the major themes and the specifîc predictions of thstudy are stated under two headings:

Theme 1: The adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples in relation to that of Turks in

Turkey and Euro-Canadians in Canada

Prediction: Turkish immigrant couples will likely experience more psychological,

sociocultural, and marital difficulty than Euro-Canadian and Turkish

wuples. . . II. Accullmation of T-

Theme 2: The differentiation among psychological, sociocultural, and marital

adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples (see Figure 6)

Prediction: Psychological and sociocultural adaptation, and psycho logical and marital

adaptation will be related to some extent, however, each adaptation will be

predicted by dflerent factors. The following variables will have a strong

impact on each adaptation (higher scores indicating better adaptation):

1. P-hological a- From Berry's accdturative stress fiamework

based on a stress and coping hework, socioeconomic status (positive),

hardiness (positive), maritai swsson (negative), marital support

(positive), social support (positive), acculturation attitude: integration

(positive), assimilation (positive), separation (negative), marginalization

(negative), discrimination (negative) wiu more kely predict psychological

adaptation. OUTCOME

ADAPTATION

Socioeconornic Status (+) Hardiness (+) Marital Stressors (-) Marid Support (+) Social Support (+) Acculfuration Amtude: Integration (+) Assimilation (+) Separation (-) Marginalization (-) Discrimition (-)

Length of Residence (+) Language Proficiency (+) Culturai Distance (-) Contact (+) Acculturation Attitude: Integration (+) AssimiIation (+) Separation (-) Mxginalization (-)

Marital Stressors (-) Marital Support (+) 1-

Fime 6. Relations of predictors to psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation. 58

2. Socioc&rd adiiptati~~~From Ward's mode1 based on a social leaming

approach, length of residence (positive), language pro ficiency (positive),

cultural distance (negative), contact with larger society (positive),

acculturation attitude: integration (positive), assimilation (positive),

separation (negative), marpinaiization (negative) will more likely predict

sociocdhual adaptation.

3. Marital ada~tation.Based on the researcher's review of the Iiterature,

marital stressors (negative) and marital support (positive) will more likely

predict marital adaptation.

Theme 3: Socioeconomic status (SES) and gender similarities and differences in

acculturation and adaptation

Prediction: Immigraat couples of low SES cornpared to those of high SES, and

immigrant women compared to immigrant men, will be less proficient in

English, have less contact with Euro-Canadians, prefer separation attitudes

to a greater and assimilation attitudes to a lesser extent, and expenence

more psychological diniculty. Those of low SES will also perceive more

discrimination and prefer integration to a lesser extent Immigrant women

will also have more sociocultural difnculty.

Theme 4: The acculturation aiîitudes of Turkish immigrant couples and the Euro-

Canadian couples' attitudes toward immigrant acculturation

Prediction: Turkish immigrant couples will prefer separation and integration to a

greater degree than assimilation and marginalllation. Eum-Canadian 59 couples will hold integration attitudes toward unmigrant acculturation to a greater degree than assimilation, separation, and marginalization. METHOD

Participants

Data were coliected nom three groups: Turkish Unmigrants living in Toronto,

Canada (the Turkish immigrant sample), Euro-Canadians living in Toronto (the Euro-

Canadian sample), and Turks living in a,Turkey (the Turkish sample).

Two hundred married Turkish immigrants (100 couples) living in the Greater

Toronto Area participated in the study. Participants were contacted through various social groups such as the Federation of Turkish Associations, Turkish Culture and Folklore

Society, CdanTurkish Islamic Hentage Association, various mosques, the Turkish music choir, heritage language school, and the drarna club. Contacts were also made at the general meeting of the culture and folklore society, a wedding party, and a religious gathering. An ad seeking volunteers was placed in the newsletter of the culture and folklore society and was posted at a coffee and a grocery shop operated by Turkish immigrants.

Immigrants fiom Turkey are a heîerogeneous group that includes various ethnic groups such as Turks, Kurds, Armenians, and non-Anatolian Turkish immigrants such as the Turkish Cypnots, the Buigarian, Bosnian, Azeri Turks. There are also those Turkish irnmigrants who remigrated to Canada after migrating to Eumpe. The participants in this study were ethnie Turks immigrating directiy &om Turkey at or above age 14. Age 14 was the cut-off for age of arriva1 to ensure dcientimmersion in the Turkish culture before arriving in Canada The participants were nrst generation immigrants who had

either landed immigrant or citizen status; refiigees and sojoumers were not included.

Canada was their first migration destination.

h cross-cultural research, nonrandom sarnples are more common than random

samples. It is essential to identQ which communities and individuals represent the

culture or the ethnic group one wants to work with. The selection of communities or

groups to represent the parent culture is guided by judgment and informe& expert advice

(Lomer & Berry, 1986). In this study, participants constitute samples of convenience

rather than random samples. Random selection was not possible because there was not a

comprehensive list of Turkish immigrants residing in Toronto. Every possible effort was

spent to have a representative sample of Turkish immigrants living in Toronto.

Information about the characteristics of the population was acquired f?om participants and

Census documents in order to make the sample as representative as possible

(appmximately 60% professionals, 20% refugees, 20% workers). Atîempts were made to recruit inaviduals of Werent age groups and socioeconomic standing, and those who ranged in length of residence in Canada Mosques were contacted because they are known to draw mostly people of lower socioeconomic standing. Individuals who were likely to have different acculturation attitudes (separation, assimilation, integration, rnarpinaiization) were also included. For example, the groups and associations mainly drew individuals who were relatively more separationist and more integrationist. Efforts were also made to kdthose who were likely to be more assimilationist. Ninety maniecl Ew-Canadians (45 couples) living in the Greater Toronto Area participated in the study. Participants were conîacted through referrals by the Turkish immigrant sample, at church services, community centers, schools, shopping mails, and on the street Those who were of Western or Northem European descent (mainly British and French) whose parents were bom in Canada were included in the sample. This is because British- and French-Canadians are the two dominant groups in Canada that constitute an appropriate cornparison pupfor the Turkish immigrants; residence for three generations is the cut-off in order to easure sufFicient Canadietion. Individuals of Merent age groups and socioeconomic standing were recniited in order to have a sample comparable to the immigrant sample.

Turkish Se

One hundred fouteen mzmied Turks (57 couples) living in hmk. Turkey, participated in the study. Participants were contacted at the alumnae association of a private high school, parent-teacher meetings held at the schooi, and at a public elementary schooi. Immigrants fiom the Balkan countries and Kurdish Turks were not included in order to ensure a homogeneous sample that would approximate the original cultural group of the Turkish immigrants in Canada IndividuaIs of different age groups and socioeconomic standing were recniited in order to have a sample comparable to the immigrant sample. Materials

A self-administered questionnaire was employed in the study. The measures included in the Turkish immigrant questionnaire are presented under the foliowing sections: demographic/backgromd information, personality, marital factors, acculturation, adaptation, and additional measures. In the Euro-Canadian and the Turkish questionnaires, the acculturation measures of language proficiency, cultural distance, contact, acculturation attitudes, discrimination, and the additional measures were omitted.

The Eurdanadian questionnaire included a measure of the larger society's attitudes toward immigrant acculturation. The Turkish- and English-Ianguage questionnaires are presented in Appendix A and B, respectively. The measures are reviewed followïng

Figure 5 and are not necessarily in the order they appear in the questionnaires.

The demographic variables measured in the immigrant sample were: age, sex, length of residence in Canada (years), immigration status (landed immigrant or citizen), education, length of marriage, number of children, employment status (full-the, part- the, unempioyed), reason for unemployment, and occupational standing. The same demographic variables, excluding immigration status and length of residence in Canada, were measured in the Euro-Canadian and the Turkish samples. In addition, culture of origin and length of residence in te- of generations were included in the Euro-Canadian sample. Personalitv Hardiness

The hardiness of one's personality was measured by a 30-item short form

Hardiness Scale (HS; Bartone, Ursano, Wright, & Ingraham, 1989). Three components of

hardiness, aamely, cornmitment, control, and challenge, serve as subscales of the HS. The

items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging fiom "not at al1 true" (1) to

"completely tnie7'(4) with higher scores indicating more hardiness. This HS is a modifïed

version of the original hardiness meastue (Kobasa et ai., 1982), which was wed in the pilot study. Bartone et al. (1989) corrected a number of problems found in the original meamsuch as long and awkward wordings and exclusive use of negative item indicators. The modified version is a 45-item measure with a 30-item short fonn available. The short fonn was reported to be valid and diable (Bartone et al., 1989).

Scale scores on the 45-item HS correlated -93 with total scores on the original 76-item version. Scores on the 30-item short fom correlated -82 with scores on the 45-item version. Cronbach's alpha for the short form was 33 for the summated forrn and ranged fiom .56 to .82 for the three subscales.

Marital stressors were measured by a modified version of a marital stressors index developed as part of the Transitions Study, a large cross-sectional survey on stress and coping meelci, 1976). Nine current social stressor indices, one of which was the marital stressor index, were developed for a large-scale meyof duits in Chicago. Current social stressors were defined as those conditions of daily social roles that are potentially problematic or undesirable. This conception focused more on stressful stimuli existhg outside the individual rather than on a personal distress reçponse. Marital stressor index was composeci of items r&ecti.ng circum~ta~cesor conditions of daily marital Iife that are genedy considerd problematic or undesirable, including fnistntion of role expectations, lack of reciprocity between spows, and a feeling of nonacceptance by one's spouse veld, 1982). Items concemllig children were incorpomted for the present study because cMdren are central to Turkish marital Me. The resulthg measure was a

19-item 5-point Likert scale ranghg fkom "strong disagreement" (1) to "strong agreement" (5) with higher scores indicating more marital stressors. Cronbach's alpha for the original 17-item scale was reported to be .87 (ILfeld, 1976). Cronbach's alphas for the

2 1-item version used in the pilot were .8 1 and .82 for the immigrant and the Euro-

Cdansamples, respectively.

Siipwrt

Support received fkom the spouse was measured by a 5-item scale developed for the study based on a review of the literature. Respondents rated the quality of their marital dationship and the actd use of maritai support on a 5-point Likert sale ratlging fkom

"stmng disagreement" (1) to "strong agreement" (5) with higher scores indicating more marital support. Items addressed both emotional numirance (e.g., expressive support) and resource and information assistance (e.g., instrumental support). These items were included in the marital stressors de(items 14- 18) as both were 5-point Likert sdes.

The scale pmved reliable for use with the immigrant and the Euro-Canadian samples in the pilot; the Cronbach's alphas were .85 and .80, respectively.

English proficiency was assesseci by an 8-item measure developed for the study.

Respondents were asked to rate their ability to comprehend, speak, read. and write

English, sufnciency of their English under certain situations, and the daily amount of

English spoken. The responses were scored on a 5-point sale with higher scores indicating more proficiency in English. The scde proved reliable for use with the Turkish immigrants in the pilot; the Cronbach's alpha was .95.

Social SUD DO^

Social support was measured by an 1 1-item perceived social support scale developed for the study based on a review of the literahue. Dimensions of support examineci included both the perception of availability (e-g., the social network size and social integration as indicated through participation in organhations) and the quality of social relations (e.g., presence of solidarity and trust). Items addressed different supporting functions of network ties nich as emotional nurturance (e.g., expressive support) and resource and information assistance (e.g., instrumental support).

Respondents iodicated whether they had access to someone excluding their spouses (to eliminate the confounding effct of a good or bad marital relationship) on whom they could rely for these bctions and rated the perceived closeness of these relations. The intemal consistency of the sale in the pilot (Cronbach's alpha) was -93 for both the immigrant and the Euro-Canadian samples.

The differences perceived between the Turkish and the Canadian cultures in tenns of various areas (climate, food, educational level, family life, etc.) was measured by a

27-item measure developed for the study. The differences were rated on a 5-point scale ranging fiom "very similar" (1) to '%ery Werent" (5) with higher scores indicating farther culturai distance perceived by the respondent A 29-item version proved diable with the Turkish immigrant sample in the pilot; Cronbach's alpha was -86.

Contact

Contact with Euro-Canadians was measured by a 5-item 5-point measure adapted fiom Kostovcik (1 983). Respondents rated the fkquency of contact with Euro-Canadians. closeness to a Euro-Canadian fîiend, and stated how many Em-Canadian fiends they had. The item about Euro-Canadian organktion participation was also employed as a social support item. Higher scores indicated more contact with Euro-Canadians. The measure proved reiiable for use with the immigrant sample in the pilot; the Cronbach's alpha was .82. A review of the Iiterature and the researcher's knowledge about the Turkish culture reveded eleven attitude domains rdecting themes relevant for the Turkish cornrnunity acculturating to life in Canada. They were fnendship, lifestyle, social activity. food, holiday celebration, language use, decoration, newspaper readership, child-rearing style, children's values, children's moving out Based on Berry's (1 984) acculturation model, four items for each domain were generated, one for each acculturation attitude of integration, separation, assimilation, and marginaiization. Hence, each acculturation attitude seale was comprised of 11 items. Some changes to solve previous measwement problems were undertaken. For example, it was ensured that a statement conveyed one piece of Uiformation (i.e., it was not double barrelied). In order to convey better information about one's own acculturation attitude, first person singuiar wording rather than third person singuiar or plural was used (Dona, 1990). The 44 items were randomly ordered in the scale and the responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging fiom

"strong disagreement" (1) to "strong agreement" (5). Higher scores for each acculturation attitude measure indifated higher preference for the particdar attitude. The wording of separation and assimilation items were slightly changed and items about one additional attitude domain were excluded based on the feedback received fkom the pilot. Cronbach's alphas for the 48-item version used in the pilot were: Integration .78; separation 39; assimilation .74; marpinaiization .70. cc- Attitudes of Eum-Cd

Acculturation attitudes of Euro-Canadians toward first generation immigrants were measured by the 44 items used in the immigrant acculturation attitude measures.

They had the same content coverage with a slightly changed format; statements followed the heading "In my opinion, it's better if immigrants prefer." Responses were given on a

5-point Likert scale ranghg from "strong disagreement" (1) to "strong agreement" (5).

Higher scores for each acculturation aithde rneasure indicated higher preference of the particular attitude for immigrants. The items in the pilot version were worded in terms of what Euro-Canadians thought "immigrants be doing." Badon the feedback received from the Euro-Canadian participants, the measure was revised for the main study. Cronbach's alphas for the 48-item version used in the pilot were: Integrahon .48; separation -63; assimilation .62; marguialuation .67.

Discrimination perceived ikom Euro-Canadians was measured by an adapted version of an l bitem Perceived Discrimination Scale (Hocoy, 1993) for use with

Chinese-Canadians. The ternis "Chinese" and "at schooUwork" in the original scale were replaced with "Turkish" and "at work or in the neighborhood," respectively. Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale with higher scores indicating higher levels of discrimination perceived by respondents hmEino-Canadians. The reliability and validity have been weil estabiished. The Cronbach's alpha ranged hm.85 (Dhawan,

1997; Hocoy, 1993) to .88 (Restoule, 1994). It has an obvious face validity and was 70 correlated highly with validation items in previous research (Hocoy, 1993). The scde has been used in 0thacculturation studies with Black South Anicans (Hocoy, 1997) and various cultural groups in Canada, including Chinese (Hocoy, 1993), Abonginal

(Restouie, 1994), and East-Man (Dhawan, 1997). The intdcoosistency was high with the Turkish immigrant sample in the pilot; the Cronbach's alpha was .90.

AdaDtation

Four scales mes-g depression, stress, anxiety, and satisfaction with life were used for a composite psychological adaptation score. Screening tools for a normal population were selected and no clinical measures were used in order to detect variation.

Respondents were asked to think about how they have been feeling "during the past few weeks" at the be-g of the section in order to set a time fiame for the psychological adaptation measures and to maintain consistency with the anxiety measure.

ression The 25-item Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS; Hudson, 1982) was used to measure the de-, severity, or magnitude of nonpsychotic depression. The

GCS focuses on affective aspects, examinhg respondents' feelings about a number of behaviors, attitudes, and events associated with depression. The items were rated on a

5-point scde ranging fkom ''rarely or none of the the" (1) to Umost or aii of the tirne'' (5) with higher scores indicating more depression. The scde was developed with 2,140 respondents who were primarily Caucasian and also included Japanese and Chinese

Americans. Hudson (1982) reportecl GCS to be highly reliable and valid It has an alpha 71 of .92 and S.E.M of 4.56. It also has good stability with a two-hour test-retest correlation of .94. It has good concurrent validity, comlating in two studies .85 and -76with the

Beck Depression Inventory and -92 and -81 for two samples using the Zung Depression

Inventory. The GCS has high known-groups validity, discriminating significantly between members of a group judged to be clinically depressed and those judged not to be depressed. It proved reliable for use with the immigrant and the Euro-Canadian samples in the pilot, having a Cronbach's alpha of .90 for both groups.

Stress, Stress was measured by a 20-item Cawte Stress Scale (Cawte, 1972).

Using data fiam Aboriginals in Australia, Cawte (1972) selected 20 items fiom the larger

Comeil Medicd Index (CMI; Brodman, Erdman, Lorge, Gershenson, & Wolff, 1952) on the basis of clinical and statisticai judgment. The ntst 10 items assess psychosomatic symptomatology; the second 10 items cover the areas of aflxiety, depression, and imtability. Responses are given in a dichotomous 'yes" (1) or "no" (O) fashion with higher scores indicating more stress. The scale has been used in over 30 studies conducted with refugees, immigrants, ethnic groups, Native peoples, and sojourners in

Canada (Berry & Blondel, 1982; Berry et al., 1987; Kostovcik, 1983; DOM& Berry,

1994). Berry et al. (1 987) concluded that Cawte Stress Scaie was a reliable and vaiid measure of acculturative stress. The intemal consistency was usually in the .7 to .8 range.

There were several validity checks. First, significant correlations were found between the scale and a self-report measure of sojourners' physical health status (Minde, 1985).

Second, consistent with the existing Literature, two groups in involuntary contact (native peoples and refbgees) with the larger society exhibited higher levels of stress than the three volmtary groups (immigrants, ethnic groups, and sojourners), providing "known group" validation. Thini, variables such as education, age, pre-contact, and contact experiences were associated with stress scores consistently, providing concurrent validation. Fourth, there was convergent validation among stress and other psychological variables. nie sdeproved diable with the immigrant group in the pilot; Cronbach's alpha was .84. It had a low alpha of .48 with the Euro-Canadian group, but was retained for use in the main study.

Anxiety was measured by a modified version of the 20-item State scale of the State-Trait Anxiety hventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene. IWO; standardized Turkish version by ber& Le Compte, 1985). State awiety, as a transitory exnotional state or condition, pertained to immigrants' anxiety due to acculturation more than trait anxiety, which referred to stable individual ciifferences in anxiety proneness.

However, anxiety as a state addressed how one felt right at the moment when she was complethg the scale. This would have ken very situation-specific and have not represented the degree of anxiety in the daiIy Lives of immigrants. Broader time frame was needed to capture theïr anxieties in Canada without the possible interference of one situation. Hence, the original scale was modined so that respondents described their feelings "during the past few weeks." Responses were rated on a 4-point scde ranging from 'hot at di" (1) to "very much so" (5) with higher scores indicating more anxiety.

The STAI is a widely used anxiety measure and has been adapted for cross-culturai research in more than thiay languages (Spielberger & Diaz-Guerrero, 1982). Spielberger et al. (1970) reported the State scde to be highly reliable and valid. Alpha coefficients 73 computed by the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula ranged from -83 to -92. Spielberger et al.

(1 970) provided much evidence of the construct validity citing several studies conducted with undergraduate students and aduits. The general pattern was adrninistering the scale in severai conditions varying in stress levels. The scores were always low under the nonstresshl conditions and high under the stressful conditions. Oner & Le Compte

(1985) aiso reported high reliability and validity figures for the standardized Turkish version. Alpha coefficients computed by the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula ranged fiom

.94 to .96. Evidence of construct validity was provided by studies where the scale was administered before and after a stress condition such as an exam, treatment, or surgery.

Anxiety scores before the stressfhl condition were sigmkantly lowered once the stress was over. The scale also Werentiated significantly between a normal and a psychiatrie patient population, providing cnterion validity. The interna1 consistency of the modified scale was high in the pilot; the Cronbach's alphas were -94 and .92 for the immigrant and the Euro-Canadian samples, respectively.

Satisfaction with life, Satisfacton with Life was measured by a 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Grifnn, 1985). The scale assesses an individual's global judgment of his or her quality of He. The SWLS is a widely used Me satisfaction scde and has been transIated into several languages for cross-cultural use

(Pavot & Diener, 1993). Responses are given on a 7-point Likert scale ranging fkom

"strong disagreemenf' (1) to ''strong agreement" (7) with higher scores indicating more satisfaction with Me. The five items were selected hma pool of 48 based on factor analysis. The scale was reported to be highly reliable and vaüd @iener et al., 1985; Pavot 74

& Diener, 1993). The coefficient alpha was .87 and a two-month test-retest stability coefficient was .82. Initial validity checks came fiom groups scoring lowest on the

SWLS. Psychiatrie patients, prisoners, students in poor and turbulent coutries, and abused women represent groups who suffered bad life events, which iduenced life satisfaction. Much evidence was provided for the convergence of the SWLS with seff- and non-self-report maures of subjective weil-being and life satisfaction. The SWLS was also shown to correlate negatively with clinical measures of distress and neuroticism, and positively with extraversion. The scde proved reliable with the immigrant and the

Eino-Canadian samples in the pilot; the Cronbach's alphas were .85 and -88, respectively.

Sociocdtural adaptation was measiired by a modifïed version of the Social

Situations Questionnaire (SSQ; Fiirnham & Bochner, 1982) for international students.

The questionnaire was adapted for use with immigrants, who are a relatively more permanent and older group than sojourner students. Respondents were asked to rate the ditnculty r'never experienced" (O), Very difEcultY'(1) to "very easy" (7)] they experienced in 23 social situations in Canada Higher scores indicated less difficulty with social situations, Le., better sociocuiturai adaptation. Cronbach's alphas for the 25-item version used in the pilot were .95 and .93 for the immigrant and the Euro-Canadian samples, respectively. Marital adaptation was measirred by a modined version of Locke-Wallace

Marital Adjustment Test (LWMAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959). Eight items concerning topics considered to be important in the Turkish marital life were incorporated. A total of

23 items assessed accommodation of spouses to each other at any given time with higher scores indicating higher levels of marital adaptation. Locke and Wallace (1 959) reported the 15-item instniment to be highly diable and valid The reliability using the Spearman-

Brown formula was .90. It had evidence of Imown-groups validity, with scores discriminating between adjusted and maladjusteci couples, and of concurrent validity, with scores on the instrument correlating with the Locke-Wallace M&ral Predictions

Test (Locke & Waiiace, 1959), a measure of predicted fuhue adjustment. Cronbach7s alphas for the original instrument in the pilot were .78 and -79for the immigrant and the

Euro-Canadian samples, respectively. For the modified version, they were -70 for the unmigrant and .79 for the Euro-Canadian sarnple.

Acculturation Behavior

Acculturation behavior was assessed by items on the following domains: language spoken, social activity, fkiendship pattern, holiday celebration, newspaper readership, food preference at home, and music preference. The response categories were "no behavior," "only Turici&," "mostiy Turlûsh," "equal," 'inody Canadian," and "only

Canadian." Ethnic identity was assesed by an item on the group the respondent identified

most with: 'Turkish," 'Tilrkish-Canadian,'' "Canadian," "neither."

us Attacm

Religious attachment was assessed by three items on fastuig, praying, and mosque

attendance.

esired Contact

Desired contact with Euro-Cansnians was measu~din a paralle1 form to acnial contact. A 5-item 5-point mesure was adapted fkom Kostovcik (1983). Respondents rated the fiequency of desired contact with Euro-Canadians and indicated how much they agreed with staternents on being close to a Euro-Canadian fiend and having many Euro-

Canadian fiiends. Higher scores indicated pater degree of desired contact with Euro-

Canadians. The measure proved reliable for use with the immigrant sample in the pilot; the Cronbach's alpha was -83.

Procedure

Translatiori,

AU measures were origmally in English. The English version of the questionnaire was first completed by a Turkish gmduate student living in Caaada, who provided the fht feedback on the comprehensibility of the questionnaire. Following a few minor 77 changes, aU measures except the anxiety measurr was translated into Tu11kXsh using the method of forward and backward translation with decentration (Brislin, 1986). The questionnaire was divided into two and each half was translated uito Turkish by a bilingual Turkish living in Canada (fomd translation). A third bilingual translated the

Turkish version back to English (back translation). The two Engiish versions were then compared by the mearcher and those who did the forward translation. Discrepancies were discussed and revisions were made by refdgto a separate Tmkish version tramlateci by the researcher. Both the Turkish and the English versions of the items constructed or modified for the study by the researcher were revised. For the standard measures, changes were made ody in the Turkish version (decentdon). With regard to the anxiety measure, a standardized Turkish version (her& Le Compte, 1985) was used.

The translation of the psychological adaptation measures was double checked by a

Turkish professor of clinical psychology. The final Turkish version was pre-piloted with a

Turkish immigrant couple and the feedback was evaluated.

lYQmdY

A pilot study was conducted in Ottawa before proceeding with the main study in

Toronto. It was conducted in a different city in order to prevent disdosure of information about the study and contamination of the responses. Fiffy married Turkish immigrants

(25 couples) and 32 mmied Euro-Canadians (16 couples) participated in the pilot study.

The purpose of the pilot was a check for the content, the translation, and the administration of the questionnaire as the measures were not tested with these particda populations before. Turkish immigrant participants wrre redted at social gatherings

such as a holiday celebration and a religious meeting, where an information and screening

fonn (see Appendix C 1, C 2) was distributed, and by the researcher's personal network.

Euro-Canadia participants were recniited at church services, through referrals by the

Turkish immigrant sample, and by the researcher's personal network. Those couples who

met the eligibility requirements were contacted by phone and appointments were made

for a convenient tirne. Participants were visited individually at home and each spouse was

asked to complete a questionnaire separately in the presence of the researcher. The

Turkish questionnaire was completed by the Turkish immigrant sample and the English

questionnaire was completed by the Euro-Canadian sample. In order to capture unique

and independent responses, spouses were seated apart eom each other and were asked to

respond on their own; they were not allowed to exchange ideas. Participants were

encouraged to ask questions about points that were unclear, confusing, or misleading, and

to provide suggestions on how to improve the scales. They were observed during this

the, and following the completion of the questionnaire, an informa1 conversation was

held on issues such as their migration motivation, experiences, and how they felt about

living in Canada

The demogaphic characteristics of the samples and the descriptive statistics of the measures are presented in Appendix D 1 and D 2, respectively. Overall, the scales proved reliable for use with the Turkish and the Euro-Canadian samples. The questionnaire was improved based on the feedback received fkom the participants and the reliability checks. Some items on the language proficiency, cultural distance, acculturation attitude, marital stressors, and socioculhaal adaptation measures were

deleted. The wording of some items was improved and the insûuctions were made more

clear. Because the hardiness scale (Kobasa et al., 1982) was found to be long, unclear,

and confiising, it was replaced by a shorter and simpler version. The scale on the larger

society's attitudes toward immigrant accuituration was constructed in such a way that the

immigrant acculturation attitude items were worded as "Wbt immigrants ~houldbe

doing" hmEuro-Canadians' point of view. This usage was cxiticised by some Euro-

Canadian participants. The wordhg was found offensive and too much of au imposition

of the dominant society's views on immigrants. The measure was revised so that the

imperative sense was lost.

S*

The same procedure in the pilot was employed with the immigrant group in the main study except that where possible, the questionnaire was administered to groups of couples. When contacted by phone, individuals were asked whether they would be willing to host niends/relatives who would like to participate, and whether they would feel cornfortable in completing the questionnaire in their presence. Necessary arrangements for a group administration of up to four couples per session were made with those who had no concems about this procedure. nie group administration served the purpose of expediency and preventing contamination. This way those who had the potentid to be informai about the study ahead of time were exposed to the study concurrently.

Participants were &O asked not to talk about the content of the questionnaire to anyone. 80

Before starting the administration, some thewas spent building rapport with the

participants in order to establish tnist The purpose of the research was explained and the

confïdentiality and anonymity of mponses were assured- Participants were told that group fïndings ratber than individual responsa were of intemst, hence, assuring them that

individuais would not be idennfied. They were also told that it was not a test, there were

no specinc right or wrong answers, and that their own personal ideas were the right answers. Spouses were seated apart hmeach other and participants were asked not to talk among themselves. The researcher's presence was essential to ensure independent responses fiom each spouse. This was particularly important in the Turkish context where man is the authority figure in the family and the woman is under the strong innuence of her husband.

The participants first signed the consent fonn (see Appendk E 1, E 2) and then

fiiled out the questionnaire. The researcher cladied points that were confiising or unclear

and helped illiterate participants complete the questionnaire by reading the questions and

marking their responses. Foilowing this, they were given a debriefing form (see Appendix

F 1, F 2) explainhg why they were chosen, the content of the study, and listing the phone numbers of social services they might refer to, especidy if they were distressed by the content of the questions. The administration ranged between 50 minutes and 3 hours, but took approximately 2 hours on average. Then an Sonnai conversation was held where the researcher had an opportunity to observe the participants talk about their experiences and their feelings about immigrating to Canada 81

A mail swey technique was employed with the Eufo-Canadian group in the main study. The researcher's presence during the administration was not practical and as essentiai with this group based on the observations hmthe pilot study. It was difficuit to recruit participants in the pilot because of the time cornmitment involved in setting up an appointment. Many potentid participants who declined mentioned that they would have participated if they could complete the questionnaire and mail it back. Finding eligible dedEuro-Canadians whose both parents were born in Canada and whose spouse also met the qiiiilifications was very restricting on its own. Having to also recruit those who could make the time commitment was believed to make it almost an impossible job. It was also observed in the pilot that the Euro-Canadian sample needed very few clarifications with the questions. With regard to the independence of spouses' responses, marriage partuers are in relatively more equal terms and can act more independently Ui the Euro-Canadian culture. Hence, eligible Euro-Canadians were given two packages including the questionnaires and the consent fom(see Appendix E 3) for themselves and their spouse. They were asked to complete the questionnaires on their own and mail them back separately.

Two research assistants with a Bachelor's degree collected the data fiom the

Turkish sample in Turkey. They were given instructions on selecting the sample and were trained in sdministering the questionnaire based on the researcher's experience with the immigrant sample. Each couple was visiteci individually at home and the same procedures as with the immigrant sample were employed. 82 RESULTS

The results are ptesented in three broad sections. The first section reports the demographic characteristics of the samples and the psychometric properties of the scales, including reliability and validity checks. The second and the third sections report findings related to the themes of the study. Cross-group comparisons of the adaptation of the

Turkish immigrant, Turkish, and Euro-Canadian couples are presented in the second section; the dtsrelated to the Turkish immigrants are presented in the thud section.

Gender comparisons across culturai gmups were undertaken as an exploratory component of the study; the related findings are reported in a final section.

The unit of analysis was chosen to be the couple in order not to violate the assumption of independence in the statistical analyses. Individual scores of males and females were used in gendei related analyses. Data preparation techniques and issues related to nonindependence in couples research are discussed in Appendix G.

Demographic Characteristics of the Samples

Demographic characteristics of the Turkish, Turkish immigrant, and Euro-

Canadian samples are presented in Table 1. The characteristics of females and males are presented separately in Table 2. Participants were middle-aged manied couples in their early 40s with a wide range of educaîional and occupatiod attainment. 83

Table 1

Sarnple

Sarnple Size n Age M SQ Range Education No schooling Y0 Elementary Junior high

Vocationai/ Technical Co llege Bachelor's Graduate

Employment FuH-Time % Part-Tme No gainfui employment Occupation Unskiiled Y0 SkiNeci White collar Managerid Owns small business Professiond

Lengh M of SR Marriage Range Number M of Children RwF Table 1 continued

Turkish Turkish Immigrant Euro-Canadian Length of M - 13.5 Genera 3 55.6 Residence - 8.5 tion 4-6 34.4 Range - 1-40 Yo 7-1 0 10.0 Status % Citizen - 67.0 Culture British 81.1 Landed - 33.0 of French 2.2 Immig Ongin Brit-Fren 4.4 YO Other a 12.2 Note, a Other includes combinaiion of British or French and other Western European. Table 2

Turkish Turkish Immigrant Euro-Canadian - - Variable Female Maie Fernale Male Female Male . Sarnple Size

Age

Education % Junior higb Hi& VocationaV Techical College Bachelor's Graduate

Full-Tirne Part-Tirne No gainfiil employment

Occupation Unskilled Y0 Skilled White collar Managerid Owns mail business Professional Table 2 contuiued

Variable Female Male Fernale Male Fernale Male ------. Length of M - - 12.2 14.9 Genera 3 60.0 51.1 Residence - - 8.4 8.4 tion 4-6 28.9 40.0 Range - - 1-30 1-40 % 7-10 11.1 8.9

Status% Citizen - - 60.0 74.0 Culture British 82.2 80.0 Landed - - 40.0 26.0 of French 2.2 2.2 Immig Ongin Brit-Fren - 8.9 % Offier ' 15.6 8.9 Note, " mer incf udes combination of British or French and other Western European. 87

One hmdred fourteen Turks (57 married couples) collstituted the Turkish sample.

The mean age of the participants was 40.9 years; 38.8 for women and 42.9 for men, ranghg fiom 29 to 68 years. More than half the sample (55.3%) had at least a bachelor's degree and 35.1% had a high school education or les. Few participants (2.6%), who are dl women, had no fodschooling. Almost alI men (96.5%), but less than half the women (40.3%) were gainfully empioyed; 56.2% of the women were engaged in house- related activities and 2 1.1 % were professional. Approximately half of the men in the sample (47.4%) were managers or small business owners and 33.3% were professional.

The mean length of marriage was 16.0 years and the mean nurnber of children was 2.2.

Turkish Immi-gant Sarnplc

Two hundred Turkish immigrants (1 00 rnarried couples) were included in the

Twkish immigrant sample. The mean age was 42.1 years; 39.8 for women and 44.4 for men, ranging fiom 19 to 73 years. Half the men (50.0%) and 33% of the women had at least a bachelor's degree. Twice as many women (26%) as of men (13%) had elementary or no schooling. Eighty-two percent of the men and 42% of the women were gainfully employed. Thirty-five percent of the women were engaged in house-related activities.

Twice as many women (1 8.0%) as of men (9.0%) reported that the reason for unemployment was being unable to find a job. One third of the men (33.0%) were professiod, and about another third were involved in unskilled and skilled work (12.0% and 17.0%, respectively). The participants had been Mng in Canada on an average of 88

13.5 years, ranging hmless than a year to 40 years. Sixty-two percent heid Canadian citizenship and 33% were landed immigrants. They were married for a mean of 17.2 years and the mean number of children was 1.8.

SU

Nineîy Euro-Canadians (45 married couples) made up the Euro-Canadian sample.

Al1 the participants and their parents were born in Canada: 55.6% were third generation

Canadians and the rest went Merback; 8 1.1 % were of British and 2.2% were of

French descent, 12.2% had British or French on one side and other Western European heritage on the other side. The mean age of the participants was 45.2 years; 44.0 for women and 46.4 for men, ranghg fkom 25 to 78 years. One third of the participants

(33.3%) had a high school education or less, and 37.7% had at lest a bachelor's degree.

The distinction between vocationalltechnicai school and college was made for the

Turkish and the Turkish immigrant sample as they are distinguished in the Turkish education system. In the Euro-Canadian questionnaire, the option choice between these two kinds of education was presented for comparability. Some of the Euro-Canadian sample chose one, some the other. It is not clear on what basis this choice was made.

Almost ail men (88.9%) and 75.6% of the wornen were gauifully employed. One fifth of the women (20.0%) were engaged in house-related activities, 17.8% were professional, and 26.7% were involved in white cohwork. One third of the men (33.3%) were either managers or mail business owners, 13.3% were professional, and close to one third

(28.9%) were involved in skilIed work. The couples were married for a mean of 19.0 years and the mean number of children was 2.0.

Psychometric Properties of the Scales

Psychometric characteristics of the scaies including the nurnber of items, mean,

standard deviation, possible range of scores, and Cronbach7salpha for the three samples

are reporteci in Table 3. The Turkish- and English-language scales can be found in

Appendix A and B, respectively.

Socioeconomic status is often determined by a combination of education,

occupation, and income. In the present study, however, it was based only on edudon. A

standard socioeconomic status variable across the three groups excluded income as an

indicator because income is the least comparable variable across societies. Occupation

was not taken into consideration because more than half the women in the Turkish and

the immigrant samples were not ga.yemployed. Including occupation would have created biased estimates for women because most of the sample would have been estimated on a smali number of people who had relatively higher ranking occupations.

Hence, socioeconomic status was determined by the mean of each spouse's education.

Education ranged fkom "no schooling" (1) to "graduate" (8), as did socioeconomic status

(mean of couples' education).

Scoring the meamres of marital stressors and marital adaptation was done by using equal weights for the items in each sample as assigned weights were found to be cuituraiiy inappropriate for the Turkish and the immigrant samples. As mentioned before, culturally important items were incorporated in these measures, including those on Table 3 . . e Statisbcs for V

Possible Sde Range of Cronbach's Variable CuitUrai Group Mean 32 Scores Alpha Socioeconomic Turkish 5.55 Statu Turkish unmigrant 5.1 7 Euro-Canadian 5.74

Hardiness Turkish 86.23 (composite) Turkish Unmigrant 85.03 Euro-Canadian 90.40 Turkish 32.05 Turkish immigrant 3 1 .O3 Euro-Canadian 32.48 Challenge Turkish 22.94 Turkish immigrant 23 -67 Euro-Canadian 26.76 Turkish 3 1.26 Turkish immigrant 3 0.40 Euro-Canadian 31.14

Marital Turkish 39.82 Stressors Turkish immigrant 39.72 Euro-Cdan 36.27 Turkish 2 1 .O0 Turkish immigrant 20.72 Euro-Canadian 21.11

Length of Turkish - Residence Turkish immigrant 1 3 -5 Euro-Cdan - Tirrkish - Tmkish immigrant 3 0.80 Euro-Canadian - Table 3 continued

Possible Scale Range of Cronbach's Variable Cultural Group Mean SR Scores Alpha Social Support Turkish Turkish immigrant Euro-Cdan Cultural Turkish Distance Turkish immigrant Euro-Canaàian Contact Turkish Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadian Desired Contact Turkish Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadian Acculturation: lntegration Turkish Turkish immigrant Euro-Cdan Separation Turkish Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadian Assimilation Turkish Turkish immigrant Euro-Cadan Margmalization Turkish Turkish immigrant Em-Cdan Discrimination Turkish Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadian Table 3 continued

Possible Scale Range of Cronbach's Variable Cuiturai Group Mean a2 Scores Alph Turkish .O0 Turkish immigrant .O0 Euro-Cdan .O0

Depression (R)b Turkish 29.97 Turkish immigrant 3 1 -56 Euro-Canadian 22.43

Turkish 4.48 Turkish immigrant 3.92 Euro-Cdan 2.10

Turkish 39.1 1 Turkishimmigrant 37.66 Euro-Canadian 36-03

Satisfaction Turkish 24.89 Turkish immigrant 23.71 Euro-Canadian 25.63 Sociocultural Turkish 116.88 Adaptation Turkish immigrant 1 05.27 Euro-Canadian 1 18.52 Marital Turkish 99.56 Adaptation Turkishimmigrant 101.68 Euro-Canadian 98.18 Note. 'Psychological adaptation = Depression (R)+Stress (R)+Anxiety @)+Satisfaction (Standardized and summated score) Reversed scde scores children. Couples with no children constituted 12.5% and 18.6% of the Turkish immigrant and the EUTO-Canadiansarnples, respectively. Scores for these couples were pmrated in order not to dcetoo many cases.

The item mean and the standard deviation of Perceived Discrimination on a

7-point scale was 2.85 and .64, respectively. Compared with Chinese in Canada (Hocoy.

1993) = 3.28, = .77), this was significantly lower, 1(235) = 4.53. p < .O 1.

Compared with Black South Afncans (Hocoy, 1997) (M = 3.66, = .84), it was also significantly lower, 1(443) = 8.53, p < .O 1. The scale mean of 5 1.24 and standard deviation of 11.48 compared with a sarnple of East Indian women in Canada (Dhawan,

1997) (M = 56.60, = 15.38) also proved that experience of discrimination among

Turkish immigrants was significantiy Iower, 1(216) = 2.85, p < .O 1.

Depression, stress, and anxiety scores were reflected so that they represented less psychological disturbance. Raw scores on these three scales and the satisfaction scale were standardized and summed to produce a total psychological adaptation score.

Intercorrelations among these four scales can be found in Appendix H 1, H 2, and H 3.

The sigrilncant correlations among these measures in al1 three samples enabled the aggregation of the scores.

The Generalwd Contentment Scale (GCS), assessing depression, has a cut-off value of 30, with scores above 30 being regarded as clinicaily significant (Hudson, 1982).

The Turkish sample (Ea = 29.97, = 9.99) was approximately equal, the Turkish immigrant sample (M = 3 1-56, SI): = 9.73) was above, and the Euro-Canadian sample

(M = 22.43, Sp = 9.73) was below this value. The Cawte Stress Scde had a mean of 4-48 (m= 2.71) for the Turkish, 3.92

= 2.30) for the Turkish immigrant, and 2.10 (Sa = 1.75) for the Euro-Canadian

sample. T-test analyses showed that compared to other sampies in the Literaîure (Berry et

al., 1987), the mean for the Turkish immigrant sample was higher than that of a group the

authors referred to as ''A.gloce~tics~'(1.79), similar to Korean immigrants (3.08), and

lower than Vietuamese refugees (5.6 1) and some Native Peoples (e.g., Cree, Canier)

(5.20 - 7.03) in Canada (at p = .01). Comparing the mean of the sedentary groups of the

present shidy to that of "Angloceltics" (1-79) in Canada, the Euro-Cean sample was

similar to and the Turkish sample was signincantly higher in levels of stress.

Since the original state anxiety scale was modifïed to refiect respondents' anxiety

"during the past few weeks" instead of at the moment when they were completing the

scale, cornparison with the past research was not possible.

The means for the Satisfâction with Life Scale were 24.89 (m= 4.98) for the

Twkish, 23.71 (m= 4.74) for the Twkish immigrant, and 25.63 (m= 4.50) for the

Euro-Canadian sample. Considerable variability in life satisfaction was observed in

previous iiterature between diverse populations, including various cdhiral groups. The

means varied fiom 12 for an dcoholic inpatient sample to 28 for a group of older

Canadians. Most gmups feu in the range of 23 to 28, whkh is the range of "slightly

satisfied" to "satisfied" (reviewed in Pavot & Diener, 1993). The means reported for the present study were also in this range for aIl the three groups.

Various acculturation behavior pattems of Turkish unmigrants such as participation in Turkish and CanRdian organizations, soci~gwith the Turkish and the 95

Canadam, speaking in Turkish and English, and religious practice are presented in

Appendix 1 1. The niendship pattern, holiday celebration, newspaper readership, food pattern, music preference, and ethnic identity, the response categories of which were

Turkish, both Turkish and Canadian, Canadian, and none, are presented in Appendix 1 2.

Participation in Turkish organkutions was more fiequent than participation in

Canadian 0rgani;rations. Sociakhg with Canadiam was less fiequent than socialking with the Turkish. Women spoke Turkish more and English less than men did. In tenns of religious practice, more men than women prayed and visited the moque. The sample was equally split between those who never prayed and the combination of those who prayed on special days and five times a &y. The respondents were approximately equdly divided between those who fmed and those who did not (see Appendix 1 1).

The close fiiends were mostly of Turkish origin. Celebrating Turkish holidays was reported by many, followed by both Turkish and Canadian holiday celebration. Canadian newspapers were read by most of the respondents, yet more women read Turkish and fewer read Canadian newspapers than men. Turkish food was mostly preferred to nonTurlcish~Canadianfood. In terms of listening to music, Turkish music was reported by many, followed by both Turkish and nonTurkisWCanadian. Most of the respondents identified as Turkish and approximately half as many identified as Turkish-Canadian.

More women identified as Turkish than men and fewer women identified as Turkish-

Canadian than men (see Appendix I 2). luhwilY

AU the measures except the subscales of hardiness were internally consistent and highly diable for use with each of the three samples. The three subscales of hardiness, namely, cornmitment, challenge, and control, had a low reliability; the Cronbach's alpha ranged between -37and .67. Hence, the subscale scores were excluded nom Mer analyses and the s-ated hardiness score was used instead. The Cronbach's alpha for the composite was .74 and .76 for the Turkish immigrant and the Euro-Canadian samples, respectively. This compares with an alpha of .83 found with military disaster assistance officers in the U. S. (Bartone et al., 1989). Although the composite had a low reliability in the Turkish sample (alpha = .61), it was retained because low reliability does not create a major problem when the measure has meaningfid content coverage (Schmitt, 1996). The reliability coefficients of all the other measures ranged between .75 and .96.

The Cronbach's alpha for the Perceived Discrimination Scale was -80. This compares with an alpha of .75 found with Black South Africans (Hocoy, 1997), and in

Canada, alphas of .85 wiih Chinese (Hocoy, 1993) and with East Indians @hawan, 1997). and .88 with Abonginais (Restoule, 1994).

The Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS) had alphas of .87, .89, and -92with the Turkish, Turkish immigrant, and the Euro-Canadian samples, respectively. This compares to an alpha of .92 in previous research (Hudson, 1982).

The Cawte Stress Scale had alphas of .79, -76, and .75 with the Turkish, Turkish immigrant, and the Euro-Canadian samples, respectively. This compares with an alpha of

.69 for Koreans in Korea, .78 for Koreans in Canada, and .74 for an emigrating sample of Koreans to Canada (Kim, 1988), an alpha of -90 with East Indians in Canada (Dhawan,

1997), an alpha of -68 with foreign students and -64 with Canadian students in Canada

(Minde, 1985).

The Cronbach's alpha for the Satisfaction with Life Scale was -86 for both the

Turkish and the Turkish immimt sample, and .88 for the Euro-Canadian sample. This compares with alphas of -89, 35, .87 in previous research (Pavot & Diener, 1993).

Validity

It was important to examine the validity of the measures as most of them were adapted for the present study. Validity of the measures was examined through intercorrelations arnong the shidy variables which are presented in Appendix H 1, H 2, and H 3 for the Turkish, Turkish immigrant, and the Euro-Canadian samples, respectively. For the validation of the acculturation attitudes measure, additional variables of acculturation behavior were employed and factor analysis was performed on the total measure.

Evidence for the validity of the hardiness measure came from its correlation with the psychological adaptation measures. This is in line with the literature on hardiness which consistently reports that hardy people cope better with life events that are stressful and are less disturbed (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa et al., 198 1; Kobasa et ai., 1982). Hardiness was correlateci negatively with depression, stress, anxiety, and positively with satisfaction in both the Turkish and the Turkish immigrant samples. The relation was in a similar direction in the Euro-Canadian sample, but reached significance only with stress (1 (39) = -32,p < -05).

Demomtrating convergent vaiidity, measUres related to marital life were correlated wîth each other in the expected direction. Marital stressors correlated negativeiy with marital support in al1 the Turkish (1 (56) = -.86,p < .001), Twkish hmigrant (E (78) = 430, p < .001), and Euro-Canadian samples (Z (39) = -.84,g < .001).

It was also negatively correlated with marital adaptation (1 (56) = -.87, p < -001 ; a (78) =

-.72, p < .001; 1 (39) = -.74, p < .O01 in the Turkish, Turkish immigrant, and Euro-

Canadian samples, respectively). There was a positive relationship between maritai support and marital adaptation in al1 the samples: 1 (56) = .89, p < .O0 1 in the Turkish, g (78) = .77,p < .O0 1 in Turkish immigrant, and 1 (39) = .66, p < .O0 1 in the Euro-

Canadian sample. Marital support also displayed discriminant validity by correlating poorly with the social support scde which purportedly assessed perceived support from anyone excluding the spouse (1 (56) = .O 1, n-S.; r (78) = -11, ns.; 1(39) = .25, n.s., in the

Turkish, Turkish immigrant, and Euro-Canadian samples, respectively). Marital stressors also correlated positively with stress in ail the three samples.

One expects and hdsEnghsh Ianguage proficiency to have a positive relationship with socioeconomic status (1 (78) = .74, p < .001), length of residence in Canada (r (78) =

-42,s < .O0 l), contact with Euro-Canadians (1: (78) = .46, p c .O0 l), sociocdtuml adaptation (g (78) = .59, g < .O0 l), acculturation attitudes of integration (E (78)= .44, p c -001) and assimilation (g (78) = .3 1, p < -01) and a negative relationship with separation 0 (78) = -.40, p < -001). 99

Social support was in an expected relationship with some of the acculturation variables and psychological adaptation measures. It was comlated positively with contact

(g (78) = -53, p < -001) and negatively with discrimination (1 (78) = -.35, p < .01). The relationship with the psychological adaptation maures was consistent with the extensive literature on the link between social support and psychological well-being (e.g., Cohen &

Wiils, 1985; Lazanis & Folkman, 1984). It was correlated negatively with depression

(f (78) = -.50, p < .001), stress (1 (78) = -.23, p c .OS), and anxiety (E (78) = -.40, p c .001), and positively with satisfaction (1 (78) = .34, p < .01) in the Turkish immigrant sarnple. It was in a negative relationship with stress (g (56) = -.30, p < .05) in the Turkish sample, and with depression (g (39) = -.3 1, p c .06) in the Euro-Canadian sarnple.

Contact with Euro-Canadians was in the expected relationship with the acculturation variables. It was correlated positively with length of residence in Canada

(78) = .48,g < .001), English language proficiency (1 (78) = .46, p < .001), social support (~(78)= 53, p < .O0 1)' accultraation attitudes of integration (g (78) = .47, p < .001) and assimilation (g (78) = .32, p < .01), sociocuitwal adaptation (g (78) = .73, p < .001). The negative correlation between contact and discrimination (1 (78) = -.43, p < .001) was consistent with the contact hypothesis in the intergroup relations literature, that interethnic contact, certain conditions provideci, will reduce intergmup conflict and prejudice in general (e.g., Amir, 1976; Brewer & Miller, 1988). The relationship between discrimioation and the psychological adaptation measures was also in the direction that . - the literature suggests. The experience of discnrmnation is kquently reported to have an adverse effect on one's psychological weli-king (Beiser et al., 1988; Dion et al., 1992). 1O0

This was evidenced in the present study by its positive relationship with depression

(I (78) = -51,~< .001), stress (1 (78) = .52, p < .001), anxiety (C (78) = .38, p = .001), and its negative relationship with satisfaction Q (78) = 0.30, p < .O 1).

The convergent validity of the psychological adaptation measures was established through the positive correlations among depression, stress, and anxieîy, and the negative correlation between each of these measures and satisfaction in al1 three samples. Stress also displayed a consistent relationship with the accdtunition attitudes in the Turkish immigrant sample in the way that is most fkquently reported in the acculturative stress literature @eny et al., 1987). There was a negative relationship with integration (g (78) =

-.28, p < .OS) and assimilation (1 (78) = -.25,p < .05), and a positive relationship with separation (1 (78) = .35, p < -01) and marginalization (1 (78) = -34, p < .01).

Apart fiom its relationship with language proficiency and contact reported above, sociocuitural adaptation was also correlated positively with length of residence in Canada

(78) = .44, g < .OOl), acculturation attitudes of integration (78) = .50, p < .O0 1) and assimilation 6 (78) = .36, p = .001), and negatively with separation (g (78) = -.39,

9 < .001).

Validity of the Acculturation Attitudes Scalp

Behavioral measures (friendship pattern, holiday celebration, newspaper readership, food preference at home, music preference, organization participation, social activity, language use) and psychological measures were used to check the validity of the acculturation attitudes scde. Interscale correlations among acculturation attitudes also 101 provided estimates of vaiidity.

For categorical variables, t-tests were employed to examine the ciifference in the mean score of the acculturation attitude between two groups (see Appendix J 1-J 6). In order to check the validity using the categorical variables (fkiendship pattern, holiday celebration, newspaper feadership, food preference, music preference, and ethnic identity), it was predicted that: Compared to other forms of behavior,

1) those who engage in the Turkish fom of the behavior (e-g., have Turkish close fkiends, celebrate Turkish holidays, read Turkish newspapers, etc.) will have a higher separation score,

2) those who engage in both the Turkish and the non-Turkish form of the behavior (e.g., both Turkish and non-Turkish fnends, holidays, newspapers, etc.) will have a higher integration score,

3) those who engage in the non-Turkish form of the behavior (e.g., non-Turkish fEends,

Canadian holidays, Canadian newspapers, etc.) will have a higher assimilation score, and

4) those who do not engage in either the Turkish or the non-Turkish form of the behavior will have a higher marginaiization score.

Appendk J 1-J 6 report the number of respondents who engage in the particular behavior vs. in othen, the mean and the standard deviation of the particular acculturation attitude predicted to be different between the two groups, and the t-value, separately for males and femdes. In te- of food preference, the prediction on marpinaiization was not made and the prediction on assimilation was not tested, as no males and ody one female chose to eat Canadian food. For music preference, the prediction on marginalization 102 could not be tested because everyone listened to music. For ethnic identity, the prediction on assimilation was not tested, as no femdes and only two males chose to identiQ as

Canadian.

In surnrnary, validation support was found in al1 six checks for separation and in five (except newspaper readership) for intewon. For assimilation, dl four checks provided support, In general, then, strong support exists for the validity of the separation, integration, and assimilation scales. However, marpinaiuation has no validation support.

In the four cases where checks for marginaiization were possible, the number of respondents who did not involve themselves in either form of the behavior was very srnail, hence, the t-test was weak. However, except two checks with males (fiendship, ethnic identity) and one check with fernales (newspaper), the results were in the predicted direction.

in order to check the validity of the acculturation attitudes scale using continuous variables, the direction of the relationships was predicted. For example, it was expected that socializing with Cananians would be positively correlated with integration and assimilation, and negatively correlated with separation and marginalkation. Drawing on the accuiturative stress literature, integration and assimilation were predicted to be negatively related to depression, stress, and anxiety, and positively related to satisfaction and sociocultd adaptation. Separation and marginaliP.tion, on the other hami, were expected to be in a positive relationship with depression, stress, and amiety, and in a negative relatioaship with satisfaction and sociocultural adaptation. Results of comtruct validations using correlationai dysesare presented in Table 4 for acculturation Table 4 . . ComctValidation for Acculwon Attituk Scde- Correi- between Accul- Attitudes Accul~tionRehavior of Tm-ts (n - 8n

Orgariisration (+) (+) (-1 (-1 Participation: Turkish .22* -.O7 -.27* - .20

Language (+) (+) (-1 (-1 Use: Turkish .36*** -.34* ** -.28** .O4

Note. ( ) predicted direction * p s .05. ** p a -01. *** p a .001. 104 behavior and in Table 5 for adaptation measures. Correlations with the behavior items showed that of the 14 significant correlations, 12 were in the predicted direction. Five of six correlations for sepacation and for assimilation were significant and in the predicted direction. Two of four signincant correlations for uitegration were in the predicted dvection. There was no significant correlation for marginalization. Correlations with the adaptation measures showed that all 10 significant correlations were in the predicted direction. Three of five predictions for integration and for separation, and two of five predictions for assimilation and for marginalkation were signincant and in the predicted direction. The three sets of validity checks provided strong support for the validity of separation, integration, and assimilation. The lack of significant effect for margtnaiization may be due to the fact that marginaiization was the least endorsed acculturation attitude and its variance was lower than that of the other acculturation attitudes. It is difficuit to detect an effect with a resbricted variance.

Intersde correlations among acculturation atîitudes provided estimates of concurrent validity. Theoretidy, it is expected that scales representing diagonal opposites in the acculturation attitude model (integration-marginaiization; assimilation- separation) should be negatively correlated. This is because the diagonal opposites have different responses ("yes" or "no") to both of the underlying questions in the model.

Relationships among other attitudes could be either positive or negative because they share one "yes" or 'ho" response on one of the questions. The pattern of these interscale correlations will indicate which of the underlying questions predominates in the preferences of the particular sampie (Beny et al., 1989). Table 5

Co-ct Vdiofor AcculQg,ationAttitudes Scale- Correlations between the

Variable Separaiion Integration Assimilation Marginalkation

Depression

Stress

Satisfaction

(-1 (+) (+> (9 Sociocultural -.3 7** * .54*** .34*** -10 Adaptation Notec( ) predicted direction * p s .O5 ** 9 s .01. *** p r .001. 1O6

The interscale correlations are presented in Table 6. There was a signincant negative correlation (L = -.75, p s -001) between assimilation and separation, but not between integration and marguiaiization- Separation was also negatively correlated with integration and marginalization. Assimilation was positively correlated with both integration and marginaiization. The implications of these relationships will be discussed later.

In order to Merexplore the theoreticai assumptions uuderlying the

Acculturation Attitudes Scale, a factor analysis was carried out on all the 44 items in the scale. Principal axis factoring with iteration and a direct quarhmin* * rotation was . . employed. The direct quarhrmn rotation was used because it is an oblique rotation method which produces a solution with a clearer simple structure when factors are correlated. The factors in the present case are likely to be correlated given the concepnial relatedness of the four acculturation attitudes. The Scree Test (Caîtell, 1966) suggested a solution in the range of two to five factors (See Figure 7). According to the theory underlying the acculturation attitude model, either a two- or a four-factor solution was plausible. A two-factor solution would represent the two issues of cultural maintenance and contact and participation, and a four-factor solution wodd represent the four Werent acculturation attitudes. Two to five factors were extracted and rotated, and each solution was examined for interpretabiiity. The four-fator solution produced the most rneaningful factor structure accounting for 38.7% of the total variance. Before rotation, the four factors produced eigenvalues of 11.29,2.69, 1.64, and 1.39, accounting for 25.7%, 6.1%,

3.7%, and 3.2% of the total variance, respectively. Acculturation Attitude

1. lntegration - -.6Sf** .67*** .24*

2. Separation - -.75*** -.25* 3. Assimilation - 44***

4. Marginaiization - Factor Number Fimin 7. Factor scree plot of44 acculturation attitude items 1O9

The factor structure for the four-factor solution is presented in Table 7. The fïrst column lists the item numbers, the second colurnn names the correspondhg acculturation attitude, and the remaining columns present the factor loadings. The fïrst factor clearly represents separation, with dl 1 1 separation items loacüng positively and one assimilation item loadùig negatively on this factor. The second and the third factors represent marpinaiization and integration, respectively, as ail the marginalization and inteption items load highest on these factors. The fourth factor is assimilation with al1 but one of assimilation items and one integration item loading positively on this factor. These four factors tap the four distinct acculturation attitudes and are in line with the theory underlying the acculturation attitude framework.

The correlations among the factors are presented in Table 8. They are consistent with the scale intercorrelations. Factor 1, representing separation, is correlated negatively with the other three factors. It is in a strong negative relation with Factor 3 (1 = 44) and

Factor 4 (r = -.40). This indicates that endorsing separation is related to rejecthg integration and assimilation; any form of positive group relations is rejected and cultural maintenance is dominant. The low correlation with Factor 2 (1 = -.17) indicates that separation and marginalkation are pretty much independent. Factor 2 (marginalkation) has a low positive correlation with Factor 3 (integration). Factor 4 (assimilation) has a modest correlation with Factor 2 (marginalkation) (1 = .25) and Factor 3 (integration)

= .24), indicating that endoaing assimilation is related to endorsing integration and marginalkation to a certain extent. -- --- item Attitude Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 - 1- Acc 31 2. Acc 7 Separation 3. Acc 19 Separation 4. Acc 29 sepamion 5. Acc 12 Separation 6. Acc 24 Separation 7. Acc 4 Separation 8. Acc 43 Separation 9. Acc 22 Separation 10. Acc 35 Assimilation 11. Acc 21 Separation 12. ACC38 Separation 13. Acc 18 Margmaiization 14. Acc 33 Marginatization 15. Acc 37 MarginaIization 16. Acc 16 Mar-on 17. Acc 13 Marginalization 18. Acc 23 Marghahîion 19. ACC8 Margmalization 20. Acc 44 Marginalization 21. Acc 27 Marginalization 22. Acc 40 Marginalizaîion 23. ACC5 Marginatization 24. Acc 36 Integration 25. ACC39 htegraîion 26. ACC9 integration 27. Acc 3 Integration 28. Acc 41 Integraiion 29. Acc 15 uitegraîion 30. Acc 17 integration 31. Acc 6 integration 32. ACC26 integration 33. Acc 32 integration 34. ACC20 Assimilation 35. ACC14 Assimilation 36. ACC30 Assimilation 37. ACC34 Assimilation 38. Acc 42 Assimilation 39. ACC1 Assimilation 40. ACC2 Assimilation 41. ACC10 Assimilation 42. ACC25 Assimilation 43. Acc 28 Integration 44. ACC1 1 Assimilation Note. ui rotation, scahg of factors is arbitrariiy determiud The original Ioadings on Factor 1, representing Separation, were negaiive, which meant that lower numbers indicated bigher leveis of Separation. The signs are reversed for the loadings in the first column for case of interpretation. Factor - -

1. Separation

2. Marginaiization

3. Integration

4- Assimilation In order to compare the psychological, sociocultural, and ma.adaptation of

Turkish immigrants to that of Euro-Canadians and Turks, the comparability of the measures needed to be established. A cross-cultural comparison presupposes a cross- culturaily identical scale or comparison standard. However, the same uistrument may measure different constructs in différent cultures, making comparisons invalid. When scores on identicai measures do not have the same psychological meaning in difEerent contexts, they are culturally biased, inequivalent, and hence, noncornparable. One cannot conduct good cross-cultural research without establishing comparability. In order to make a valid comparison, then, equivalence should be dernonstrateci first (Beny, 1980).

Conceptual equivalence, one of the requirements for meaningful comparison, is that the respondents have an equd understanding of the research materials across the groups in comparison. Equivalence in this respect was established in the present study through the use of forward-backward translation of the measures by bihguais, which was a recommended procedure by Brislin (1986) for this purpose, and also by pilot-testing.

Metric equivalence is another prerequisite which is established "when the psychometric properties of two (or more) sets of data hmtwo (or more) cultural groups exhibit essentidy the same coherence of structure? (Berry, 1980, p. 1O). In order to establish metric equivalence, the factor structures of the measures across the three groups were examined. What needed to be estabfished was that each item tapped the same constnict equally across the three groups. For this purpose, fht, factor anaiysis using principal axis factoring was dedout within each group on each maure that the three groups were to be compared. Second, since each scale had been treated as assessing a

unidimensional coIlSffClct, the one factor solution was examined. If equivalent, the

loadings were to be similar across the three groups. The coefficient of congruence'

(Gorsuch, 1983), an index of factor similarity between two groups was used for this purpose. A score of zero indicates no similarity and a score of one indicates perfect similarity. The factor loadings of the one factor solution were used to calculate the coefficient of congnience. The guidelines suggested by Tucker (1987 as cited in

MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1998) were used to interpret the scores: coefficients of .98 to 1.O0 are "excellent," values of .92 to .98 are "good," values of .82 to

.92 are "borderline," values of .68 to .82 are "poor," and values below .68 are Yemble."

Accordhg to these guidelines, nine coefficients were excellent, nine were good, two were borderline, and one was poor. The "excellent" and the "good" coefficients suggested that the sets of scores across groups were statistically sirnilar and the redts were comparable in terms of the underlying constmcts. Two coefficients for hardiness and one coefficient for marital adaptation were not as high. For hardiness, the coefficient for the immigrant1

Turkish cornparison was borderline and the coefficient for the Euro-CanadianiTurkish

' The definitional formula of the coefficient of congruence is as follows:

where c,, is the coefficient of congruence between a factor in group 1 and in group 2, pv , is the loading of variable v on the factor in group 1 and pv, is the loading of variable v on the corresponding factor in group 2. The coefficient of congruence was calculated for two groups at a the: immigrant/Euro-Canadian, immigrant/Turkish, Euro-Canadidurkish. 114 cornparison was poor. For marital adaptation, the coefficient for the Euro-Canadian/

Turkish cornparison was borddine. These suggested that the similarity of the scores across groups was less certain, hence, caution shouid be exercised when interpreting the rdtsinvolving these constructs.

Adaptation of Turkish Immigrant, Turkish, and Euro-Canadian Couples

The main objective of Theme 1 was to compare the levels of psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples with that of Turkish and Euro-Canadian couples. In order to compare the levels of the three dimensions of adaptation, first, equivalence of each measure among the three groups was demonstrated as discussed above. Second, the scales making up the psychological adaptation were standardized across the three groups and summed. Up to this point, each group's staadardized psychological adaptation score was used for descriptive purposes. When scores are standardized in a group, they have a mean of zero and a variance of one. This forces means and variances to be the same across groups, invalidating cross-group comparisons.

For cross-group comparisons, a three group rnultivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) was performed on three dependent variables: psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation. The signincant main effect indicated that there was a ciifference among the groups in terms of the combined adaptation, Wilks' Lambda = -78, E (6,386)

= 8.36, Q < .O01 . Post hoc analyses using planned contrasts showed that in terms of psychological adaptation, Turkish immigrants were not different hmthe Turks, 115

E (1,195) = .O 1, as., but were less weii adapted than Euro-Canadians, E (1,195) = 13-87, p < .001. Turkish immigrants were less well adapted sociocdturally than both Turks,

E (1, 195) = 13.08, 4 -001, and Euro-Canadians, E (1, 195) = 17.10, p < -001.Turkish immigrants were not different nom either group in ternis of marital adaptation. Hence, the prediction that the Turkish immigrants would experience more psychological, sociocdtural, and marital difnculty than Euro-Canadians and Turks, was pareially supporteci. Rdtsshowed that Turkish immigrants had more psychological and socioculnual difficulty than Euro-Cittliidians, but had as much psychological difficuity as that of Turks, and were not different fiom Euro-Canadians and Turks in tenns of marital

The predictors of psychological and marital adaptation were also examined and compared across the tbree groups. Two simultaneous multiple regressions were undertaken in each group, one for psychological and another for xnarital adaptation. The predictor variables of socioeconomic status, hardiness, marital stressors, marital nippon, and social support were included in each of the regression analyses. In sirnultaneou multiple regression, aU predictors are entered into the regression equation simultaneously.

Each predictor is tested to see if it accounts for more variance controhg for all the other predictors in the equation. Tables 9 and 10 present the mstandardized regression coefficients a),the standard mors for the unstandardized Es (SE B), and the variance

It could be argued that the variability in adaptation rnight be a resdt of the differences in socioeconomic status among the three groups. A MANCOVA was conducted in order to partial out the effect of SES. Holding SES constant across the groups did not alter the interpretation of the findings, which indicated that there was no confound of SES. Table 9

. * s Predicgpp the

Turkish Tuckish Immigrant Euro-Canadian = 56) (n = 90) (g = 42)

Socioeconornic Statu .52***

Hardiness .O7

Marital Stressors -.16**

Marital Support .O3

Social Support -.O1 R2

Note. *ps .05. **pi .01. ***ES .001. Table 10

- - Turkish Turkish Immigrant Euro-Canadian (n = 56) (n = 89) (n = 42) Variable il SB B xB B Eu ------

Socioeconomic Status .45 .40 -.82 .52 -16 -80

Hardiness -.O6 .15 -.23 -14 .16 .25

Marital Stressors -.55*** .lS -.43** -16 -.65* -24

Marital Support 2.06*** -42 1.79*** .44 .76 -83

Social Support -.O7 .ll .O6 -10 -. 14 .17

R2 .84*** .63*** .54*** Note. * p s .os. ** p n .01. *** 0 " .001. ll8 accounted for œ2)by the predictors of the psychological and marital adaptation of

Turkish, Turkish immigrant, and Euro-Cdan couples, respectively.

In the Turkish group, socioeconornic status and marital stressors were unique predictors of psychological adaptation. As socioeconornic status increased and marital stressors decreased among Turkish couples, the psychological adaptation increased.

Sixty-four percent of the variance in psychological adaptation was explaïned by the predictor variables (Table 9). Marital stressors as well as marital support made unique, significant contributions to the prediction of marital adaptation. Less marital stresson and more marital support indicated bettet marital adaptation. The predictors explained 84% of the variance in marital adaptation (Table 10).

In the Turkish immigrant group, hardiness, marital stressors, and social support were unique predictors of psychologicai adaptation. More hardiness and social support, and iess marital stressors were associated with better psychological adaptation. The predictors explained 47% of the variance (Table 9). Less marital stressors and more marital support indicated better marital adaptation and the predictors accounted for 63% of the variance (Table 10).

In the Euro-Canadian group, marital stressors made unique, significant contribution to the prediction of both psychological and marital adaptation. Less marital stressors was associated with better psychological and marital adaptation. The predictors accounted for 65% of the variance in psychological and 54% of the variance in marital adaptation. 119

The regression coefficients were compareci by using z-tests to determine if the prectictors were eqdysttong in predicting each adaptation across the groups.

Socioeconomic status was a unique predictor of the psychologid adaptation of Turks.

When the regression coefficients were cornpared across the groups, SES proved to be a stronger predictor of the adaptation of Turks than it was of Turkish immigrants and Euro-

Canadians. Harduiess was a unique predictor of the psychological adaptation of Turkish immigrants. It was an eqdystrong predictor in Turkish immigrants as it was in Euro-

Canadians and Turks. Marital stressors was a unique predictor of psychological adaptation in each group. It was a marginally stronger predictor in Euro-Canadians than in Turkish immigrants and as equally strong in Turks and Turkish immigrants. Social support was a unique predictor of the psychological adaptation of Turkish immigrants. It was a stronger predictor than it was of Turks and Euro-Canadians. Marital stressors made a unique contribution to the prediction of marital adaptation in each group. The coefficients were not dif5erent fkom each other in the prediction across the groups.

Marital support was a unique predictor in the Turkish immigrant and the Turkish groups.

It was an equally strong predictor across the groups.

Acculturation of Tiakish Immigrants

The main objective of Theme 2 was to distinguish arnong the psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of marriecl Turkish immigrant couples. Several analyses were used to test the specinc predictions reiated to this objective. 120

Three simultaneous multiple regressions were undertaken, one for each of the outcome variables of psychologicai, sociocultural, and marital adaptation (Table I 1). For these within group analyses, the Turkish immigrant group's standardized psychological adaptation score was used. Ali predictor variables were included in each of the regression analyses. This procedure of including all as opposed to only the predicted variables was employed as a more stringent test of the discriminant validity of psychological, socioculniral, and marital adaptation. This procedure foilowed the approach of Ward and coiieagues (Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward & Kennedy, 1993% b) in past research. However, contrary to their approach, simultaneous as opposed to stepwise multiple regressions were employed. This was because the use of stepwise regression has been strongly criticized by methodologists (e.g., Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Judd & McCleUand, 1989). In stepwise regression, the selection among the independent variables is not guided by theory, but is based on a search through different models based on statistics cornputed fiom the particdar sample cirawn, which increases the likelihood of capitalizing on chance.

Because of this, the ad hoc order produced fiom a set of variables in one sample often fails to replicate in other samples fiom the same population.

Table 11 presents the standardized regression coefficients (P), the unique variance accounted for a2)by each group of variabies, and the total variance accounted for by all predictoa in psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation. For psy choiogical adaptation, hardiness, length of residence, social support, and marginalization made unique, significant contributions to prediction. Marital support, Ianguage proficiency, cultural distance, and discrimination had a marpinaiiy significant tendency to be Table 11

- Outcome - Predictor Psychologicai Sociocuihirai Marital P R2 P R* P R'

Mode1 1 Individuai Variables Socioeconomic Status .14 Hardiness .27* Model 2 Marital Variables Marital Stressors -.23 Marital Support -26" Model 3 Acculturation Variables Length of Residence Language Proficiency Social Support Cultural Distance Contact Integration Assimilation Separation Marginaiization Discrimination Total Note. B2corresponding to eachmodelrefers & the unique variance accounted for bi the - specinc group of variables. B's of the 3 groups of variables do not sum up to the total E~ in the last row, which takes into account both the unique and the overlapping variance explaineci by the predictors. "p s .06. * p s .OS. ** p r .Ol. 122 associated with psychological adaptation. The direction of the regression coefficients indiateci that as hardiness, marital support, social support, iength of residence in Canada and perceived cultural distance increased, and as language proficiency, marginalization and discrimination decreased, psychological adaptation increased. The predictors accounted for a total of 64% of the variance in psychological adaptation.

The direction of the effect with language proficiency and cultural distance was contradictory to what one would expect. The efkt size was also small. It is difficuit to provide any explanation and would be best to reserve judgment until other shidies are done.

With the outcome variable of sociocultural adaptation, contact and language proficiency were unique, significant predictors. More contact with Euro-Canadians and more language proficiency indicated better sociocultural adaptation. Sixty-five percent of the variance in sociocultural adaptation was explained by the predictor variables.

When the predictors of psychological and sociocultural adaptation were compared, contact and language proficiency were found to be significant predictors of sociocultural adaptation, and hardiness, marital and social support, length of residence, marginalllation, and discrimination were signincant predictors of psychologicd adaptation. These effects were di in the predicted direction. However, the effect of language proficiency and cultural distance in predicting psychological adaptation was in the contrary direction. As expected, the results showed thaî dif5erent variables were significant predictors of psychological and sociocultural adaptation, which supports the 123

For the outcome variable of manta adaptation, ody the marital variables made signincant contributions. Both marital stresson and marital support were unique predictors of marital adaptation. Less marital stressors and greater maritai support were associated with better maritai adaptation. The predictors accounted for 69% of the variance in marital adaptation. Compared to the predictors of psychological and sociocultural adaptation, persodty and acculturation variables did not prove significant in the prediction of maritai adaptation. As predicted, this hding testified to the fact that marital adaptation constitutes a different construct from psychological and sociocultural adaptation.

The relative impact of individual, marital, and acculturation variables on psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation was also examined. The goal was to determine the unique contribution of each group of individual, marital, and acculturation variables to the prediction of each adaptational outcome. Simultaneous multiple regression can also be employed to test if blocks of predicton account for unique variance controllhg for the other blocks in the equation. The unique contribution of a block of variables to the prediction is determined by comparing a regression equation which includes ail variables to one which excludes the specific block. Hence, in Table 1 1,

Mode1 1 reports the unique contribution of individual variables (BZ)by comparing an equation including marital and acculturation variables to one including al1 groups of variables. In this way, it can be tested whether adding individual variables improves prediction. Mode1 2 reports the unique contribution of marital variables. in the same way, an equation inciuding individual and acculturation variables is compared to one including 124 ail variables in order to test wtiether marital variables contribute significantly to the prediction. Likewise, Mode1 3 reports the unique contribution of acculturation variables.

Hence, the B2in Table 11 refers to the unique variances accounted for by ûach group of variables and do not mm up to total B2whkh takes into account both the unique and the overlapping variance explained by predictors.

The regression analyses for psychological, socioculturai, and marital adaptation indicated different patterns of unique variance explained by each group of individual, marital, and acculturation variables. The individuai variables of socioeconomic statu and hardiness contributeci a signincant amount of unique variance to the prediction of psychological adaptation, but not to the prediction of sociocuitural and marital adaptation.

The individual variables accounted for 4% of the variance in psychological adaptation.

The marital variables of stresson and support explained a significant amount of variance in psychological and marital adaptation, but not in socioculturai adaptation. The marital variables explained 14% and 34% of variance in psychological and marital adaptation, respectively. On the other hmd, the acculturation variables accounted for a significant amount of variance in psychological and socioculturai adaptation, but not in marital adaptation. They explained 19% and 33% of variation in psychological and sociocultural adaptation, respectively.

The pattern of findings demonstnited the importance of acculturation variables in psychological and sociocultural adaptation, but not in marital adaptation. Marital variables, on the other han& were important in predicting marital and psychoiogical adaptation, but not sociocultural adaptation. Individual variables were most associated 125 with psychologicai adaptation.

Because the three adaptationai outcome variables correlated among themselves

(see Appendix H 2), a canonical correlation analysis was employed in order to create independent iinear combinations of predictor and outcome variables. Canonical correlation can be thought of as a general form of multiple regression with several variables on both sides of the equation. The goal of canonical correlation is to rnaximize the linear relationship between these two sets of variables. Canonical anaiysis may reveal that there is more than one way that these two sets of variables are related. The variables can be recombined in as many ways as there are variables in the smder set, however, only the fht two or three combinations are usually reliable. The term canonical variate refers to the linear combination of variables, one combination on the outcome variable side and a second combination on the predictor variable side. These two combinations form a pair of canonical variates (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989).

For couples, three canonical correlations were found to be significant. The first canonid correlation was -88; the second was .8 1; and the third was .65. With all three correlations included, E (42.0, 190.6) = 8.26, p < .001, with the first canonicai correlation removed, E (26.0, 130.0) = 6.28, c .O0 1, and with the second removed, E (12.0, 66.0) =

4.07,~< .O0 1.

To enhance the interpretability of the signincant canonical solutions, loadings were rotated to a vaïhax criterion (Cliff, 1987). The rotated loadings of the three pairs of canonical variates and the variance accounted for by each pair are presented in Table 12.

The resultant solutions are also displayed in pairs of variates in Figures 8-1 0. The first Table 12

Varimax Rotated Canonid Loadings

Outcome Variables Psychological Adaptation .48 Sociocultural Adaptation -.O8 Marital Adaptation ,997 Predictor Variables Socioeconomic Status Hardiness Marital Stressors Marital Support Length of Residence Language Proficiency Social Support CulturaI Distance Contact Lntegration Separation Assimilation Marginalization Discrimination Percent of variance Note The loadings of the second variate have been reflected for ease of ùiterpretation. lntemtionLength of Residence SES

Assimilation Marital Psyc hoIogid Adaptation Sms~on Margi nalizaîion O MARITAL and f PSYCHOLOGICAL ADAPTATION

~&tal Separation Adaptation

Fimre 8. Vahax-rotated canonical Loadings for the adaptational outcornes and predictors of Turkish immigrant couples: Factor 1- Marital and psychologicd adaptation; Factor II - Sociocultural adaptation. SOCIOCULTURAL ADAPTATION

Integration ::te& 'SES of Residence Hardiness a -Assimilation Sociai sUppor

B.. 111. PSYCHoLOGrcAL 1::::::::: DIrn#1SrnIS I m~~~~~~~

a aeparation Perceiveci Discrimination

Fimire 9. Varimax-rotated canonicd loadings for the adaptational outcornes and predictors of Turkish immigrant couples: Factor II - Sociocultural adaptation; Factor III - Psychological adaptation. MARITAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL ADAPTATION 1 Marital Adaptation .- support

Ps yc hological - - Adaptation Separation a Social S&PP"

1111 1111 PSYCHOLOGICAL 1::::::::: .I.I .III mm~~~o~ Perceiveci a ' Discrimination I Hardiness

SES **AssimiIation Marginalization ,,

Marita1 Stressors -

Fimire 10. Vacimax-rotated canonical loadings for the adaptational outcornes and predictors of Turkish immigrant couples: Factor 1- Marital and psychological adaptation; Factor III - Psychological adaptation. 130 variate represented a combination of Marital and Psychological Adaptation, which accounted for 22.68% of the total variance. With a cut-off loading of -35,the outcome variables that were correlated with the £îrst canonid variate were marital and psychological adaptation. Among the predictor variables, marital support, marital stresson, assimilation, socioeconomic stanis, rnarpinaiization, and separation correlated with the first canonical variate. The first pair of canonical variates indicated that couples who have more marital support (.94), less marital stressors (-.89), less preference for assimilation (-.44), and marpinaiization (-.42), greater preference for separation (.4 l), and of a lower socioeconornic standing (-.43) tended to have better marital (.997) and psychological(.48) adaptation.

The second canonical variate represented Sociocultuml Adaptation, accounting for

19.97% of the total variance. The outcome variable that was coneiated with the second canonical variate was sociocultural adaptation, while the corresponding variate fiom the predictor variables was composed of contact, language proficiency, integration, length of residence, and socioeconomic stanis. As a pair, these variates suggested that a combination of more contact with Euro-Canirdians (.84), more language proficiency (.73), greater preference for integration (-5l), longer length of residence (.49), and higher socioeconomic status (-49) corresponded with a better sociocultural adaptation (.96).

The third variate represented Psychological Adaptation, accounting for 16.1 8% of the total variance. The outcome variable that was correlated with the third canonical variate was psychological adaptation, while the predictor variables were hardiness, discrimination, separation, social support, and assimilation. The third pair of canonical 131 variates indicated that couples who are more hardy (.70), who perceive less discrimination (-.61), prefer less separation (-.53), have more social support (.44), and prefer more assidation (.36) tended to have better psychologicai adaptation (38).

Canonical correlation analyses were also undertaken to mate linear combinations of variables for males and females separately. Table 13 presents the rotated loadings of the signiscant pairs of canonid variates for males and females, and the variance accounted for by each pair. The solutions are also displayed in Figures 1 1-1 3 for males and in Figure 14 for females. The analysis for males reveaied three signincant correlations of .78, .77, and .64. With alI three correlations Uicluded, E (42.0,235.1) =

6.90, p < -001, with the first canonical correlation removed, E (26.0, 160.0) = 6.47, p < .O0 1, and with the second removed, E ( 12.0,8 1.O) = 4.65, p < -001 .

The rotated loadings of the three pairs of canonical variates for males were similar to those of the couples. The first variate represented a combination of Marital and

Psychological Adaptation, which accounted for 19.1 5% of the total variance. The outcome variables of marital (-98) and psychological(.41) adaptation, and the predictor variables of marital support (.88), less marital stressors (-.87), and lower socioeconomic status (-.40), were correlated with the first canonical variate. The second variate represented Sociocultural Adaptation, accounting for 17.54% of the total variance. The outcome variable of sociocdturai adaptation (.996) and the predictor variables of language proficiency (.73), contact with Euro-Canadians (.64), less discrimination (-.54), socioeconomic status (.49), and length of residence (.35) were correlated with the second canonical variate. The third variate represented Psychological Adaptation, accounting for Table 13

Variate 1 Variate 2 Variate 3 Variate 1 Variate 2

Varimax Rotated Canonid Loadings

Outcorne Variables Psychological Adaptation .4 1 -18 .89 -51 -60 Socioculhlral Adaptation -.O2 ,996 .O8 -93 -14 Marital Adaptation -98 -. 12 -.14 -.15 -99 Predictor Variables Socioeconomic Status -.40 .49 -29 .64 -.32 Hardiness .O7 .32 -77 .74 .O4 Marital Stressors -.87 -.O6 -.20 .O4 -.80 Marital Support -88 .O3 .O6 -.25 .86 Length of Residence -.O4 .35 .O9 -54 -.O2 Language Proficiency -.O8 .73 -28 .OS -.18 Social Support .I 1 .O7 .43 .36 .23 Cultural Distance -. 15 .O6 -22 -.24 .O9 Contact -.O8 .64 .O9 .83 .19 Integration -.26 -32 .32 .59 -.20 Separation .28 -.32 -.45 -SO .25 Assimilation -.32 .14 .26 -53 -.23 M~ginalization -.33 -10 -.O8 .O3 -.20 Discrimination -.O7 -.54 -.43 -.38 -.26 Percent of variance 19.15 17.54 14.34 28.09 18.93 Note. The loadings of the first variates have been refiected for ease of interpretation. SOCIOCULTURAL ADAPTATION IT Sociocultural f Adaptation L~~guage -- Pmficiencya Contacta - _ SES 0 --

Length of' - Psychological Residence Adaptation Mari ta1 MARITAL and II.. I yp"* et.1SI .IV1l,II* ...... a 1 1 PSYCHOLOGICAL Marital Marital ADAPTATION Stressors Adaptation

Perceived C- Discrimination - -

.*

Fimire 1 1. Varimax-rotated canonical loadings for the adaptational outcornes and predictors of male immigrants: Factor 1 - Marital and psychologicai adaptation; Factor II - Sociocultural adaptation. Lengthof Hardiness .. esi id en ce Psychological Social Adaptation Sgpport ~al.lllllPSYCHOLOGICAL t::::::::: .m. II. I *ADA~TAT~ON

SeP aration

O Perceiveci Discrimination

Fieure 12. Varimax-rotated canonical loadings for the adaptational outcornes and predictors of deimmigrants: Factor II - Socioculturai adaptation; Factor III - Psychological adaptation. MARITAL and PSYCNOLOGICAL ADAPTATION 1 Marital. T Adaptation .. bfarkd support

-- Psychological Adaptation SeC aration Social S2pnHardiness a ..*. I.I. PSYCHOLOGICAL t::::::::: 819918898 *~APTATION Perceived Discrimination - -

eEs --

Marital stressors-- a

Fimire 13. Varimax-rotated canonical loadings for the adaptational outcomes and predicturs of male immigrants: Factor I - Marital and psychological adaptation; Factor III - Psychological adaptation. MARITAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL ADAPTATION 1 Marital Adaptation. ~arita1 Suppon Psyc hological t Adaptation SociaI Separation O S~PP~ contac*S~ciocul~al Adaptation Hardiness soc Io^^ 1::::::::: ..m. Length of Perceiveci Residence PmficiencyLan@age ADAlTATION Discrimination .. Assimilation \ Integration SES

Marital Stressors

Fimire 14. Varimax-rotated canonical loadings for the adaptationai outcornes and predictors of fernale immigrants: Factor 1 - Sociocultural and psychological adaptation; Factor II - Marital and psychological adaptation. 137

14.34% of the total variance. The outcome variable that was highly comelated with the variate was psychological adaptation (. 89), while the predictor variables were hardiness

(.77), less preference for separation (--49, social support (.43), and less discrimination

(--43).

For females, only the fht two of the three canonical correlations were significant

(Table 13). The fmt correlation was -85;the second was -74; and the third was -40. With ail three correlations included, E (42.0,202.5) = 5.55, c .001, with the first canonical correlation removed, E (26.0, 138.0) = 3.32, Q < -001, and with the second removed,

E (12.0, 70.0) = 1.12, p > .IO.

The first variate represented a combination of Socioculturai and Psychological

Adaptation, which accounted for 28.09% of the total variance. The adaptational outcome variables highiy correlated with the variate were sociocultural(.93) and psychologid

(.5 1), while the predictor variables were contact (.83), hardiness (.74), language proficiency (.65), socioeconomic statu (.64), integration (.59), length of residence (.54), assimilation (.53), less preference for separation (-SO), less discrimination (-.38), and social support (-36). The second variate represented a combination of Marital and

Psychological Adaptation, accounthg for 18.93% of the total variance. The outcome variables of marital (.99) and psychological (-60)adaptation, and the predictor variables of marital support (.86), and less marital stressors (-.80), were correlated with this variate.

Regession analyses were also undertaken in order to identify the predictors of the psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant men and women. Table 14 presents the standardized regression coefficients (P) and the variance Table 14 . . eptSPr Predic- A t Men and Wom

-- - Variable Psychological Sociocdtural Marital Men Women Men Women Men Women @=97) (n=86) (n=97) (n=85) (n=96) (n=86)

Socioeconomic S tatus Hardiness Marital Stressors Marital Support Length of Residence Language Proficiency Social Support CdtuI.al Distance Contact integration Assimilation Separation Marginaiization Discrimination R2

-- Note, 'p r .06. * p s .05. ** p s .01. *** p s .001. 139

accounted for by the predictors of the adaptational outcornes of men and women.

For psychological adaptation, different predictors were found to make unique,

signincant contributions to the prediction of men and women. Hardiness, marital support,

length of residence, social support, cultural distance, and contact were significant

predictors of men's psychological adaptation, whereas marital stresson was the ody

significant predictor of women' s psychological adaptation. The predictors indicaîed that the hardier a man was, the more marital and social support he had, the merapart he perceived the Turkish and the Canadian cultures, the longer he has ken in Canada, and the less contact he had with Canadians, the better psychological adaptation he had. For women, on the other hand, the less marital stressors a woman had, the better off she was.

Sîmilar to the findings of the couple data, cultural distance and contact were in the contrary direction to expectations in the case of men's psychological adaptation. The predictors explained 55% and 41% of the variance in the psychological adaptation of men and women, respectively.

With the outcome of sociocultural adaptation, contact made a unique contribution to the prediction of both men and women. The more contact one had with Canadians. the better off she was sociocdturally. Language proficiency, social support, marginaiization, and discrimination also emerged as significant in the prediction of men's socioculhual adaptation, and hardiness was another significant predictor in women's sociocuitural adaptation. As proficiency in English and marginalization increased, and social support and discrimination decreased, sociocultural adaptation of men increased. The hardier a woman was, the better socioculturaI adaptation she ha& The direction of effect with 140 social support and marginalization was wntradictory to what one would expect The predicton explained 57% and 62% ofthe variance in the socioculturai adaptation of men and women, respectively.

For marital adaptation, marital stressors and support were significant predictors of both men and women. The les marital stressors and the more marital support one had, the better marital adaptation s/he had. For men's adaptation, socioeconomic statu and integration aiso proved significant. As socioeconomic status and integration decreased, the marital adaptation of men increased. The predictors accounted for 59% of the variance in men's and 60% of the variance in women's marital adaptation.

The main objective of Theme 3 was to examine socioeconomic status and gender similanties and clifferences in the acculturation context. Respondents were classified into high and low socioeconomic status by taking the median split on the socioeconornic stanis scores. On the scale ranging nom 1-5 to 8.0,the median was 5.5. Those whose scores were 5.0 and below were classified as "Iow," and 6.0 and above were classified as

"'high" SES. In order to meet the objectives, a 2 (gender) x 2 (SES) ANOVA was perfomed for each study variable. Table 15 reports the mean score, standard deviation, and the ceU size as a fiinction of socioeconomic status and gender.

Results indicated that those of higher socioeconomic standing were hardier than those of Iowa socioeconomic standing, E (1,85) = 20.70, p < -001 . In temu of variables related to marital Me, those of higher socioeconomic status had more marital stresson Table 15

SES -- LAW High Variable Male Fde Male Female

Marital stressom

Marital Support

Lawwe Proficiency

Social Support

Cultural Distance

Contact

Discrimination 142

Table 15 continueci

SES Low High Variable Male Femaie Male Female

Assimilation

Psychological Adaptation

Depression

Satisfaction

Sociocultural Adaptation

Marital Adaptation 143 and less marital support than those of lower socioeconomic status, E (1,92) = 5.33, g c -05 and E (1,92) = 12.29, p = .O0 1, respectively. As predicted, there were SES and gender ciifferences in English proficiency, with those of higher SES and men king more proficient in English than those of lower SES and fernales, E (1,91) = 92.76, g < .O01 and

E(1,91) = 36.28, p < .001, respectively. There was aiso a signincant interaction between

SES and gender, E. (1,9 1) = 6.3 9, p < .O5 indicating that the clifference in English proficiency between men and women was less in the high SES group than it was in the low SES group. Post hoc dysesusing orthogonal con- showed that men were more proficient than women in both the hi& SES group, E (1,91) = 6.12, p < .Os, and the low

SES group, E (1,91) = 36.58, < -001. There was no effect for social support and cultural distance; men and women as weil as the high and the low SES groups perceived equd social support and equal distance between the Turkish and the Canadian cultures. in line with the predictons, men were in more contact with Euro-Canadians than women,

-F (1,90) = 13.77, p < .001, and the high SES group was in more contact than the low SES group, E ( L,90) = 9.20, p < .O 1. There was also a significant interaction, F (1,90) = 5 S2, p < .OS. Planned contrasts indicated that men were in as much contact with Euro-

Canadians as women in the hi& SES group, F (1,90) = .91, n.s., but were more so than women in the low SES group, E (1,90) = 18.39, p c -001. There was a marginally significant SES effect for discrimination. As predicted, those of low SES perceived more discrimination than those of high SES, E (1, 89) = 3.52, p = -064.

In te- of accdtumtion anitudes, integration and assimilation had similar patterns of effect (see Figure 15). In line with the predictions, men adopted the integraton High SES Men High SES Women Low SES Men ILow SES Wornen

Integration Separation Assimilation Marginalkation

-re 15. Acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrant men aod women of high and low socioeconomic status. 145

attitude to a greater extent than women, (1,92) = 6.54, p < .05. As predicted, the low

SES group preferred integration less than the high SES group, E (1,92) = 5 1-96, p < .O0 1.

The interaction of gender and SES was sipnincant, E (1,92) = 6.47, p c .05. Post hoc analyses using planned contrasts showed that men preferred integration more than wornen in the low SES group, E (1,92) = 13.04, p < .O01, but that they did not dif5er fiom women in the high SES group, E (1,92) = .00, n.s. Men aiso adopted the assimilation attitude to a greater extent than women, E (1,92) = 11.60, p = -001 . Those of low SES also preferred assimilation less than those of high SES, E: (l,92) = 27.88, p < .O01. The interaction of gender and SES was marginally signincant, E (1,92) = 3.67, p = .058. Men preferred assimilation more than wornen in the low SES group, E (1,92) = 14.1 1, p < .O0 1, but they did not dif5er fiom women in the high SES group, E (1,92) = 1.10, n.s. As predicted, separation attitude was endorsed more by those of low SES than by those of high SES,

E (1,90) = 38.26, p < .001, yet, contrary to the prediction that the women would prefer more separation, men and women were not different in their attitudes, F ( 1,90) = 34, n.s.

Men adopted more marpuiaiization attitude than women, F (1,90) = 8.23, p < .O 1, yet the difference was signifïcant in the low SES group, E ( 1,90) = 11.72, Q < .O0 1, but not in the high SES group, E (1,90) = .41, n.s.

SES and gender effects were not detected on the composite psychologicai adaptation. However, when the components of psychological adaptation were examined individuaiiy, some effects were apparent (see Figure 16). Those of low SES were more satisfied with their Lives than those of high SES, E. (1,92) = 4.57, p < .OS. Women were marpinaiiy more depressed than men, E (1,88) = 3.79, p = .OS. There was a siwcant 1. Components of Psychological Adaptation:

Depression Stress Anxiety Satisfaction

High SES Men High SES Women Low SES Men Low SES Women

- u 2. ~ociocultural 3, Marital Adaptation Adaptation mure 16t Psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant men and women of high and low socioeconomic status. 147 main effect of both gender and SES on stress. Women were more stressed than men,

E (1,92) = 29.70, Q < .001, and those of low SES were more stressed than those of high

SES, E (1.92) = 10.50, Q c .01.In terms of anxiety, women were more anxious than men,

E (1,90) = 4.35, p < .05.

With respect to sociocultural adaptation, the main effects of gender and SES, as weii as their interaction were significant (see Figure 16). The high SES group was sociocultdIy better adapted than the low SES group, E (1,90) = 24.96, p < .O01, and men were better adapted than women, E (1,90) = 23.92, p < -001.The significant interaction, E (1, 90) = 5.73, p c .05, indicated that the difference in sociocultural adaptation between men and women was more in the low SES group than in the high SES group. The foilowing post hoc analyses showed that men were better adapted than women in the low SES group, E (1, 90) = 26.52, p < .O01, yet the difference between men and wornen of high SES did not reach acceptable levels of signîficance, F (1,90) = 3.1 1, p < .09. In tenns of marital adaptation, the significant main effect of SES indicated that those of low SES had better marital adaptation than those of high SES, E: (1,9 1) = 13.44, p<.OOl.

and Euro-Canadians

The main objective of Therne 4 was to examine the acculturation attitudes of

Twkish immigrant couples and the Euro-Canadian couples' attitudes toward immigrant acculturation. Table 16 reports the item means and standard deviations of the four acculturation attitudes for each group. They are also displayed in Figure 17. As cm be Table 16

Accdturation Attitude Turkish Immigrant Euro-Canadian - Totai Low SES High SES

Assimilation M SR n

Marginaiization 32 n Integration W Separation II Assimilation U Marginalization

Turkish Low SES High SES Euro- immigrant Turkish Turkish Canadian (ail) immigrant immigrant

Figure 17. Acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrant and Euro-Canadian couples. 150 seen dom the fkst column of Table 16, separation was the most preferred attitude mong

Turkish immigrant couples, followed by inteption; assimilation and marginaiization were the least endorsed attitudes. As the last column in the table reports, Euro-Canadians preferred immigrants to endorse integration attitudes the most, assimilation to a lesser degree, and marginaiization and separation attitudes the least.

As reporteci in the previous section on socioeconornic ciifferences in acculturation, the acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrants were not uniform across the two SES groups. Table 16 and Figure 17 also show the preferences of the low and the high SES groups. Separation was the most preferred attitude in the low SES group, followed by integration; marginalkation and assimilation were the least preferred attitudes. In the hi&

SES group, the most endorsed attitude was integration, foilowed by separation; assimilation and marginalization were endorsed the least.

In order to compare the acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrant and Euro-

Canadian couples?oneway ANOVA analyses among the low and the high SES immigrant couples and the Euro-Canadian couples were undertaken. The significant effects indicated that there were differences arnong the groups in terms of each acculturation attitude, namely, integration, E (2, 136) = 64.30, p < .O0 1, separation, E (2, 134) = 120.47, p < -001, assimilation, E (2, 136) = 58.60, p < -001, and marginalkation, E (2, 133) =

13.70, p < -001. Post hoc analyses using the Tukey-HSD tests revealed that the attitudes of Turkish immigrant couples were not compatible with those of Euro-Canadian couples.

Euro-Canadian couples preferred immigrants to endorse integration and assimilation to a higher degree than the preference of both the high and the low SES immigrant couples, 151 and the high SES group prefmed integration and assimilation more than the low SES group. For separation, both the high and the low SES groups endorsed it to a greater extent than Euro-Canadians' prefmce, and the low SES group preferred it more than the high SES group. These rdtsindicated that the integration, assimilation, and separation attitudes of Euro-Canadian couples were less compatible with those of the low

SES than of the high SES. For marginalizahon, Ewo-Cdan couples' preference was higher than both the high and the low SES groups; the high and the low SES groups were not different. This indicated that the rnarpinaiization attitude of Euro-Canadian couples was as incompatible with that of the high SES group as of the low SES group.

Simple correlation analyses were conducted be~eenthe acculturation attitudes of

Turkish immigrant men and women and various measures (Table 17). For men and women alike, integration was correlated positively with socioeconornic status, hardiness. language proficiency, contact and desired contact, and negatively with religious attachrnent and discrimination. Higher socioeconomic status, more hardiness, more proficiency in English, more actual and desired contact with Euro-Canadians, less religious attachent, and less discrimination were associated with more preference of the integration attitude. For women, less marital support was also related to higher integration.

For both men and women, separation attitude was related to more religious attachment, more marital support, and lower socioeconomic status, less hardiness, less

English proficiency, and lesactual and desired contact. It was also related to more . . cultural distance for women and more discdonfor men. Hence, the farther a 152

Table 17

Integration Separation Assimilation Marginalization -- - - Variable Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women

Socioeconomic ,41***.61*** Status

Religïous -*39***-,59*** Attachment

Marital Stressors -13 .ll

LaWWF .28** .45*** Pro ficiency

Cultural Distance -.1 1 -. 19 Contact .28** .48***

Desired Contact .50*** .59***

Discrimination -.28 ** 9.26' Note. 'p s .06. * 0 5 -05. ** p s .01. *** 0 s -001. 153

woman perceiveci Turkish and Canadian cultures and the more discrimination a man

pefceived, the more separation attitude s/he endorsed.

Assimilation anitude was related to higher socioeconomic status, more desired

contact with Euro-Canadians, less religious attachent, and less marital support in both

men and women. It was also associaîed with more marital stressors among men, and more

hardiness, more English proficiency, more contact with Euro-Canadians. and less cultural distance among women.

Marginalization attitude was related to les religious aîiachment in both men and

women. More marital stressors and Iess marital support were additionally associated with

marginalizaîion in men. In wornen, more desired contact and more discrimination were

related to marpinaiizaîion.

Findings Related to Women and Men Across Cultural Groups

In order to make gender-related wmparisons across the three groups, a 2 (gender)

x 3 (group) ANOVA was performed for each variable measured in all three groups. Table

18 shows the mean score, standard deviation, and the ceil size as a f'unction of gender and group. The results related to the main effêct of goup on adaptation measures will not be discussed as they have already been report4 above.

In terms of adaptation, the sigdicant gender effect for sociocdhnal adaptation,

-F (1, 196) = 13.30, p < .001, indicated that overall, men were socioculturally better adapted than women. The gender effect coupled with no significant interaction indicated that this finding was comparable in each group. There was no differeflce between men Table 18 -. . . esqI~tlveSwcs of V&ks as a F-n of gr ou^ and Ge nde r

- Turkish Turkish Immigmnt Euro-Canadian ------Variable Male Femaie Male Fede Male Female

Psychologid Adaptation

Sociocuiturai Adaptation

Maritai Adaptation

Marital Stressors 155 and women in terms of psychological adaptation, E: (1, 199) = -04, n.s., and marital adaptation, E (1, 198) = .24, as.

There was a group main eEect for hardiness, E (2, 1 89) = 10.66, < .001. Post hoc analyses using planned contnists indicated that Turkish immigrants were as hardy as

Turks E. (1, 1 89) = 1.04, n.s., but were les hardy than Euro-Canadians, E: ( 1, 189) =

20.72, Q < -001. There was no signifiant effect for marital stressors and marital support.

The gender effect for social support, E (1, 193) = 9.76, p < .O 1, iadicated that overall, women perceived more social support available to themselves than did men. The gender by group interaction, (2, 193) = 7.06, p = -001, indicated that the ciifference between men and women was not same acmss the three groups. The post hoc analyses showed that

Euro-Canadian women perceived more social support than did Euro-Canadian men,

E (1, 193) = 12.0 1, p < -001, and that Turkish women perceived more social support than did Turkish men, E (1, 193) = 8.14, p < .O 1. However, immigrant women were found to perceive as much social support as immigrant men, E (1, 193) = 38, n.s. 156

DISCUSSION

Turkish immigrants in Canada have not been studied extensxvely, possibly due to their mail size in wmparison to other culturai groups that have senled hm. This study was designed to bring insight into the acculturation and adaptation of Turkish immigrants in Canada What happens to mamed Turkish couples in cross-culhiral transition? The interest in this question led to the study in two ways: first, by employing systematic cornparisons between the Turkish migrant group and the two sedentary reference groups; and second, by an analysis of the variables related to acculturation and adaptation within the migrant group.

Four thernes were centrai to the present study and were emphasized in the

Introduction. Fiathe adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples was exarnined in relation to that of Turks in Turkey and Euro-Canadians in Canada Second, the psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples and of Turkish immigrant men and women were disthguished. Third, socioeconomic status and gender similarities and ciifferences in acculturation and adaptation were noted. Fourth, the acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrants and the attitudes of Euro-Canadians toward immigrant acculturation were examined.

Before discussing these four themes, fïrst, some technical commentary on the quality of samples and measures will be provided. Then, the major findings related to the four themes will be summarized and their implications wiii be discussed. The limitations of the study wiii then be outlined and some suggestions for future research wiU be made.

Finally, the conclusions reached will be stated. Technical Commentary

The major focus of the present study was on Turkish immigrant couples living in

Toronto. The two sedentary groups served as cornparison groups and particular attention was paid to match them to the immigrant group in terms of severai criteria The Turkish immigrant participants in this study are ethnic Turks immigrating to Canada directly fiom

Turkey at or above age 14. They are in their early 40s (mean age is 42.1) with an average of 13.5 years of residence in Canada The sample is limited to generation immigrants oniy; refugees and sojomers are not included in order to examine the effects of recent migration on individuals who move voiuntarily with the intention of hakg a permanent residence. Participants constitute samples of convenience rather than random samples.

Random selection was not possible because a comprehensive list of Turkish immigrants living in Toronto was not available. However, the selection of the couples to represent this particular group was guided by judgment and informe4 expert advice (Lonner &

Berry, 1986). The major distinction within the group, that of high vs. low socioeconomic standing, was paid particdar attention.

A study focused on the process of acculturation using migrant and sedentary groups wodd ideally match closely the backgrounds of the migrant and the country of origin samples. Practical issues made it impossible to match the immigrant and the

Turkish groups exactly in terms of regional background. The immigrants originated fiom different regions in Turkey, but the Turkish sample al1 came fiom the Western coastal ciiy of W.However, there is no clear a priori expectation for an hirsample to dBer 158 hmthe general population on the constnicts of interest. Moreover, the two samples were rnatched in several ways that would support the claim that they corne £iom similar populations and thereby, are comparable. In terms of ethnic origin, oniy ethnic Turks were selected in both groups; Kurdish, Armenian, Bulgarian, Bosnian, and Azeri Turks were not included. In terms of residential background, comparable numbers in each sample have had a.urban residence in Turkey (79% of immigrant sample vs. 72.8% of

Turkish sample). As for the age and the socioeconomic status, various groups were contacted in each group. The Tinkish participants are also in their early 40s (mean age is

40.9). The socioeconomic status of the Turkish sample was made comparable to that of the immigrant sample by recruiting participants both fiom a pnvate high school and a public elementary school.

The Euro-Canadian sample included couples living in Toronto, in the same city as the Turkish immigrants. For each couple, both spouses were of Western or Northern

European descent (rnainly British and French) whose parents were bom in Canada. This is because British- and French-Canadians are the two dominant groups in Canada that constitute an appropriate reference group for the Turkish immigrants; residence for three generations was the cut-off point in order to ensure sufficient farnily socialization to

Canada. These criteria may be too stringent to define a "Canadian" in a country of immigrants, in which 17.4% of the population are recent immigrants. This figure rises to approximately 42% in Toronto (Mitchell, 1997). However, these are the two dominant groups in Canada that are thought to serve as the sedentary reference group, in terms of both culture and number of generations. The attention of immigrant participants was 159

drawn to this definition of "Canadian" at the beginning of the session and it was repeated

at several points in the questionnaire where specific reference was made to Canadians.

This definition did not create any problem among the participants; they understood which

group their attention was asked to tum to. The &gent criteria made it more difficult to

match this sample to the immigrant sample in terms of demographics. To the extent

possible, age and socioeconomic status were made comparable to the other two groups.

However, the sample is a few years older (mean age is 45.2), and slightly higher in

socioeconomic status.

Ml in dl, it is believed that the three samples are reasonably comparable and that

meaningful conclusions can be reached. Moreover, socioeconomic status, the least

comparable variable among the samples, was controlled in the analyses that undertook

specific cornparisons among the groups.

A large-scale pilot study was conducted with 25 immigrant and 16 Euro-Canadian couples before proceeding with the main study. The content, translation, and the administration of the questionnaire were improved on the basis of feedback received fiom the pilot respondents and the reliability checks.

As a result, the intemal consistency of the measures increased in the main study.

AU the measures except the subscales of hardiness proved reliable (e.g., alpha > .75) for use with each of the Turkish, Turkish immigrant, and the Euro-Canadian samples. The three subscales of hardiness, namely, cornmitment, challenge, and control, had a low 160 reliability, hence, subscale scores were exchded fiorn fider analyses and the composite hardiness score was used instead. The composite had a low reliability in the Turkish sarnple. Men the measures were examhed for cross-CUIturai equivalence, hardiness also emerged as a les comparable meamacross the groups than other measures. Hardiness may not have the same psychological meaning in the different cultural groups; hence cornparisons involving this construct should be evaluated with caution.

In general, there was support for the validity of most measures in that they were correlated with the criterion variables. For the acculturation attitude measures, these attitudes were consistent with the acculturation behaviors. la addition, four co~lstructsin accordance with one of the possible solutions expected fiom Berry's (1984) mode1 emerged in factor analysis. Culturai distance and marguiaiization were the two measures which had weak evidence for validity. There may be several explanaiions for the weak support of validity. One possibility is low intemai consistency. However, for rnarginaiization, an alpha of -78des out this explanation. A second possible explanation is that the aiterion rneasure that is set to test the validity has an inherent flaw in itself.

This does not seem to be the case with marpinaiization because the same criteria provided strong support for the other three acculturation attitude measures. Another possible expianation for a weak evidence of validity is the restriction of range. This is the probable reason in this case: mmginalization is the lest endorsed acculhwtion attitude and its variance is lower than the other acculturation attitudes; 96.9% of responses are below the midpoint. This problem of restriction of range poses a threat in two ways. First., in cases in wfüch there is a signincant effect related to marpinaiization, the true effect is in fact 161

underesthad; with a less restricted variance, there would even be a greater effect.

Second, in cases in which there is no effect, restncted range rnay have made it more

difficult to detect an effect that tnily exists. Hence, for nul1 effects related to

marginalization some caution needs to be exercised. It is dinicult to know whether it is

the constnict of marginalization or the restricted range of responses that is responsible for

the nuil effect.

Marginalization as a construct may also be questioned. It has been argued that

marginalization as an acculturation attitude is different fiom integration, separation, and

assimilation in that it is not a preference. One does not "prefer" to be marginaiized in the

new society, but "becomes" marpinaiized as a resdt of king rejected, for instance, by

state policies, attitudes of the dominant group, or one's own ethnic group (Berry, 1997).

Others have suggested a finer conceptualUation of the construct. Two distinct concepts

have been proposed to replace mar-tion: momie and individualism (Bourhis et al.,

1997). Anomie is the cultural dienation and marginalkation experienced when both the

original culture and that of the dominant group in the new society are rejected. In contrat,

individualism is the preference to identify oneseif as an individual and not as a member of

a particda, group. In this latter case, individuals dissociate themselves fiom both cultures

not because they feel marpinaüzed but because they reject group ascnptions.

Simiiar possibilities wodd hold true with cdtural distance. The cultural distance

masure is not an objective indicator, but is measured by perceived sirnilarities and ciifferences between the Turkish and the Canadian cultures. It has an obvious face validity, but support for constnict vatidity was not found. Poor reliability does not seem 162 to be a plausible explanation for lack of evidence as its interna1 consistency is high (alpha

= -87). The second possible explanation, that the criterion variables rnay not have been appropriate, is again dedout since they have worked with other variables. The lack of evidence for validity rnay sdarlybe due to the reshicted range of responses. Turkish immigrants perceive great distance between the Turkish and the Canadian cultures; al1 responses are above the nidpoint. Hence, the small effects associated with cuiturai distance in the findings rnay in fact be extenuated effects due to the restricted range.

Another potential problem is high correlations between predictor variables. Le., multicollinearity. This is the case most notably with marital stressors and marital support.

There are two potential consequences of multicohearity. FVst, it presents diaculty in interpreting the results. When highly correlated predictors are entered into the analysis sunultaneously, they would eliminate each other's effect since one would not account for unique variance above and beyond the other. This would result in no predictioa giving an impression that the predictor and the outcome variables are not related. Second, high correlation may mean that they are the same constnict and they contain redundant information, hence it would make more sense to pool them together. However, there is reason to believe that neither of these two consequences is an issue in the present case.

Marital stressors and niarital support both contnaue to the prediction of marital adaptation. This means there is something unique about each constnrct that is not shared by the other. Hence, these two constmcts are different and were kept separate in the anaiyses. Summary of Findings and Implications

The first of the four main themes of the present study was the adaptation of

Turkish immigrant couples in relation to that of Turks and Euro-Canadians. in order to better understand what happens to the group in cross-cultural transition, it is necessary to compare it with the two sedentary groups, the group one is comuig fiom and the group toward which one is acculturating. The general expectation was that Turkish immigrant couples would experience more psychological, sociocultural, and marital difficulty than both Euro-Canadian and Turkish couples. In tenns of psychological adaptation, Turkish

Unmigrant couples had more difficulty than Euro-Canadian couples, but had no more diffculty than Turkish couples. They had more socioculnnal diaculty than both Euro-

Cdanand Turkish couples. In temof marital diniculty, they were not different fiom either group. The patterns of adaptation among the three groups are displayed in

Figure 18.

The early work on migration and mental health, guided by emphasis on the

"inevitable" negative consequences of migration, has produced inconclusive evidence.

The conflicting hdings of these studies showing higher, equal, or lower rates of mental disorders in immigrants may in fact be due to the method of measurement. Systematic intergroup cornparisons have not been undertaken for the most part, and the cornmon methodology has been to examine a particdar group of immigrants and to compare the rates to published scores or to other studies. However, Berry et al. (1987) have argwd that acculturation studies should be explicitly comparative in order to idenhfy cuitUral

165 variables. Among the many types of intergroup comparisons available to accultiaation researchers, one type is between groups who have and have not lived through the process of acculturation (Ward & Kennedy, 1993a).

The present shidy includes the fidl picture of immigrant adaptation for the fim tirne. A more systematic examination of immigrant mental health is achieved by employing comparisons between migrants and theV two sedentary reference groups with the use of same scales of measurement This approach is better suited to understand the association between immigration and mental heaïth, and whether the apparent Link is due to migration per se. The culture learning/sucial skiils approach to acculturation also niggests that migrant groups have more social difEculty than sedentary groups because they are not as weii equipped with the necessary social skills to live in the new social sening. This has been observed in sojourner literaaire, but has not been midied in immigrant research. The effect of migration on maritai adaptation and whether marital difficulty is exacerbated by the problems of Living in a new culture is also best exarnined if systematicdly compared to sedenîary groups. So far the closest to the present comparative approach has ken Kim's (1 988) study on a sedentary, an emigrating, and an immigrant group. In that study, comparisoos were made among non-emigrating Koreans,

Korean immigrants leaving Korea for Canada, and Korean-Canadians.

Stress and coping appmaches suggest that psychological adaptation shodd be more problematic in those who are in cross-cultural transition, compared to sedentary groups. The sedentary group wouid have the advantage of fewer Me changes and more effective social support systems. The contrashg hding regarding the psychological 166 adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples in cornparison to each of the two sedentary groups in the present study shows that explanations 0ththan those provided by the stressaping modeis may be at work, since immigrants do not necessarily have more psychological problems than thek compatriots in Turkey. Living in Turkey with political and econornic instability and the insecuriw it brings, and the hassles of everyday life in a growing country may diminish the advantages of being seden*. The couple who remains in the home country is not at an advantage over the immigrant couple, who tries to cope with the difaculties of living in a new culture. The sojoumer literature has also shown similar levels of psychological difficuity between sojourners and their compatriots at home (Ward & Kennedy, 1993a; Zheng & Berry, 199 1). The higher rate of psychological problems among immigrants compared to Euro-Canadians, on the other hanci, suggests that migration should not be overlooked as a risk factor.

Findings regarding the sociocuiturai adaptation of immigrant couples are consistent with the culture learning approaches and the sojoumer literature which employed cornparisons with both compatriots at home (Wd& Kennedy, 1993a) and hosts in the new society (Chataway & Berry, 1989; Zheng & Beny, 199 1). Socioculturai di£ficulty is experienced more by those who experience acculturation and hence, have fewer skills to function in the new cuiture, than those who do not undertake cross-cultural transition and who have the adequate skilis.

Tmmigrant couples are found not to merfiom the two sedentary groups in tems of marital adaptation. This shows that marital niff?culty is not necessarily exacerbated by the broader issues of accuitlrnition. Immigrant Jewish couples in Israel were also found 167 not to experience more marital tension than Israeli-bom couples (Hartman & Hartman,

1986). As a matter of fact, sedentary couples expressed more conflict than immigrant couples in domains such as whether the wife should work outside the home and the division of labor in the home; the two groups did not merin tems of decision-making in the home. Hartman and Hartman (1986) concluded that immigration as a stressful event does not create more tensions in the family; in contrast, it increases family solidarity and interdependence, lessening marital tension. This explamtion may also account for the findings of the present study. The difnculties associated with immigration may act as a common goal to be resolved and as couples are left to themselves to resolve them, they become more solidified in the process (Hartman & Hartrnan, 1986).

Psycholoacal. Socioculaual. and Marital Ada~tationof Turkish [mmmts

The second theme was the distinction of the psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples by evaluating the detenninants of each.

It was expected that although psychological and sociocuIturd adaptation, and psychological and marital adaptation would be related to some extent, each would be predicted by different variables. Psychological adaptation would be most associated with variables consistent with the stress and coping fkmework, sociocdniral adaptation would draw fiom the social leaming approach, and marital adaptation would be most associated with the marital variables. As expected, canonical correlation analysis revealed three separate solutions corresponding to psychological, sociocultural, and a combination of marital and psychological adaptation. Multiple regression and canonical correlation 168 analyses revealed that îhese three fscets of adaptation were associated wiùi different variables. The variables in both analyses that were most associated with psychological adaptation were the personality variable of harduiess, and the acculturation variables of social support, discrimination, and acculturation attitudes. The hardier the couple is, the greater social support they have, the less discrimination they perceive, the less rnarginalization, the less separation, and the greater assimilation they endorse, the less psychological difficulty they have. In contrast, sociocuitural adaptation was most related to the acculturation variables of English language proficiency and contact with Euro-

Canadians. The more proficient the couple is in English and the more contact they have with Euro-Canadians, the less sociocultuml difficulty they have. Marital adaptation, on the other hand, was associated only with the maritai variables. Less marital stressors and greater marital support were associated with better marital adaptation.

The distinction among the three facets of adaptation was also examined separately for men and women. It was found that the distinction was less clear for women than it was for men. In the case of men, canonical correlation analysis revealed three separate solutions corresponding to psychological, sociocultural, and a combination of marital and psychological adaptation. However, in women, only two solutions, corresponding to a combination of sociocultural and psychologicai, and a combination of marital and psychological adaptation were significant, The detefminants of each dimension of adaptation in men and women also showed some Werences. For men, the variables in both multiple regression and canonical correlation dysesthat were most associated with better psychological adaptation were greater hardiness and greater social support. 169

However, multiple regression analysis for the psychologid adaptation of women showed that fewer marital stressors were the ody unique, signincant predictor of better psychological adaptation. For the socioculturai adaptation of men, greater English proficiency, greater contact, and less discrimination perceived fkom Euro-Canadians were most related to better adaptation in both analyses. For women, multiple regression showed that greater contact and greater hardiness predicted better sociocultural adaptation. For the marital adaptation of both men and women, Iess marital stressors and greater marital support were most associated with better adaptation. Additionally, low socioeconomic status was also related to the better marital adaptation of men.

These hdings can be related to earlier research on sojourner adaptation. Ward and colieagues (Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward, 1996; Ward & Kennedy, 1992, 1993% b) have emphasized the distinction between the psychologicai (emotionalf affective) and socioculhual (behavioral) domains of cross-cultural adaptation. Predictive models of the two adaptation domains have been constructed based on various groups of sojoumers

(e.g., foreign students, international business people, expatriate wives, diplomats). It has been argued that the two domains of adaptation reflect two distinct theoretical approaches to acculturation. Psychological adaptation is better interpreted in te- of a stress and coping mode1 and is largely dependent upon personality, Me changes, and social support variables. Socioculhiral adaptation, by contrast, is better viewed from a social leaming perspective and is primarily associated with culture specific elements such as cultural knowledge, cultural identity, cultural distance, language ability, length of stay in the new culture, and amount of contact with hosts (Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward & Kennedy, 1992, 170

1993a, b).

The present study advances our understanding of the distinction among different dimensions of adaptation in several ways. First, it extends Ward and colleagues' fkmework fkom a sojourner to an immigrant population as well as fiom Uidividuals to marriecl couples. Sojouniers and immigrants are distinguished by the permanence of their contact with the new society. Both groups are migrants in voluntary contact yet, sojourners are short-term visitoa whose purpose of stay is not permanent settlement.

Conversely, immigrants intend to have a relatively permanent residence in the new society (Berry & Sam, 1997). Due to the permanent nature of their stay and the lower likelihood of intent to retum home, the effectiveness of variables in immigrant adaptation may merfiom that of sojoumers. Researchers have mostly been concemed with migration and mental health outcornes following stress and coping models yet, research concerning the psychological problems of immigrants has been inconclusive and attention has tumed to the relative importance of factors in relation to immigrants' mental hdth.

Attention is also drawn to other psychological changes that social and cultural change bring. Behavioral shifts are distinguished fiom acculturative stress as two consequences of acculturation (Berry, 1976). Some behaviors fiom the on@ culture are shed (culture shedding) and some behaviors fiom the new culture are learned (culture leamùig) (Berry,

1992). Settlement in a different culture involves the experience of learning and shedding behaviors, hence, research should not confine itself to the stresses of migration alone.

This view is akin to the social learning models adopted in the sojourner literature

(Fumham & Bochner, 1982; Ward, 1996), one which has not been utilized extensively in 171 immigrant research.

Unmignuit adaptation has so far been studied at the individuai level and no effort has been made to address the adaptation of married couples. Research in interpersonal relationships shows that individuals in dyadic social interaction coordinate their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, transcending their own identities and becoming something new all together (Kemy & Kashy, 199 1). Individuals in a dyadic relationship cm influence each other in several ways. A characteristic or behavior of one individual may influence the other (partner effects), for example, when the satisfaction that one person has influences the partnefs cornmitment. Another way is when an individual's score causes the other's score (mutual innuence), for instance, when the cornmitment of one partner influences the commitment of the other. Another source of influence is when both spouses are exposed to the same causal factor (common fate), for example, when the mutual satisfaction of the spouses influences their mutual commitment (Kenny, 1996).

Hence, the acculturation and adaptation of immigrant couples may also differ from that of individuals in the acculturation context. The resources of two individuals are brought into the acculturation experience and the coping responses and the skills of two individuals combined is difkent fiom those of an individual, leading to a different adaptive reaction.

For example, the social support available to one spouse can be utilized by the other or the acculturation attitude one spouse adopts can influence the attitude of the other.

At the couple level, the findings on the distinction of psychological and socioculhual adaptation are in broad agreement with pst research and Merextend the differentiation of dimensions of adaptation to married immigrant couples. The two 172 dimensions of adaptation are associated with düTerent variables in accordance with the underlying models. In line with stress and coping models utilized in clini4 and commmity psychology and in acculturation research, psychological adaptation of married couples is associated with the personality variable of hardiness (Dion et al., 1992;

Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa et al., 1981,1982; Kuo & Tsai, 1986), social support (Cohen &

Wills, 1985; Dyal et al., 1988; Lavvus & Folkman, 1984; Noh et al., 1992; Ward &

Kennedy, 1993b), acculturation attitudes (Berry et ai., 1%7), and discrimination (Beiser et al., 1988; Dion et ai., 1992; Hocoy, 1997; Pak et al., 1991). Consistent with research utiiizing social leaming approaches to acculturation, sociocultural adaptation is rnostly related to the variables instrumental in acquiring social skills in the new culture, namely, language proficiency (Ward & Kennedy, 1993a) and contact with members of the dominant group (Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward 8t Kennedy, 1993% b).

However, not all variables that were predicted to be associated with psychological and sociocultural adaptation emerged as signiEcant predictors. There may be several rasons for this. First of dl, some of these predictor variables are correlated with each other and hence, do not account for a significant amount of unique variance (see

Appendix H 2). However, this shouid have also been true for past studies and would not necessarily expiain the present hdings. More importantly, however, new variables such as hardiness, marital support, marital stressors, and perceived discrimination are examined for the fkst time in the Merentiation of psychological and socioculturai adaptation. Past hdings may be spurious due to not having controlled for these specinc variables. If the same variables had been partialled out in the analyses in past research, 173 perhaps the same fîndings may have been fond. Moreover, while past research used stepwise regression analyses for the most part, simultaneous regression analyses are employed in the present study. The significance tests are more stringent in the simultaneous regression since each variable is tested controlling for the other variables in the equation in order to determine the amount of unique variance. In stepwise regression, on the other hand, the first predictor is the variable which explains the most amount of variance without controlhg for the others, and in each step only the variables in the previous step are controlled.

In addition, there are also some unexpected findings. Longer residence in Canada is associated with better psychological adaptation in the multiple regression anaiysis and with better sociocultural adaptation in the canonical correlation analysis. Greater preference for integration and higher socioeconomic status are associated with better sociocultiiral adaptation in the canonicd correlation analysis. Language proficiency and cultural distance, variables both expected to be associated with sociocultural adaptatios have weak and contradictory effects on psychological adaptation in the multiple regression analysis. However, these findings did not replicate in both of the analyses used to test the predictions and the effects were weak and marginally signincant. Hence, pending merreplication, caution should be exercised in their interpretation.

The second contribution of the present research is the study of marital issues in the hes of immigrant couples. Marital adaptation is introduced as the third dimension of the overall adaptation of married immigrants and marital variables are examined in relation to the different dimensions of adaptation. Marital adaptation is central to the lives 174 of immigrant couples who need to accommodate each other's needs more in the new cultural context than before. It is closely related to psychological well-king, yet it codtutes a different fom of adaptation which needs to be distinguished fiom the adaptation to the new culturai context. Marital variables, on the other han& may have signifïcant relations with cross-cultural adaptation; conjugal relations may help or hinder successfid adaptation. The present hdings support the distinctiveness of marital adaptation from psychological and sociocultural adaptation. Marital adaptation is mostly associated with the variables specific to marital Me, i.e., marital stressors and marital support. Marital variables also display close relations with psychological adaptation. This is consistent with studies which examined the relationship between marital variables and psychological distress among immigrants. Marital strain was found to have an impact on both the mafita1 distress and the depressive and psychosomatic symptoms of Indo-

Canadian women (Dyal et al., 1988). Among Muslim Moroccan immigrants in Montreal, those who were more satisfied in their marriages had less psychological stress (El Haïli &

Law, 1997). While marital Me is related to psychological well-being, it is unrelated to socioculhual adaptation. The social ski11 learning necessary to function in the new cultural context is neither impeded nor facilitated by the conjugal relationship. On the other had, acculturation-related issues have an impact on the psychological and sociocultural adaptation, but not the marital adaptation of couples. Thus, broader issues of acculturation do not seem to exacerbate marital problems.

A core of variables in line with the literature emerged as robust predictors of the three dimensions of the adaptation of married couples. These can be referred to as 175 culture-general predictors, as they maintaineci significance regardless of the type of accd'r'urating group (sojoumers or immigrants), unit (individuals or couples), or the group's origins or destinations (Ward & Kennedy, 1993b). Other variables may be peripherai and emerge as situation- or culture-specifïc.

The third way the present study advances our understanding is by drawing attention to gender ciifferences in the distinction of psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation. The distinction is more clear in men than in women, and there are different predictors of men's and women's adaptation. The literature may be criticized for the lack of systematic cornparisons of the adaptation of men and women. Attention has not been paid to the differentiation of the dimensions of men's and women's adaptation previously, hence, it is difficult to speculate whether the hdings of the present study are culture-specinc or culture-general.

At this time, a set of culture-specific findings applicable to Turkish Unmigrant men and women have been obtained, yet a culture-general approach where the pattern of gender ciifferences are robust among immigrants, is not inconceivable. The failure to ciifferenthte between the psychologicai and sociocultural adaptation of women points to the fact that social skiUs and psychological well-being are more closely associated in immigrant women than in immigrant men. As will be discussed in the next section, the hdings show that immigrant women of lower socioeconomic standing have fewer language skills and are in less contact with the dominant society than immigrant men, and hence, are more isolated and confhed at home. They are more dependent on their husband and children to bction in the new society. Interacting with the new culture and 176 king a part of the society may be more vaiued and may take more on the part of these women, which may bring greater feelings of satisfaction, CO~P~~~INX,and adequacy.

Conversely, isolation and not king effective in the new culture may lead to more psychological disturbance. This also explains the association between hardiness and the psychological and sociocultural adaptation in women. Hardiness may be an instrumental trait in immigrant women, with those who are more in control and committed taking the challenge to overcome hardships, to acquire the skilIs, and to be socially adequate. On the other hand, for men, who are in contact with the society on a daily basis, discriniination is a crucial factor in the sociocultural adaptation. Discrimination hmmembers of the dominant group may push one away fkom interacting with the society whose members are perceived as not wiiling to accommodate one's ciifferences and lessen the efforts to learn social skills, which may lead to more socioculhiral difnculty. The finding on the importance of marital stressors on the psychological adaptation of women follows both the general and the acculturation literature on the vulnerabdity of women to marital problems (Dyal et al., 1988; Naidoo, 1985; Pearlin & Lieberman, 1979). These gender ciifferences are especially noticeable in the Turkish sarnple, where 58% of the women are not gainfully employed and hence, are not as much in contact with the dominant group as men are. It is also the case that the woman is more dependent and subordinate to her husband in the Turkish culture, hence, has a higher valuation of the relatiomhip

(KaBtçibq~,1986). This would make her more prone to psychological disturbance resulting fiom marital discord. The third theme was the similarities and differences in acculturation and adaptation in relation to socioeconomic status and gender. The general expectation was that immigrant women compared to immigrant men, and immigrants of lower socioeconomic standing (SES) compared to those of higher socioeconomic standing, wodd be less proficient in English, have less contact with Euro-Canadians, prefer separation attitudes to a greater and assimilation attitudes to a lesser extent, and expenence more psychologicai difficulty. Those of low SES would also perceive more discrinunation and prefer integration to a lesser extent, and immigrant women would also have more socioculhual difnculty.

While ethnic variation is emphasized in crosscultural and ethnic psychology, social class variation has often been excluded nom research. In the industriaiizing countries social class variations are very striking, having differential effects on Me-styles, and hence, psychological variables. Unless socioeconomic standing is incorporated in crosscultural research and its effects are disentangled from the effects of culture or ethnicity, group differences cannot be attributed to culture or ethoiciv alone (Kagitçibqi

& Beny, 1989). Socioeconomic status is incorporated in the present shidy with the aim of examining its effects on psychological acculturation and thereby, disentangling its effects fiom the effects of the Turkish culture. Turkish immigrants in Canada are particularly suitable to realize this goal as there are two distinct groups: professionals and non- professionals. So far, research on Turkish immigrants has not incorporated the social class variable in a systematic way. Research on Turkish immigrants to Europe and 178

Australia has focused only on blue-coh workers, ignoring the white-cohr workers and professionals (Kagitçibap, 1988). Aycan and &rry (1996) on the other hand, examined

the effects of change in the wcioeconomic statu of Turkish immigrants since the the of arriva1 in Canada

Psychological acculturation studies have paid linle attention to the ways in which men and women live through the process. The literature suggests that women immigrants have more difliculty in the new cultural wntext and may be more vulnerable to mental health problems arising fiom acculturative stress than men (Anderson, 1985; Beiser et al.,

1988; Salgado de Snyder, 1987). The praent study examines immigrant women and men in the same context and under simila. influences in order to better understand the differences in their acculturation experience.

The two social classes of Turkish immigrants in Canada form two clearly distinct social groups. The two groups do not interact with each other for the most part; they belong to different associations and participate in separate events. The low SES group resembles the Turkish workers in Europe in many ways. They are mostly fkom rural or low-income urban backgrounds with relatively low levels of education. This group mostly lives in a Turkish neighborhood in Toronto. in sharp contrast, the high SES group is made up of mostly professionais vuho live scattered around Toronto. More educated and more proficient in English, this group is in more contact with Euro-Canadians. Compared to the high SES group, twice as many in the Iow SES group are not gainfully employed.

Simila.to their counterparts in Europe, those of low SES practice Islam more and codtute a discernible group with their more traditional and religious apparel. 179

Findings indicated that men were in more contact with Euro-Canadians tbau women in the low SES group, but were in as much contact as women in the hi& SES group. Men were more proficient in English than women in both groups, yet the ciifference was less in the high than it was in the low. The high SES couples had more marital stressors and less marital support than the low SES couples. There was some tendency for those of low socioeconomic standing to perceive more discrimination from

Euro-Canadians than those of high socioeconomic standing. In terms of acculturation attitudes, men preferred integration and assimilation more than women in the low SES group, but men and women in the hi& SES group prefemd each to the same degree. The low SES sample endorsed each to a lesser degree than the high SES sample. On the other hand, separation was endorsed more by the Iow SES group than by the high SES group.

Men and women endorsed separation to the same degree. Marpinaiization was adopted more by men than women in the low SES sample, but was adopted to the same degree in the high SES sample.

in terms of adaptational outcornes, low SES men and women were more stressed, but more satisfied with their Lives than high SES. Women were more stressed, more anxious, and marginaiiy more depressed than men. High SES men and women had better sociocultural but worse marital adaptation than low SES. Men were better adapted socioculturally than women in the low SES group, but were eqdyweIl adapted in the high SES group.

Holding on to their culture and identity, and rejecting relations with the larger society, those of low SES strongly endorse separationist attitudes. Their preference for 180 assimilation and integration attitudes is much lesthan that of the high SES group. This is veiy sirnilar to the situation of the Turkish immigrants in Europe. They, too, strongly ident* with the Turkish culture and isolate themselves from the larger society (Abadan-

Unat, L 985; Bendix, 1985; Ka@çibap, 1987; Piontkowski et al., in press). This reluctance to interact with the larger society may partly be explained by the lower education levels and lack of language skius. Knowledge of the language is essential in order to interact with the society. When one cannot speak the language, it is more hctional and cornfortable to stay around those one can understand and be understood.

However, the preference to stay away fiom the larger society may also be due to the eqerience of discrimination from the dominant group (Berry et al., 1989). It is difficult to feel accepted when one's own ways are not accommodated and intolerance and unwelcoming attitudes are perceived. This would result in more reluctance to maintain relationships with and participate in the life of the larger society. Compared to mch groups as Chinese-Canadians (Hocoy, 1993) and East indian-Canadians (Dhawan, 1997),

Turkish immigrants overail experience less discrimination. However, when the socioeconomic standing is taken into consideration, those of lower standing perceive as much discrimination fkom Euro-Canadians as these visible minority groups. They stand out as a group and tend to perceive more discrimination than those Turkish immigrants of higher socioeconomic standing. However, it is difScult to tell the direction of the relationship. It rnay dso be that the more a group separates and is uowilling to participate in the larger society, the more the members of the larger society perceive them as ciifferait and be intolerant of its ways (Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). 181

The low language proficiency and the Iow levels of contact with the larger society in this lower educated group indicate lesculturaliy appropnate knowledge and fewer skiils to intetact with the culture and manage daily Me, hence, greater sociocul~ difEculty. This group has more sociocdtural adaptation problems than the higher educated group. Research on sojoumer adaptation has demonstraied that sociocdtural adaptation problems are greater for those who make large, compared to small, transitions

(Fucabam & Bochner, 1982; Ward & Kemedy, 1993 b, 1998). The acquisition of new culture-specific skilis depends on the similarity between the onguial culture and the new culture: the more dissimila.the two cultures, i.e., the greater the culhual distance, the fewer are the culturally appropriate skills and the more difficult to leam new ones. Social class Merences in Turkish society are very sharp. The cultural distance between Turks of higher socioeconomic status with urban backgrounds and higher levels of education and those of lower socioeconornic status with rurai or low-income urban backgrounds and lower levels of education is as great as the cultural distance between Western Europead

North Amencan and Turkish society in general (KoÇtürk, 1992). This objective distance between the immigrants of lower SES and higher SES is highly apparent in the present study. However, the empirical findings of the snidy may seem contrary to this contention.

Both the high and the low SES groups perceive the Turkish and the Canadian cultures as equally dissimilar. The objective cultural distance between the two groups does not reflect on their perception of the cultural distance between the two cultures. Yet, although their perceptions are sirnilar, the higher SES group objectively has more resources such as a higher level of education and greater language proficiency that help manage life in a 182

Western setting more easily. In this respect, this group makes a reiatively smaller cross-

cultural transition compared to the lower SES group. With more appropriate skills, they

have less socioculhiml ~WEcultythan those of lower SES.

Culhiral distance can also be interpreted within the stress and coping frameworks

in th& those who experience greater transition experience greater life changes, which

generate more distress (Babiker et al., 1980). The higher levels of stress in this lower SES

group may again be explaineci by the dissimilarÏty between the culture of this group and of the Canadian context. With fewer appropriate skills, the demands may be greater on the part of the lower SES individuals and this may generate greater stress. It may also be the case that due to having fewer resources, their coping may be less efficient than those of higher SES, similarly resdting in higher levels of stress.

Although more stressed and sociocdturally less well adapted, this group of lower socioeconomic standing are more satisfied with their iife in Canada. This is sdarto the feelings of Turkish immigrants in Europe. Despite king segregated and discriminated against, Turkish workers feel satisfied with their Mmigration expenence because they feei they have attained personal goals (Koçt[irk, 1992). The immigrants of lower stahis in the present study point out that their situation has improved in Canada. Although they eam low wages, they make more than what they used to and their materiai standards have improved in te- of housing, schooling of their children, health benefits, etc. in contrast, immigrants of higher statu feel less satisfied with their life in Canada. These relationships can be understood in the context of relative deprivation theory. The objective level of economic standing is disregarded; the lower SES group makes 183 cornparisons with what their economic condition used to be like in Turkey and feel gratitude, while the high SES group make cornparisons with their cohorts in Turkey and feel deprived. This points out to the los of status professionals experience in Canada.

Wellsducated and qualined Turkish immigrants in Montreai have ken found to experience dificuities kding employment and integrating into the Canadian iabor force

(Aycan & Berry, 1996). Credentids and accreditations obtained in Turkey are not recognized by Canadian authorities; hence, immigrants with credentids often saer loss of status. Those who experience greater loss are also less satisfied with their life in

Canada-

The interest in exrmiining the eff~of both gender and socioeconomic status in the present study revealed some interesting findings about gender differences.

Socioeconomic standing appears to be the key variable in explaining gender differences.

For severai variables, gender Merences are apparent in the low SES group, yet they decrease or even disappear in the high SES group. In the low SES group men are in more contact with Euro-Canadians than women, yet in the high SES men and women do not differ. The difference between men and women in EngIish proficiency is greater in the low SES group. These findings are not nirprising when the employment rates of men and women of high and low SES are considered. Most wornen (76.6%) compared to men

(27.7%) in the low SES group are not gaiafuly employed; these figures correspond to

36.2% for women and 10.6% for men in the hi& SES. One of the many hctions of work is to enable individuals to interact with others and establish relationships in the larger society (Jahoàa, 198 1). In the context of immigration this is even more important 184 because interactions with members of the new society help immigrants leam skills in order to fiinction well in the new culture. Not working outside the home, most women of low SES do not get to interact with the larger society and become secluded at home and within their own ethnic circles. This most certainly reflects on their acculturation attitudes. Any idea of a relationsbip with the larger society is remote; hence, they have the lowest preference for integrationist and assimilationist attitudes of al1 immigrants. The acquisition of culturally appropriate knowledge and skills, including English language skills, is thereby hindered, leading to poor sociocultural adaptation. Most often these women depend on their husbands and children to survive in the outside world. Hi& SES women, on the other hand, who are mostly gainfully employed, are in contact with the larger society, and do not experience more socioculturai difficulty than their husbands.

They are willing to maintain relations with Canadian society; hence, they adopt integrationist and assimilationist attitudes to the same degree as their husbands.

The marital relationship can be situated in this broder context of the socioeconomic statu of the couples. Women of high SES are on more equal terrns with their husbands. They are gaiafully employed; hence, they cm be more independent and enjoy greater autonomy and fkeedom than their cornterparts in the low SES group. This may cause conflicts between spouses in the high SES group since the husband's traditional authority is weakened and the more egalitarian roles of the new culture are adopted. However, the traditional roles are the nom, and therefore, are more prevalent in the low SES group. Most women are not employed outside the home; they have the major responsibility for house-related activities and for raising children, while men are the 185 breadwinners and dorninate over major decision-making. Women are dependent on and submissive to their husbands; they do not challenge their authority, which prevents tension in the marital relationship. in general, with networks of niends and relatives less available, the spouses depend more on each other for support Marital support and adaptation in this context are also relaîed to acculturation attitudes. The stmnger the bond between spouses with greater support and satisfaction in mamage, the more they choose to cherish the culture of origin and resist relations with the larger society.

Independent of their socioeconornic standing, women are found to have more psychologicd difficulty than men. This finding is consistent with the general and the acculturation literatrire on gender differences in mental health; it also supplements the literature on the high rates of psychological disturbances among Turkish immigrant women in Europe. Research shows that married women have more psychological problems than married men (Gove, 1979; Radloff, 1975; Ross, Mirowsky, & Ulbnch,

1983). This has ken explaineci by the role-stress theory: Women's traditional roles of wife and mother are hi&-strain roles in that they are Iow in control and hi& in demands, which are lïkely to produce psychological problems (Gove & Geerken, 1977; Gove Br

Tudor, 1973). Being a mother is often associated with psychological distress (Baruch &

Barnett, 1986; Radloff, 1975) and marital factors are more associated with the mental health of women than of men (Husaini et al., 1982; Levenson et al., 1993; Pearlin &

Lieberman, 1979). The findings of the present study also cobedthe importance of marital problems for women's mental health. It is dso the case that primq childcare fdsmore heavily on the mother in the context of immigration, with fewer skills and less 186 female adult support than in the country of origin. Hence, women experience the stress associated with raising children more than men. Many women respondents in the study complauled about having nobody to look after their children. The children also had to grow up alone without getting to know the pndparents, uncles, and aunts. in this socially deprived context, women have to serve the role of the relatives as well as the mother and pas on the traditions and values of the heritage culture.

Another possible explanation for the greater psychologicai difnculty of women may be the high rate of unemployment outside home among the women in the sample.

Literature shows that those who are most at risk are full-time housewives who stay at home to care for their children. Despite the problem of role strah experienced by the employed mother and the greater amount of the spent at home and in childcare compared to her husband, the employed mother has better physical and psychological health than the unemployed mother (Baruch & Bamett, 1986; Gove & Geerken, 1977;

Thoits, 1983). The employed mother has two sources of gratification (work and family) instead of one, has more prestige, power, and econornic resources than the unemployed mother, she is also less isolated. Given the high number of housewives in the sample, these women are likely to be more vulnerable to psychological problems.

The present study accomplished the goal of examinhg the effects of social class separately fiom the effects of culture. It is shown tbat not al1 Turkish immigrants acculturate in the same way. Socioewnomic status has differential effects on the acculturation and adaptation of Turkish immigrants in general, and Turkish men and

Turkish women in paaicular. 187

cculdand Eure-Ca

The fourth theme was the acculturation attitudes of Turkish immigrant couples and the attitudes of Em-Canadian couples toward immigrant acculturation. The general expectation was that Turkish immigrants would adopt separation and integration atîitudes to a greater degree than assimilation and marginalkation; Euro-Canadians would hold integration attitudes to a greater degree than assimilation, separation, and marginalization.

Overali, Turkish immigrant couples preferred separation the most, integration to a Iesser degree, and assimilation and margiaaiization the least There were merences between the groups of high and low socioeconomic status. Separation was the most preferred attitude in the low SES group, foilowed by integration; marginalization and assimilation were the least preferred attitudes. In the high SES group, the most endoned attitude was integration, foliowed by separation, and assimilation; rnarginalization was endorsed the least. The attitudes of the Euro-Canadian couples toward Unmigrant acculturation were not compatible with those of the Tmkish immigrant couples. Euro-Canadian couples preferred immigrants to endose integration attitudes the most, assimilation to a lesser degree, and marginalization and separation attitudes the least. There was a greater degree of mismatch between the integration, assimilation, and separation attitudes of Euro-

Canadians and low SES immigrants than there was between Euro-Canadians and high

SES immigrants. The marginaihtion attitude of Euro-Canadians was equally incompatible with that of the hi& and the low SES groups.

How to acculturate is an important issue for both the dominant and the non- dominant groups in plural societies. Research with various immigrant groups has 188

concluded that integration as an acculturation strategy is usually most preferred. This

suggests that immigrants desire to maintain their original culture as well as the

relationships with the larger social network (Berry et al., 1989). The only study to date

that has reporteci sepdon to be the preference of majority of immigrants using Berry's

(1984) mode1 of acculturation attitudes is one which employed Turks in Germany

(Piontkowski et al., in press). Recently, research on the attitudes of the dominant group

toward immigrants' acculturation has also shown that the larger society prefea

immigrants to integrate (Berry & Kalin, 1995; Bougie & Bourhis, 1997; Piontkowski et

al., in press).

The present study contributes to the understanding of acculturation attitudes in two ways. First, it examines the eEect of gender and socioeconomic statu on accdturation attitudes. Second, it extends the work on individuals' attitudes to those of mmried couples. The effect of demographics on acculturation attitudes has not been studied extensively. For the most part, correlational approaches have been employed; however, systematic cornparisons among groups have not been undertaken. Two important demographic variables, namely, gender and socioeconomic status, are given special focus in the present study. The different acculturation experiences of men and women of high and low socioeconomic status have different efTects on their acculturation attitudes as has been discussed in the previous section. Studying married couples' attitudes is important because as mentioned earlier, individuals in a relationship influence each other and this would also hold true for their acculturation attitudes. Each spouse may have a different attitude on how to acculturate and influence the other's attitude. This rnay 189 especially be tnie for spheres where the couple most often act as a unit and make decisions jointiy such as child-rearing, social activity, holiday celebration, etc.

The unique fïnding of the present study in ternis of acculturation attitudes is the prevaience of separation among a group of immigrants in Canada. Turkish immigrant couples in Toronto, like Turks in Germany, strongly prefer the separation attitude over others. Maintenance of cultural identity and characteristics is strongly vaiued, while relations with the larger society are resisted. Acculturation attitudes are aiso consistent with the behavioa in such domains as fiiendship pattern, holiday celebration, food and music preference, and ethnic identity. However, not dl members of a group expenence acculturation in the same way (Berry et ai., 1989). DZEerences are apparent in the preferences of couples of high and low socioeconomic statu. Those of high socioeconomic standing prefer integration and assimilation to a greater, and separation to a Iesser extent than those of low socioeconornic standing. Yet, the strong endorsement of integration and separation even in this group of high statw shows that a preference for culturai maintenance may be a feature of Turkish immigrants in general. It has been argued that one factor hindering the integration of the Turkish immigrants in Europe is the unicultural nature of the society. The more homogeneous the country, the more the other culhues are considered diffêrent and inferior. European societies are more homogeneous than countnes of immigration such as Canada, U. S., and Australia; hence, immigrants tend to be more rejected and segregated. As a result, Turks hold on to their traditional culture and identity strongly (Kagitçibq, 1987). However, the findings of the present study show that Turkish immigrants valw cultural maintenance even in a 190 multicdtural society such as Canada where culhiral diversity is vaiued and advocated It may be the case that some cultural groups Uihimically prefer a certain way of acculturation over others. Turks undergohg cross-cultural transition in this case, rnay strongly maintain their cultural heritage independent of the larger cultural context.

Immigrants are usuaüy permanent &ers, yet many participants in the snidy voiced their intentions to remto Turkey "at some stage." This rnay be another reason for the strong endorsement of separation. Those who plan to stay in a new country for a long the, or permmently, are more likely to pume integration or assimilation.

The sipnincant pattern of intercorrelations among the acculturation attitude rneasures also anest to the strong preference for separation in this group. Theoretically, a negative relationship is expected between scales representing diagonal opposites in

Berry's (1984) mode1 (htegration-marginaihtion; assimilation-separation).The other relationships can be either positive or negative. The pattern of these relationships indicates which attitude is prevalent in the particular sample. ui line with the expectation, assimilation and separation are negatively correlated, however, a positive relationship between integration and rnargïnaüzaîion is found. This contmy relationship may be due to the sample's strong preference for separation and a rejection of dl the other options together, and as distinct hmseparafion. When the majority of a group endorses one particdar attitude, the correlations among the attitudes are mainly determined by this majority. A strong negative correlation is expected behveen this dominant attitude and the others, while the latter are to be positively correlated among themselves (Van de Vijver,

HeIms-Lorenz, & Feltzer, in press). In line with this statement, al1 the attitude measures 191 are negatively correlated with separation and positively correiated among themselves.

This means that for Tin*ish immigrants the choice is either "separation or nothing" in their attitudes. Separation is strongiy endorsed; al1 other optioas are seen collectively distinct and distanceci fi-om this attitude. This pattern is found with integration in the literature where integration is the overwheimîng choice (Dhawan, 1997; Knshnan &

Berry, 1992); however, this is the first time it has been demonstrated with separation.

The attitudes of the dominant group may influence the orientations of immigrants by way of national policies; hence, there is a need to examine the attitudes of the dominant society as well as the attitudes of immigrants. This study examined the attitudes of Euro-Canadian couples toward immigrant acculturation. Consistent with the two national nweys in Canada (Berry & Kalin, 1995; Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977) and the acculturation orientations of French-Canadians toward immigrants (Bougie & Bourhis,

1997), Euro-Canadian couples prefer immigrants to endorse integrationist attitudes. This is yet another support from the larger society for Canada's mdticdtural state poiicy. The dominant group of Euro-Canadians values cultural diversity and intergroup contact, and does not prefer immigrants to separate or marpinalize.

Combining the acculturation strategies of the dominant and the immigrant groups in a conceptual hnework, Bourhis et al. (1997) have proposed a conceptual bridge between public policy, dominant group, and immigrant group responses to culturai diversity. The Interactive Acculturation Mode1 makes predictions about the combinations of dominant and unmigrant acculturation strategies which will likely produce consenmal, problematic, and conflictual relations between the two groups. Ifpredictions are to be 192 made bas& on this model, the mismatch between the acculturation attitudes of Euro-

Canadians and Turkish immigrants is likely to foster conflictual relations between the two groups. This is even more so for the relations between Euro-Cansnians and immigrants of low socioeconomic standing as there is greater incompatibiiïty between their attitudes than the attitudes of Euro-Canadians and immigrants of high socioeconomic standing.

Limitations of the Study and DiRcdions for Futlire Research

The present study contributes to the immigrant acculturation literature in several ways as discussed in the previous sections. However, there are also some limitations concernhg the samples, measurernent, and design that need to be acknowledged.

2hnmkh=

It should be acknowledged that the samples of the shidy came from married

Turkish immigrant couples living in Toronto, Turkish couples in hnir, Turkey, and

Euro-Canadian couples in Toronto. However, there is reason to believe that the relational effects in the hdings are tramferrable to most marriecl Turkish immigrants in Canada

On the other han& some hdings related to the specific acculturation attitude, amount of contact with the larger society, or degree of perceived discrimination may be specific to muiticultural settings or to English Canada; hence, some caution needs to be exercised in making large generalizations. Social class differences would be expected to infiuence psychologid variables in the same way across mixent cultural groups, therefore, resuits can also be useful for other immigrant groups where class differences are as striking. On 193 the other hami, the -gent definition used for Euro-Canadians made it very difficult to recruit individuais of lower socioeconomic standing. Hence, the generalization should be limited to couples who are slightly better off in this group.

For the Turkish immigrant sarnple, the nature of data collection may have created a sampling bias of selecting immigrants who are more separationist in their attitudes.

Although special care was taken to also recruit individuals who distanced themselves fkom the Turkish cornmunity, it was more difficdt to track them down than those who were in regular contact.

Up util now, there has been very littie research conducted on Turkish immigrants in Canada Given the fact that Turkish migration to Canada has been rapidly increasing during the last few years, there is a growing ueed to understand the acculturation of this particular group. This study focused on only ethnic Turks immigrating to Canada directly fkom Turkey. However, immigrants hmTurkey form a heterogeneous group which includes ethnic Kurds, Armenians, Cypriots, and the Bulgariau, Bosnian, and Azeri Turks among others. Future research should be directeci to these groups as well as to those who re-migrated to Canada &er initially migrating to Europe. There is dso a growing population of second generation of Turkish youth who have not been studied at dl. It wouid be important to know how they adapt to living in Canada and how their acculturation cliffers hmthat of the first generation.

Another interesthg avenue for research would be to examine the marital adaptation and the psychological acculturation of couples in mixed marriages where one spouse is Turkish and the other is of non-Turkish origin. This study examined only 194

couples in which both spouses are of Tinkish ongin. It would be interesting to study what

cultural aspect each spouse brings into the mamage and how the specific acculturation attitude of each spouse idluences the- marital adaptation. There are also some limitations related to the measurement that need commentary.

One such limitation concems the use of self-report measures. Self-report measures are the

most common research measurement strategy for the study of couples. The most optimal

strategy in order to describe the whole picture of the couple's relationship is to obtain the

reports fkom both people (Kashy & Snyder, 1995; Kenny & Kashy, 1991). The views of

both spouses were assessed in the present study. However, there are many biases

associated with self-report measures. Perhaps the most relevant ones in the present case is

social desirability and acquiescence. The use of multiple measures varying in method of

data collection such as multiple raters (e.g., ratings by spouse or children) and objective

measures (e.g ., medical history) dong with selfieport measures would enable one to

reach more valid results.

Favourable self-presentation (Le., social desirability) may be a particular concern

for the present study. Since Turkish society is collectivistic, individuals are likely to present themselves in a socially desirable way (Triandis, 1989). Moreover, in Turkish society, marital and family problems are kept pnvate and there is stigma attached to mental health problems. A social desirability measure was considered, however, not

Iitilized due to length problems and the possible cultural bias of the items in these 195 measures. The questionnaire was already too long without the social desirability measure

(it took apptoximately two hours to complete it); the validity wouid have been even more jwpardized due to fatigue or loss of intexest associated with a longer questionnaire

(Krosnick, 1991). More importantly, desirability is socially construed; what is considered desirable in one social context may not be desirable in another. Social desirability measures are developed on Western populations and they are not cross-culturaily validateci. Hence, its usage with a Turkish sample would have created yet another response bias. Future work needs to be directed towards developing culture-appropriate social desirability measures.

Acquiescence is another response bias that is of relative importance in the present context, especially with Turkish immigrants and Turks of lower socioeconomic standing.

Defïned as the tendency to agree with or accept any assertion regardless of its content, acquiescence is more common among less educated respondents (Krosnick, 1991). The bias may especidly have corne into effect due to the statu difference between the researcher and these respondents. It is believed that status difference mates deferential behavior among lower status respondents, increasing the likelihood of the respondents to agree with assertions that the researcher apparently believes (Lenski & Leggeg 1960). In some cases, the researcher provided clarification when the respondents had difficulty understanding the items. h others, where the respondents had no formal schooling, the researcher read the questions and explained the response options. Deferentiai agreement bias may have been facilitated in all these cases because the researcher may have sounded to the respondents as ifshe believed in the statements she read. 196

Related to this point is the bias introduced by the d.erences in the comprehension of the items by low and high educated respondents. The low educated respondents had more diniculty understanding some items. Studies that involve low educated respondents should make sure that the items are simple enough for these respondents so that everyone has the same understanding of what the questions ask for.

This may perhaps be done by pilothg the items on different groups.

Some cornmentary concerning the specific measures used in the study is now in order. Regarding the measure of hardiness, aU three dimensions, namely, cornmitment, challenge, and control, were included; however, the specific relationship of each dimension to immigrant acculturation could not be examined. This was because the subscales had low internai consistency and they were excluded fiom the analyses. This measure of hardiness (Bartone et al., 1989) in the main study replaced the original hardiness measure (Kobasa et al., 1982) used in the pilot study due to the problems of wording and the low reliability of the subscales in the latter. However, it did not turn out to be an improvernent over the other. It was also the case that hardiness was a less comparable measure across the groups than the others. ûriginally, the two measures were studied using specific populations, namely, military disaster assistance officers and business executives. More research is needed for the validation of the hardiness measure across different samples and cultures.

In tenns of psychological adaptation, general mental health measures were employed for the assessrnent of immigrant adaptation. The acculturative stress literature has been criticised for assuming that the assesseci psychological problems of immigrants 197

are due to acculturative stress (Lay & Nguyen, 1998; Lazarus, 1997; Noh, Beiser, Hou, &

Kaspar, 1997). in some cases, acculturative stress is not measured but assumed in post

hoc explanations. In others, general psychological distress measures are used to assess

accuiturative stress. However, psychological distress among immigrants can be due to

sources other than acculturation. The use of general mental health measures in the present

study was dictated by the inclusion of sedentary samples in the design. An acculturative

stress measure wodd have not been an appropriate measure to assess the distress levels of

the sedentary groups. Moreover, these samples served as cornparison groups for the

immigrant sample, making acculturation a likely explanation for the observed

psychological difficulty. Yet, non-comparative studies employing only an accuiturating

group should pay attention to this issue in order to draw causai inferences on more solid

grounds. Two attempts have been made recently. Noh et al. (1997) have developed and

validated a content-specinc acculhaative stress measure using Korean-Canadians. Lay

and Nguyen (1998), on the other hand, have separated the possible sources of stress into

accdturation-specific and acculturation non-specific stressors and have exarnined the

relationship of each to the psychological distress of Vietnamese immigrants to Canada

The accdturaton attitude measures have also received some cnticism (Rudmin,

1996). An ongoing debate among acculturation researchers is centered around the use of

two versus four acculturation attitude measures. Some advocate the use of two

independent measures in line with the two dimensions underlying Beny's (1984) model.

However, the use of four meanires, consistent with the four modes of attitudes, has so far been the most common. Another criticism is directed against the use of positively worded 198 items, which are subject to the acquiescence bias. EquaI numbers of positively and negatively worded items would differentiate an acquiescence bias fkom the presence of the constnict of interest. There is also the concern for the double barrelled items which are confounded and also confiising for the respondent. The wording of the items was improved in the present study by ensuring that each statement was simply worded and conveyed only one piece of information. The choice of four measures was guided by the

Ii- and supported by the empincal findings, especially the resuits of fmor analysis.

In temis of acquiescence, a different problem is encountered when negative items are used with the fourfold model. When an item is negatively worded it resembles more of the attitude that corresponds to the diagonal opposite. For example, a negatively worded separation item can appear more like an assimilation item or vice versa. These concems should be addressed in funue work in order to improve the assessrnent of acculturation attitudes.

Tirming to funire research, a variable of interest would be the relations among different immigrant groups. This study examined the relations of Turkish immigrants with only the dominant society. In a city like Toronto where 42% of the population are immigrants, one cannot assume that immigrants corne into contact solely with the dominant group. In faconversations with the participants revealed that they are in fkquent contact with immigrant groups of different ethnicity. These relations among different ethnic groups are central to the fiinctioning of the plural societies and should be examhed in future research. Finally, some aspects of the design will be discussed. The cross-sectional and non-experimental nature of the study pose some problems regarding the interpretation of the redts. Possible cause and effect relationships can be suggested in these types of studies, yet it is impossible to make definitive statements. The cross-sectional design is limited to assessing psychological variables at one particuiar point in time, hence. it is difncult to place variables of interest into a temporal sequence. For example, while length of residence in the new culture or language proficiency are more cleariy an antecedent to sociocultural diniculty, acculturation attitudes may be a consequence, rather than a predictor of sociocultural dBïcuity or psychological adaptation.

Related to this point is the causai ordering of dependent and independent variables in multiple regression. Although the selection of adaptation variables as outcome measures is typicd in the area, acculturation is a complex process involving the interaction of many variables. For example, other approaches may include the prediction of contact with the dominant society based on social skilis, or the pdction of acculturation attitudes based on perceived discrimination fiom the larger society. Also, acculturation attitude-behavior relationship needs to be examined as to which of the two variables precedes the other. Longinidinai designs are Mersuited to the examination of the process of acculturation and adaptation over tirne; however, they are both costly and tirne-consuming. The drop out rate is also high, due to illness, death, loss of interest, or moviog to a new location. The antecedent-consequent patterning of the relationships requires clarification, hence, future research needs to address this issue. 200

Related to this issue is the specific finding of the study regarding the distinction among psychological, socioculturai, and marital adaptation. Although the distinction is supported, the interrelationships warrant fûrther attention. These are related facets of adaptation; hence, it would be desirable for fuhire research to explore the antecedent- consequence distinction between psychologicai and sociocdtural adaptation, and also between marital and psychological adaptation.

Conclusions

The present study has been the first to study the acculturation of mmied Turkish immigrant couples in Canada and has broadened our understanding of this process. It has employed a füli three-group design to study acculturation by Uicorporating the two sedentary reference groups of Turkish immigrants. Beny (1997) has argued that "a complete study of acculturation would need to start with a fairly comprehensive examination of the two societal contexts: that of origin and that of settlement" (p. 16). in this sense, the present study is the first complete study of acculturation. This approach has dowed for a more systematic examination of Unmigrant adaptation by employing cornparisons between the migrant and the sedentary groups. Contrary to the general contention tbat migration inevitably resuits in negative outcornes, this study has show that immigrant couples do not necessarily experience more difFculty than the sedentary groups due to acculturation. The three types of adaptation are differentiaily pademed across the three groups. Psychologically, the Turkish immigrant couples are not at a disadvantage over those who remained in the home country, yet are more so compared to 20 1

the couples in the new country. They are, however, socidy more inadequate than both

sedentary groups. Their marital relationship, on the other band, do not experience more

difficulty due to the problems of living in a new culture.

This study aiso corroborates the contention that adaptation is multifaceted. The

psychological, socioculhnal, and marital adaptation of immigrant couples may be related

to some extent; however, they are conceptually distinct, and are empirically related to

different sources for the most part. The distinction between the psychologicai and

sociocultural adaptation, popuiarized by the work of Ward and colleagues on sojoumer

adaptation, is extended to immigrant couples and is also examined separately for men and

women. The utiiity of this approach lies in the theoretical integration of the acculturation

field as well as its potentiai for applications. The adaptation of accdturating individuais

can be improved by attending to the difierent sources of the multiple dimensions of

adaptation. This is especidy important for arriving at theoretically infonned and

empirically guided applications such as training programs, including ESL courses,

culhùally sensitive counselling, couflsellors proficient in various languages, promotion of

an appreciation of plinalisrn in the public. Marital adaptation as a third dimension of

adaptation is also useful in highüghting the role of the spouse in successful adaptation to

the new culture. The gender differences in the distinction of psychologicai, sociocultural,

and marital adaptation, on the other hanci, point to the need to consider separate sources

for the adaptation of men and women Social policy and program developea should recognk that immigrant men and women, especially in the lower socioeconornic status, have different experiences in the acculturation context. 202

In response to the call hmfe~earchers to inctucie social class variation in cross-

cdtriral research, this study dedthe effects of socioeconomic status on the

acculturation of Turkish immigrants with the aim of disentanghg its effects fiom the

effects of culture. The basic socioeconomic distinction between professionals and

nonprofessionals among the Turkish immigrants in Canada has enabid adopting a

comparative approach. The Iowa socioeconornic stabis group comprising mostiy

nonprofessionals, is most similm to the Turkish workers previously snidied in Europe in

terms of background, education, religious attachment, and acculturation attitudes. The

notable dineremces between the two social groups make it evident that Turkish

immigrants do not acculturate domdy. The experienca of the two social groups are

quite dissimilar, having differential effects on a broad range of psychological phenornena

examinecl in this midy. Socioeconomic standing is aiso central in explaining gender

differences which are most apparent in this low socioeconornic stahis group. Women in

general iire psychologicaily more vulnerable than men; the group that faces more risk

factors are those women of low socioeconomic status. Most of them do not work outside

the home; lacking English skills and having minimal contact with the larger society, they

are confineci at home and within their own ethnic circles.

The attitudes of the rnembers of the dominant society toward immigrant acculturation as weli as the acculturation attitudes of the Turkish immigrants were

assessed in the study. The unique finding is the prevalence of separationist attitudes among a group of immigrants in Canada, rather than the more dpreference for integration. Overall, the Tialosh immigrant couples strongly prefa separation, yet 203 differences in the high and Iow socioeconornic staais groups are also apparent. Those of high socioeconomic status prefer integraiion and assimilation to a greater, and separation to a lesser extent than those of low socioeconomic stanis. Euro-Canadian couples prefer

immigrants to adopt integration. The implication of this discrepancy between the attitudes of the two groups is that greater confiid relations may result due to the greater incompatibility of the attitudes of Euro-Canadians with those of the low socioeconomic status than with those of the high socioeconomic status. REFERENCES

Abadan-Unat, N. (1976). Turkish migration to Europe (1960-1975): A balance sheet of achievements and Wures. In N. Abadan-Unat (Ed.), -uropg, 60- 1975: A socio-ecopgmic @p. 1-44). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Abadan-Unat, N. (1982). The effect of international labor migration on womeds roles:The Turkish case. In Ç. Ka@tçibqi (Ed.), Sex des. familv comty in Te(pp. 207-236). Indiana: Indiana University Turkish Shidies.

Abadan-Unat, N. (1985). Identity crisis of Turkish migrants: First and second generation. In 1. Bqg6z & N. Furniss (Eds.), w-~ @p. 3-22). Indiana: Indiana University Turkish Studies. -. -. Abadan-Unat, N., & Kemiksiz, N. (1986). 1960-1984. vonimly pwkish extenial migration, 1960-1984, annotated bibliography]. Ankara: Ankara University, Faculty of Politid Science Publications.

Abu-Laban, B. (1 995). The. Muslim.. . cornmUILity of Canada. In S. 2. Abedin & 2. Sardar W.),Mus- the @p.134-149). London: Grey Seal. . . Akçelik, R., & Elley, J. (Eds.). (1988). mh CO-- Melbourne: Australian-Turkish Friendship Society Publications No. 3.

Almyroudis, E. (1991). Ige acculturation of Greek in Toronto. Cana&. Unpubiished master's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change.. of. prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism @p. 245-308). Elmsford, N.Y. : Pergamon Press.

Anderson, J. M. (1985). Perspectives on the health of immigrant women: A feminist analysis. Advgpces in Nur&g Science. 8,6 1-76.

Aneshensel, C. S., & Frerichs, R R (1982). Stress, support, and depression: a longitudinal casual model. Journal of Co-. 10,363-376.

ArgyIe, M. (1980). Interaction skiIIs and social cornpetence. In P. Feldman & J. Orforci (Eds.), Psychologjcal problw: The social conte% @p. 123- 150). Chichester: wiley. 0. Ataca, B., & Su~r,D. (1996, September). -@ and in ur-dle ciass familv life. Poster session presented at the meeting of the Ninth National Congres, hbul,Turkey.

Aycan, Z., & Berry, J. W. (1995). Crosscul~~tationas a muitifaceted Paper presented at the 4th Einopean Congress of Psychology, Athens.

Aycan, Z., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Impact of employment-related experiences on immigrants' psychological well-king and adaptation to Canada. Caoadian Journal ence. 28,240-25 1.

Babiker, 1. E., Cox, J. L., & Miller, P. M. (1980). The measmement of cultural distance and its relationship to medical consuitations, symptomatology, and examination of performance of overseas students at Edinburgh University. Social Psychiatry. 15, 109-1 16.

Barnett, P. A., & Gotlib, 1. H. (1988). Psychosocial fimctioning and depression: Distinguishing among antecedents, concomitants, and consequences. Psvchol&cal B- 104.97- 126.

Bartone, P., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M.,& Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a military air disaster on the health of assistance workers. Journal of Nervous and S-. S-. 1 77,3 17-328.

Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R C. (1986). Role quality, multiple role involvement, and psychological well-king in midiife women. Joo Psvcholo~.5 1,578-585.

Beiser, M., Barwick, C., Berry, J. W., &Costa, G., Fantino, A. M., Ganesan, S., Lee, C., Milne, W.,Naidoo, J., Prince, R., Tousignanî, M., & Vela, E. (1 988). Mer the

Canada. A report of the Canadian Task Force on Mental Health Issues affêcting Immigrants and Refugees. Ottawa: Mlliistry of Multiculhualism and Citizenship and Health and WeKare Canada.

Bell, R. A., LeRoy, J. B., & Stephenson, J. J. (1982). Evaluating the mediating effects of social support upon life events and depressive symptoms. Journal of Community Psychology, 1O, 325-340.

Bendix, 1. (1985). On the rights of foreign workers in West Germany. In I. Bzqgoz & N. Fumiss (Eds.), workers m Europe @p. 23-55). Indiana: Indiana University Tufkish Studies. BqyJ. W. (1974). Psychologieal. aspects of cdtural pluralism: Un* and identity reconsidered. -CS in 17-22. . . . - Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecologVvestyle: Cmtivestudm ~&ud svcholo-. New York: Sage/Halsted. W. H. W. Bq,J. (1980). Introduction to methodology. In C. Triandis. . & J. Berry (EW,Handbookofcross-culturala-choW- 1st anon. Vol*7- @p. 1-28). Boston: AUyn & Bacon. - Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies: Alternatives to segregation and their sociopsychological implications. In N. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds. ), G~OUDSin çppfBd @p. 1 1-27). New York: Academic Press.

Berry, J. W. (1990). The role ofpsychology in ethnic studies. VCShidies 2 8-21.

Berry, J. W. (1991). Understanding and managing muiticulturalism: Some possible-. implications of research in Canada Psycholo-d Developine Societies. 3, 17- 49.

Beny, J. W. (1 992). Acculturation and adaptation in a new society. Internation& on. 30, 69-86.

Berry, J. W. (1 997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Bpplied Pvcholow: An na1 Review. 46,548.

Berry, J. W., & Blondel, T. (1982). Psychological adaptation of Viemamese refugees in Canada CdJournal of Comunity Mmtal Heaith. L, 8 1-88.

Beny, J.W., & Kalin, R (1995). Multicdturai and ethnic attitudes in Canada Canadian JO& of Behavioural Sciencea 30 1-320.

Berry, J. W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D. M. (1 977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in M.Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Senrices.

Bq,J. W., & Kim, U. (1 988). Acculturation and mental health. In P. R. Dasen, J. W. Beny,. &. N. Sartorius (Eds.), w:Towards icati~~~(pp. 207-236). Newbury Park: Sage.

Beny, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., and Mok, D. (1 987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International monReview. 21,49 1-5 1 1 . Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. &pptiovcholorrv:Review. 38,185-206.

Berry, J. W., 62 Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W.Beny, M. H. SegaU, & Ç. Kagitçibw (Eds.), -book . of. cmsîcul~cho~ or- or- @p. 291 -326). Boston: AUyn & Bacon.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The deof coping responses and social resources in attenuating the impact of stressful He events. Jodof H4t.h and Social r,21.219-239.

Bougie, E., & Bourhis, R. (1997). 9thaccuimtion sale SI Quebec se-. Papa presented at the Fourteenth Biennial Confince of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association, Montreal, Canada.

Bourhis, R, Moise, L. C., Pet~eault,S., Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychologicai approach. international Joudof ~010~.32369-386.

BoyaciogIu, G., & Karanci, A. N. (1992). The relationship of employment statu, social support, and life events with depressive symptomatology among married Turkish women. JO& of Psvcholog. 27,6 1-71.

Boyd, M. (1986). Immigrant women in Canada. In R J. Simon & C. B. Brettell (Eds.), on: The fedeexneri- @p. 4561). New Jersey: Roman & Allanheld.

Brewer, M. B., L Miller, N. (1 988). Contact.. and . cooperation: When do they work? ui P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), nicism: Profiles in controversy @p. 3 1 5-326). New York: Plenum Press.

Brislin, R (1 98 1). Cross-culhu;il encounten. Elmsford, NY: Pergarnon.

Brislin, R (1 986). The wording and transiation of research instruments. In W. J. Lomer & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods for cross-culm research @p. 137- 164). London: Sage.

Brodman, K., Erdmann, A. J., Lorge, E., Gershenson, C. P., & Wolff, H. G. (1952). The Corneil medical index health questionnaire. Journal of Climcal*. Psycholosz~& 119-124. . . Brown, G. W. & Harris, T. (1978). Soc- of deoreb. New York: The Free h.

Castles, S. (1984). uere for good: WestelpEurope's new -ritiesS London: Plut0 Press. . . Castles, S. (1994). How- respond to wonWC d versity. Paper for the Symposium on Multicdtural Society, Vasteras, Sweden. . . Catteli, R B. (1 966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivpoate Rehviod Rm245-276.

Cawte, J. (1972). Cd.wor and brutal mtioa. Honolulu, HA: University of Hawaii Press.

Chance, N. A., (1 965). Accdturation, ~e~identificationand personality adjustment. p010@st. 67,372-393.

Chataway, C. J., & Berry, J. W. (1989). Acculturation expexiences, appraisal, coping and adaptation: A cornparison of Hong Kong Chinese, French and English -dents in Canada. CdanJod of Behavioural Science. 21,295-309. . . CM', N. (1987). *vanate data New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). holied rna~lere~ion/correlation anaivsis for the havioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbawn Associates.

Cohen, S., & WiUs, T. A (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. .98,3 10-357.

Coyne, J. C., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond social support:. . The role of social relationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulhg and Climcal Psychology? 54, 454-460.

Crowther, J. H. (1985). The relationship between depression and marital maladjustment: A descriptive shüly. halof Nervous and Me& Disease. 173,227-23 1.

Dean, A., & Ensel, W. M. (1982). Modehg social support, Meevents, cornpetence, and depression in the context of age and sex. Journal of Comunity Psycholw. 1O, 392-408. . Dbawan, S. (1997). -s . . adaccultirration . . East hh. for their W. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Queen's UniversityyKingston, Ontario, CaMda.

Diener, E., Exnmons, R A., Lanen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Jounialof~ersonalitvAssessment. 49,7 1-75.

Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Pak, A. W. (1992). Petsonality-based hardiness as a buf5er for discrimination-related stress in members of Toronto's Chinese community.

Dion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1975). The phenomenology of king a target of prejudice. al Psv&hgy. 32,944950-

Dona, G. (1990). Accul- heaith of Ce-erican refugees in Unpublished master's thesis, Queen's University, Kingstoo, Ontario, Ch

Dona, G., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of Central Arnerican refugees. wonalJournal of Psycholow. 29, 57-70.

Dyal, J. A., Rybendq, L., Somers, M. (1988). Marital and acculturative strain among Indo-Canadian and Euro-Canadian women. In J. W. Berry & R. C. Amis (Eds.), svchoiogy: Research and mts. refueees. native c erou~s.and so ouniers @p. 80-95). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

El Haïli, S., & Lasy, J. (1 997, June). Roles con-iugaux. harmonie maritale et stress que chez des CO Marocains à Monaèal. Paper presented at the annuai convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, Caniirlsi.

Failers, L. A., & Failers, M. C. (1976). Sex roles in Edremit. in J. G. Penstiany (Ed.), structures @p. 243-260). London: Cambridge University Press*

Figeic, G. (1982). Psychopathology and the farnily. In Ç. Ka@çibq (Ed.), Sex roles. familvandunie in Turkev @p. 295-321). Indiana: Indiana University Turkish Studies.

Fumbam, A., & Bochner, S. (1 982). Social difnculty in a foreign culture: An empirical. . dysisof culture shock In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in nteractio~@p. 16 1- 198). Mord: Pergamon. Globe & Mail/CBC News Pol1 (1991). Globe & m. Nov. 5, p. Al-A2.

Gove, W. R (1979). Sex, maritai status, and psychiatrie treatment: A research note. Social Forces. 58,89-93.

Gove, W. R,& Geerken, M. R (1977). The eEkt of children and employment on the mentai health of rnarried men and women. Social Forces. 56,6646.

Gove, W. R., & Tudor, J. (1973). Adult sex roles and mental illness, &encan Journal of Sociology. 78,8 12-835.

Gorsuch, R L. (1983). Factor a.Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Graves, T. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a eiethnic community. Southwestern Joumalof~nthro~olog~~23.337-350.

Harris, J. G. (1972). Prediction. . of success on a distant Pacific Island: Peace Corps style. Jodof Chcal and Consultin.low-38, 181-190.

Hartman, M., & Hartman, H. (1986). International migration and household conflict.

Hearst, S. (1 985). Turkish families. In D. Storer (Ed.), J3Mcfarnilv values in Austraiia @p. 145-172). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.

Hocoy, D. (1993). Ethmc*. identity arnop~Chinese in Caaada: Its relationshio to self- @teem. Unpublished master's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Carlad&

Hocoy, D. (1997).-. &mtheid racism. and black mental health in South Afnca and the role of racial identity. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canach

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of c Researcii, 213-218.

Hofstede, G. (1 980). Culture's cou-uences: Intematiogal differences in work-related value. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. . . Hudson, W. W. (1 982). 9field manual. Chicago: Dorsey . Husaini, B. A., NeE, J. A., Newbrough, J. R,& Moore, M. C. (1982). The stress- bufFerllig role of social support and personal cornpetence among the d marrieci. 010- 1 O, 409-426.

Ilfelâ, F. (1976). Characteristics of cmntsocial stressors. Psychologjgd Reports. 39, 123 1-1247.

F. of L. Ilfelà, (1 982). Marital stressors, coping styles, and symptoms depression. In. . Goldberger Br S. Breznitz (Eds.), mdbook of stress: Theore~caiand cltfllcd ggpeEfS @p. 482-495). New York: The Free Press.

~oglu,0. (1994). A model of gender relations in the Turkish family. &@.& c and es. & 165-176.

Jahoda, M. (1 98 1). Work, employment, and unemployment: Values, theories and approaches in social research. American Psych- 36,184-19 1.

Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1 989). D-sis: A modekom~arisona~~roacb. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. .. . Jayasiniya, L., Sang, D., & Fielding, A. (1 992). Ethmc~ty.1-tion and ment& researcb Canberra: Bureau of Immigration Research.

Kagr-tçibqi, Ç. (1985). Culture of separateness-culture of relatedness. In C. Klopp (Ed.) 1984 Vision and realitv. Pa- in cornnarative studies (Vol. 4, pp. 91-99). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Ka@tçib~~,Ç. (1 986). Status of women in Turkey: Cross-cultural perspectives. international Joudof Middle East Studies. 1 8,485-499.

Kagitçiba~i,Ç. (1 987). Aiienation of the outsider: The plight of migrants. International 195-210.

Kagitçib- Ç. (1988). Twkish migrants: views. . fiom the sendùig country. In R. Akçelik & J. Eliey (Eds.), Turkish commumty in Australia @p. 1-20). Melbourne: Austraiian-Turkish Friendship Society hblications No. 3.

Kagitçibqr, Ç. (1 990). Family and socializaîion in crosscultural perspective:. . A model of change. In J. Bernian (Ed.), Nebraska Sngposium on Moti vation @p. 13 5-200). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Wtpbasi, Ç., & Berry, J. W. (1989). Cmss-cultural psychology: Current research and trends. Review of Psychom. 40.493-53 1.

Kagitçibasi, Ç., & Sunar, D. (1 992). Family and socialkation in .Turkey. . In J. P. Roopnarine & D. B. Carter (Eds), Parent child relatio~rn &verse cultiiral_ cornpet- @p. 75-88). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.

Kandiyoti, D. (1982). Urban change and women's roies in Turkey: An ove~ew. . and evaluation. In Ç. Kagaç1bay (Edo),Sex des. fgmily and CO- @p. 1 O 1- 120). Indiana: Indiana University TdshStudies.

Karman, D. (1994, May). Kanada gôçmen istatistiklerinde Türkiye [Turkey in Canadian immigrant statistics]. &z0. Riza & 14-016.

Kashy, D. A., & Snyder, D. K. (1995). Measurement and data dytic issues in couples research. PsvchologicalAssessment. 7,338-348.

Keçeli, B. (1988). The traditional socialisation of the Turkish rural woman and its effects on her migratory senlement process. In R. Akçelik & J. Elley (Eds.), Turkish in Australia @p. 203-212). Melbourne: Australian-Turkish Friendship Society Publications No. 3.

Kenny, D. A. (1 996). Models ofnon-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social d Pers& Relationships. 13,279-294.

Kenny, D. A., & Kashy. D. A. (1 99 1). Analyzirig. .interdependence in dyads. In B. M. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Stud~temxso~interaction @p. 275-285). New York: GuiKord.

Kim, U. (1984). Psycholo@cd acculturation of Korean i-its inToronto: A studv of odes of acculturation. dentitv. 1-e. and =cul ve stress- Unpublished master's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Kim, U. (1988). Accul~onofKoreants to Cam&: Psycholoeiçêk

gnadians. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Krray, M. (1 985). Metroplitan city and the changing family. In T. Erder (Ed.), socie~@p. 79-89). Ankara: Turkish Social Science Association.

Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressfiil Iife events, personality, and health: An inquiry hto hardiness. Lpiimal of P- Socid PsychoiQey.37, 1 - 1 1.

Kobasa, S. C. (1986). Stress responses and personai.&. h R. C. Barnett, L, Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender stress @p. 308-329). New York: nie Free Ress.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R, & Courington, S. (1 98 1). Personality and constitution as mediators in the stress-ihess dationship. Joudof Health and Social Behavior, 368-378-

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R, & Kahn, S. (1 982). Hardiness and heaith: A prospective study. Jodof Persondi- Psyc-. 42,168-1 77.

Koçtürk, T. (1992). of honor: Emences of Turkish women immimmts. New Jersey: Zed Books.

Kostovcik, N. (1983).Psycholo~ adpptation of Mal- -de= in Canada. Unpublished honor's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Knshnan, A., & Berry, J. W.(1992). Acculturative stress and acculturation attitudes among Indian immigrants to the United States. Psycholow and Develo~inq ocletles.*. 4, 1 87-212.

Krosnick, J. (199 1). Response strategies for cophg with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. AbS. cholm213-236.

Kudaî, A. (1975). Structural. . change in the migrant Turkish family. In R. E. Krane (Ed.), Elênpower mobilitv across cultural boundanieg (77-94).Leiden: E. J. Bfl.

Kuo, W.H., & Tsai, Y. (1986). Social networking, hardiness and immigrant's mental health. -Heaiwd SocigJ Behavior. 27,133-149.

Lasry, J. (1977). Crossdtural perspective on mental health and immigrant adaptation. 12,49055. Lay, C., & Nguyen, T. (1998). The deof acculturation-relateci and acculturation non- specific daily hassles: Vietnamese-Canadian students and psychologicai distress. JO-vioral Sciegce. 30, 172-18 1. b,R S. (1997). Acculturation isn't everything. -lied Psyc~w:An ewA& 39-43.

Lazarus, R S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress. qpraisal. and copixg. New York: Sprùiger.

Leavy, R. L. (1983). Social support and psychologid disorder: A review. J_ournai of

Lein, H. B. (1983). ~sycho~calê~pects of wsof the acculturation to 1Jnited Sm.Dissertation Abstracts International 1983 Feb Vol 43(8-B) 274302744.

Lenski, G. E., & Leggetî, L C. (1960). Caste, cl-, and deference in the research interview. ben- JO& of Sociolow. 65,463-467.

Levenson, R. W., Cmîensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender, and satisfaction. Psycholow and w,30 1-3 13.

Lieberman, M. A. (1982). The effects of social supports on responses to stress. in L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical pet@ @p. 764-783). New York: The Free Press.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment. . and prediction tests: Their reliability and vatidity. Marriqge and FdyJrviu 25 1-255.

Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1986). Sampling and surveying. In W. J. Lomer & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field meaods in cross-cultud research @p. 85-1 10). London: Sage.

Lynam, M. J. (1985).. Support networks developed by immigrant women. Social Science d Medic. me. 21,3270333.

MacCdum, R. C., Widaman K. F., hg,S., & Hong, S. (1998). Sample size in factor d~sis.Manuscript under review.

Malzberg, B. (1940). Social & biolo@ai aspects ofmental disease. Utica, New York: Utica State Hospital Press.

Malzbexg, B. & Lee, E. (1956). mtionand disease. New York: Social Science Resemh Council. Menaghan, E. G. (1 982). Measrnllig coping effectiveness: A panel andysis of marital problems and coping efforts. Journal 220-234-

Memghan, E. G., & Lieberman, M. A. (1 986). Changes in depression following divorce: A panel study. of the Fu.17,3 19-328.

Minde, T. (1985). Fore& -. Unpublished honor's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Mirdai, G. M. (1984). Stress and distress in migration: Roblems and resources of Turkish women in Denmark. M&ation Review. 18,984- 1003.

Monroe, S. M., Brome& E. J., Comell, M. M., & Steiner, S. C. (1 986). Social support, life events, and depressive symptoms: A one-year prospective study. Journal of Psychol~p.54,42443 1.

Murphy, H. B. M. (1965). Migration and the major mental disorders. In M. Kantor (Ed.), *. O- O- ha@p. 221-249). Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Murphy, H. B. M. (1973a). Migration and the major mental disorders: A reappraisal. In C. A. Zwingmann & M. Pfister-Ammende (Eds.), uroouand &ex @p. 204- 220). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Murphy, H. B. M. (1973b). The low rate of mental hospitdization shown by immigrants to Caiiada In C. A. Zwingmarm & M. Pfister-Ammende (Eds.), Uprootine and &@p. 22 1-23 1). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Murphy, H. B. M. ( i 977). Migration, culture and mental health. Psycholo@cal Medicine, 2 677-684.

Naditch, M. P., & Momssey, R F. (1976). Role stress, personaiity and psychopathology in a group of immigrant adolescents. Journal of Abnormal PsycholoW. 85, 1 13 - 118.

Naidoo, J. C. (1985). A cultural perspective on the adjment of South Asian women in Canada. In 1. R Lagunes & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), From a different Shidies of behavior across cultures (pp. 76-92). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Naidoo, J. C. (1992). The mental health of visible ethnic minorities in Canada . . Bvcholomrv SocElJes- 4, 165-186. Ng, R. (1988). Immigrant women and institutionalized racism. In S. Burt, L. Code, L. Domey (Eds.), W-wo- in Cd@p. 184-203). Toronto: McCleUand & Stewart.

Noh, S., Beiser, M., Hou, F., & Kaspar, V. (1997, November). Measwin~acculmtive . Paper presented at the meeting of the Fourteenth BieILLLial Conference of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association, Montreal, Canada.

Noh, S., Speechley, M., Kaspar, V., & Wu, 2. (1992). Depression in Korean immigrants in Canada: 1. Method of the study and prevaience of depression. of

.* - Noh, S., & Wu, 2. (1 991). Sociocultural htyand effective social suppon. Amencan Public Hedth Association Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.

Odegaard, 0. (1932). Emigration and insanity: A study of mental. .disease among the Norwegian-born population of Minnesota. &ta Psychiaaica Scandinavic~. Supplement 4.

Oguzkan, T. (1975). The Turkish brain drain: Migration tendencies among doctoral level manpower. In R E. Krane (Ed.), Manpower mobility across CUftural boundari es: Social. econo~cand led aspects @p. 205-220). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Oguzkan, T. (1 976). The scope and nature of Turkish brain drain. In N. Abadan-Unat (Ed.), Turkish workers in Em.1960- 1975: A socio-economic reappraisd (pp. 74- 103). Leiden: E. I. Bd.

Olsoq E. A. (1982). Duofocal family structure and an alternative mode1 of husband-wife relationship. In Ç. Kagaç~bag~(Ed.), Sex des. familv and cornmq*.in Turkey @p. 33-72). Indiana: Indiana University Turkish Studies. ber, N., & Le Compte, A.. (1985). [Süreksiz) Dunimluk - Surekli kava envanteri elkitah manual for state-trait anxiety inventory]. kbul:Bogaziçi University Publications.

Pak, A. W., Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1991). Social-psychological correlates of expexienced discrimination: Test of the double jeopardy hypothesis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 15,243 -2%.

Pavot, W.,& Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with Me scale. Psycholoeical ment,5, 164-172. Pearlin, L., & Lieberman, M. A. (1979). Social sources of exnotional distress. In R. Simnions (Ed.), cornVol. L @p. 2 17-248). Greenwich: JAI.

Peariin, L., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., & Mullan, I. T. (1 981). The stress proces. 337-356.

Pearlin, L., & Schooier, C. (1978). The structure of coping. JO- of Health and Social

Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., & HoeIker, P. (in press). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominan't groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations*

Quesada, G. M., Spears, W., & Ramos, P. (1978). Interracial depressive epidemiology in the southwest. Journalth and Social Rehavior. 19,77435.

Rabinbach, A. (1993, Fall). Fire and blood in Germany. Dissent 4Q, 416-41 8.

Radloff, L. (1975). Sex ciifferences in depression: The effects of occupation and marital -tus. --249-265. Redneld, R, Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. berican Anmiogist 38, 149- 152.

Mitchell, A. (1997, November 5). Census reveds changing face. The Globe and Mai4 pp. Al, A10. . . Reid/Southam (1993). Ottawa Citizen, April 1O. .. Restoule, B. (1994). Cuitinal identity of Oiibwa vouth: The relationship of acculturation discrimination. I. . to ~bvsicaIand mental health. Unpubiished master's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Rogler, L. H. (1994). International migrations: A kework for directing research. P-çbolo&L 49,701-708.

Rose, A. (1969). -urope. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Roskies, E. (1978). Immigration and mental heaith. Canada's Mental Health. 26,4-6. Roskies, E., Iida-Miranda, M. L., & Strobel, M. G. (1978). The applicability of the [Xe events approach to problems of immigration. Joumal of Psychosomatic Research, 235-240.

Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., 8r Ulbrich, P. (1983). Distress and the traditional fernale role: A cornparison of Mexicans and Anglos. d.of9* 670- 682. . . Rudmin, F. (1996, August). msychometnc si&esses of accdturation studies. Paper presented at the meeting of the Thirteenth Cangress of the International Association for Cross-Cultutal Psychology, Montreal, Canada

Sahai, R (1993). Act-on attitudes. valu& acculturative stress in first and m.Unpublished honors thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Salgado de Snyder, V. N. (1 987a). Factors associated with acculturative stress and depressive symptomatology among married Mexican immigrant women. PsychoIop of Women QwrterIy. 1 1,475-488.

Salgado de Snyder, V. N. (1 98%). Mexic-t women: blationsbof fit

. . Spanish speaking mental health research center, occasional paper No. 22.

Sands E. A., & Berry, J. W. (1 993). Acculturation and mental health among Greek- Canadians in Toronto. Canadian Jodof CornmeMental Health. 12, 1 17- 124.

Sayegh, L., & Lasry, J. C. (1 993). Immigrants' adaptation in Canada: Assimilation, acculturation, and orthogonal cultural identification. Canadian Psychology. 34, 98-109.

Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Ps~cholo~icalAssessment. 8, 350-353.

Schmitz, P. (1992). Acculturation styles and health. In S. Iwawaki, Y. Kashima, & K. Leung (Eds.), bovati~~l~in cross-cultriralpsychology @p. 360-3 70). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and socioîulturai adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. Journal of htercuitur& OU. 14,449-464. Shin, K. R (1994). Psychosocial predictors of depressive symptoms in Korean-American women in New York City. Women & Health. 21.73-82.

Shwal, J. T. (1 982). Migration and stress. In L... Goldberger, & S. Breznitz (Eds.), dbook of stress: Theoreticai &*cal @p. 677-691). New York: The Fxe Press.

Smith, M. E. (1980). The Portuguese female immigrant: the 'marginal mm'. International on Review. 14.77-92.

Spielberger, C. D., & Diaz-Guerrero, R (1982). Cross-culhnai anxiety: An ove~ew.In C. D. Spielberger & R. Diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-c&ud dety. Vol. 2 @p. 3- 11). New York: HemisphereMcGraw-Hill International.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R L., & Lushene, R E. (1970). Manuai for State-Trait etv Inv-. Pa10 Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Spradley, J. P., & Phillips, M. (1972). Culture and stress: a quantitative analysis. can AqfhMpolQOist 74,s 18-529. . - Statistics Canada (1997). 96 Ce-: Nation series ediQon 1 [CD-ROM]. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theones of intereroup relations; oerspectives (2nd ed.). Westport: Praeger.

Thoits, P. (1983). Multiple identities and psychological weli-being. America Sociologid Review. 4gS 174-187.

Toelken, B. (1985). "Turkenrein" and "Turken, 'nius!"- Images of fear and aggression in German gastarberterwitze. In i. Bqg6z & N. Fumiss (Eds.), Turkish workea in J3uro~e@p. 15 1- 164). Indiana: Indiana University Turkish Studies.

Triandis, H. C. (1 989). Self and social behavior in diffe~gcultural contexts. ew. 96,269-289. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R,Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Lemg, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C. H., Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. P. B., Venna, J., Spangenberg, J., To-d, H., & de Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of etic aspects of individualism and coUectivism across cultures. JO& of 257-267.

Tumer, R. J. (1 98 1). Social support as a contingency in psychological weU-king. Journal d Social B-vior. 2,357-367.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R,Helms-Lorenz, M., & Feltzer, M. (in press). Acculturation and cognitive performance of migrant children in the Netherlands. International

Vega, W. A., Kolody, B., Vaile, R., & Hough, R (1986). Depressive syrnptoms and their correlates among immigrant Mexican women in the United States. Social Science cine. 2S, 645-652

Vega, W. A., Kolody, B., Valle, R,& WeK, J. (1991). Social networks, social support, and their relationship to depression among immigrant Mexican women. Human IL 50, 154-162.

Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R Bhagat (Eds.), Handboo k of . . intercultural tmmg @p. 124-147). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance and social diff?cuity dmhg cross-cultural transitiom. Jntemational Joumal of Intercultural O~S.16,175-194.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1 993a). Psychological and socio-culturai adjment during cross-cuiturai transitions: A cornparison of secondary school students overseas and at home. International Journal of Psychologv. 28, 12%147.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993b). Where's the culture in crosstulturai transition? Comparative suesof sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychoIop. 2% 22 1-249.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1 994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural cornpetence during cross-culturai transitions. bternational Journal of . 18,329-343.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. ((1998).The measurement of sociocultural ada~tation.Paper presented at the meeting of International Academy of Intercultural Research, Fullerton, California, United States. Warren, C. E. (1 986). YiOpeties of life - -es apd self perceptipris of women, Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.

Wheaton, B. (1 982). A cornparison of the moderating effects of personal coping resources in the impact of exposure to stress in two groups. a Psyc-. 1Q, 293-3 11.

World Health Organization. ( 1982). Medkte= prom.Geneva: WHO.

Young, M. (1984). Patmw of psychological acculturrrareanPorhaguese- es in m.Unpublished honours thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Zheng, X., & Berry, J. W. (1991). Psychological adaptation of Chinese sojournea in Ca. In- Jorqgacl of Psychology. 26,45 1-470. Turkish Version of the Questio~

bilheniz istenecektir. Hiçbir soru veya ifadenin belirli bir dom veya yanlq cevabi yoktur. En iyi cevap sizin kisisel gOrti@ntizdÜr. Cevapianniz kesinlikle gizli hmilacactir. Lütfen her maddeyi dikkadice okuyup kendi g6r@ünüzü beiirten cevabi ver-. Size verilmis belirli bir siire yoktur., anketi istediginiz sOrede cevaplandrrabilirsiniz Sizden ricam lWen hiçbir maddeyi atlamadan hexbirine cevap veriniz ve herhangi bir cevabuun degistirmek için geri d6nmeyiniz. Lüden anketi kendi bquiua cevaplayuuz çlinkü ben yainiz sizin kqisel g6rQlerinizi mer& ediyonun. Bolam 1 L-N KEND~NIZLEILGM SU B~LGILERIVERINIZ: 1. Yquilz: 2. Cinsiyetiniz: 1. Erkek 2. Kadra 3. Domyeriniz (isim belirtiniz): - 1. Sehir merkezi: 2. nçe/kaza:

5. Kamda'ya gelmeden once Türkiyetde en son nerede ikamet ediyorduour? (isim belirtiniz) 1. Sehir merkezi :

-3. Koy: 6. Kanada'daki vatanckqlik durummuz nedir?

-2. Landed immigrant (goçmen) 7. Egitim dereceniz wdir? 1.Okuma-yma kursu 2. IIkokul -3- Ortaokul 4, Lise -5. MesleWTeknik Lise -6. coiIege/bnlisans -7. hiversite -8. Yiiksek Lisans 8. &ide kaç pl& evlisiniz? @ 9. Kaç çocugUnuz var? hiç iyi çok iyi giyle oldukça çok de@ de@ boyle iyi iyi hgihce'yi ne kadar iyi: 1. anlrjorsunuz? 1 2 3 2. konusuyorsunuz? 1 2 3 3. okuyorsunuz? 1 2 3 4. yazlyorsunuz? 1 2 3

Asa$daki diinmilarda hpiiizceniz ne kadar yeterii oluyor? hiç yeterli yeterii gayle oldukça yeterii @iç de@ de@ My le yeterli sonmum yok) 5. DiikkanIarda 4 5 6. Kanadah arkadag, komsu, 4 5 tarildiklarla 7. Doktor veya resmi bir biyle hemen bir hemen hemen dereceye hemen hic az kadar ePeY mgün Güdük haya~dane kadar 8. hgilizce konusuyorsmuz? 9. Tùrkçe konquyorsu~luz? tanidik veya akdamtvar mi? hiç yok 1-2 birkaç çok pek çok (9- geFiniz) ici@ ki@ k@i ui

bu dereceye bç çokaz kadar epey çok 2. Bu kiqi veya kqilere ne kadar güveniyorsunuz? 1 3. Sizin iyili- bu @i veya kqiler için ne kadar 1 onemlidir? Bu mi veya Wiler: 4. Sorunianiilz hakkuida konqmaya ihtiya~l~ll~ 1 oldugUnda sin ne kadar dinliyorlar? 5. ihtiyacmz oldu@nda sin ne kadar rahatlatryorlar? 1 2 3 4 5 6. Ski ne kadar dQünfirler? 1 2 3 4 5 7. Genelde size ne kadar destek olurlar? 1 2 3 4 5 8. [email protected] destekten ne kadar memnunsunuz? 1 2 3 4 5 1-2 birkaç çok pek çok hiç yok 9. (Maddi, pratik veya bilgi alma konulmda) 1 Ihtiyac~lllzoldugUnda yardrm isteyebileceginiz herhangi biri var mi? kç katilmiyorum nadiren 10. Tiirk klüp, dmek veya kumdatl~ll~i 1 2 sosyal faalyederine ne dcka katiliyorsunuz? 1 1. Kanada kltip, dernek veya kurumla~~ltn 1 2 sosyai faalyetlerine ne slkWrta kathy orsunuz? ANKE'M'EH SORULARDA "KANADALI", IfRK MILL1 OLMAYAN, KANADA'DA WUPB-S, NES~LERDMKANADA'DA OLUP ANA DILI ~NGL~ZCEVEYA FRANSIZCA OLAN AVRUPA K~KENL~KANADALI ANLAMINDA KULLANlLMr$TIR

hiçbir zaman çogu zaman naciiren zaman srk sik zaman 1. KanadaMarla ne siklikta biraraya gelip 1 2 3 4 5 biqeyler yaplyorsunuz? (ziyaret, yemek, tiyatro gibi) 2. Bir soninunuz oldu&mda, Kanadah bir 1 2 3 4 5 arkadqa gider misiniz? hiç 1-2 birkaç çok pekçok 3. Kaç tane Kanadah arkadaquuz var? 1 2 3 4 5 hiçyakm yalan emh çok degilim degilim deBlim yalanun yalanim 4. En iyi iliqkiler içerisinde 01dugUnuz 1 2 3 4 5 Kanadali bir tm&$nizia ne kadar yakuisuiiz?

hiçbir man çoi9-l ;rnmiui nadiren zaman sik sik zaman 5. TWkierle ne siklikta biraraya gelip 1 2 3 4 5 bVSeyler yapryorsunuz? (ziyaret, yemek, tiyatro gibi)

hi$ ~h ço@ hiç biri =kadaSm hepsi ço@ Türk Türk ~ok Türk Tiirk qit de@ de@ O 1 2 3 4 5 7. Eger Tihk degiuerse, kkakederi wdir? 227

8. Kanada'da hangi bayramin kutluyommuz? hiçbir sadece genelde genelde Sadece bayrami Tiirk Türk Kanada Kanada kutlamam bayramlannx bayramlarini qit bayramlanm bayradannr O 1 2 3 4 5 9. Han@ gazeteleri okuyomuz? (Elektronik haberlepne dahil) hiç sadece genelde genelde Sadece gme Ttirk Tikk Kanada KaMda okumam gazetelerini gazeteierini qit gazetelerini gazetelerini O 1 2 3 4 5 10. Evde ne tür yemekler yiyiyommuz? sadece genelde genelde sadece TW Türk Kanada Kanadsl bilmem yemekleri yemekleri qit yemekleri yemekleri 2 3 4 5

genelde genelde sadece Türkçe Kuzey Amerika/ Kuzey AmeW müzik qit Batimuzigi Batimüzigi

12. hadar degisik gmplar içinde kimliklerini buluriar. Siz kendinizi esas olarak hangi gruba ait hissediyommuz? -1. Türk 2. Tiirk asdh Kanadah 3. Kanadah -4. Hiç biri 5. Diger ---> Lwbelirtiniz 13. su anda para getiren bir i$e çalisIyor mmuz? 1. Tarn gih > ( 15. sonidan devam ediniz) -2. Yanm gün (part-time) -> (15. sorudan devam ediniz)

14. C~orsarilz:Neden çalql~l~yorsunuz? (Cevaplandudiktan soma 16. sorudan devam ediniz) 1. Raporlu veya OzürIii 2. kj bulamiyorum. -3. b~enci 4. Emekli 5. Ev hanimi -6. Gerrk yok; e@m istemiyor. 7. Di@ > Beiirtiniz 15. Calis~yorsamz:Su anda ne hie u@qryorsunuz? (birkaç kelimeyie açiklayinu)

16. &&ma yilùk geliriniz ne&? (sadece kendi kazancini;ri belimniz) -1. O -2.20,OOO $ dan az 3.20,OOO $-30,000$

-4.30,OOO $-4U,OOO $ 5.40,OOO $-50,000 $

-6.50,000 $ dan çok Bolm 8 17. Oniçhitarmisiniz? 1. Evet 2. Hayu 18. Ne sdchkta namaz iuiarsintz? -1. hiç krlmam 2. nsniten 3. Cuma &an vdveya RamaZan, Kandil, bayramlarda -4. günde bqvakit veya olabildigince düzenli 19. Ne nklikta camiye @dersi&? -1. hiç gitmem 2. nadiren 3. Cumalan vdveya Ramazan, Kandil, bayrarnlarda 4. haftada birden fida hemen biraz hemen tamamiyle

1. Hayatimin b(ty[ik bir kismi yapmaya degecek iglerle geçer.

2. hceden plan yapmak gelecekte birçok sorunun 1 ortaya çikma~lluengelleyebilir.

3. Ne kadar çok çabalarsam çabalayaym, gayretlerim 1 ço@dukia hiç bapd~sonuç vermiyor.

4. Günlük programunda degisiklikier yapmayi sevmem. 1

5. Denenip do$uiu@ kanit1amn.q y01 her zaman 1 en iyi yoldur.

6. Çok &manin bir dmu yok, nasl olsa buudan 1 sadece iist düzeydekiler kazançh çikar.

7. Çok çalisarak her zamm hedeflerinize uiqabilirsiniz. 1

8. Hayatta çoguniukia kaderimizde ne ynyorsa O oh. 1

10. Kendim hawunda biqey o$enmek bana zevk verir. 1

11. Yapti$m is bana gerçekten zevk venyor. 1

12. Zor bit üzauide çaiqiyorsam, ne zaman 1 yardun istemem gerektim bilirim.

13. Bir soniyu gerçekten anladi$ma emh olmadan 1 cevaplamam.

14. Wdeçok çqitlilik ohasuidan hqlaninm. 1 hemen hiç dogm biraz hemen tamamiyle de@

18. Hatalamm diizeltmek ço@duWa çok zordur.

19. GifnliTic dikenirnin bozuhas~beni rahatsiz eder.

2 1. Hayatmu kaldigi yerden devam ettirmek için ço@dukla büy0k bir istel.de uyanuun.

22. Ço@ vunan kendi aklundan geçederi tam bihem.

24. Beiirsiz veya mil sonuçlanacagi belli ohyan olaylar hosuma gider.

25. Biri bana puar vermeye çaiisma, ehden bunu odeyecek pek biqey gelmez. 26. ~~ düzenin degismesi bana ilginç gelir. 27. Ço@ günler hayat bana gexçekten ilginç ve heyecan venci gelir.

28. &i konusunda hevesli oian birini tasavvur etmek giiç

29. Yannin bana ne getirecelj bugiin ne yapt@ma baglldlr.

30. Stradan i@er çok &CI olur, yapmaya demez. 232

B61û.m 10 KANADA'DA~(~ YASAMLNIZDA VE KANADA K~~T~SRLE~ ARASIMI& BAZI BENZERL~K VE FARKLILIKLAR B~~YI~K-LE ÇARPMI$TIR ASAGIDAKI MADDELERDE BEL&T~ENLE~ -'DEK~~LE KARSILASTIRILDIGINDA KANADA'DA SfZCE NE DERECE BENZER VEYA FARICL1 OLDUGUNU SAPTAYINIZ KAWILASTIRMA YAPARKEN IÇINDE YASADIGINIZ ZAMANIN TLtRKtYEvstNtVE KENDI gmmlzî GOZONO~EBULUNDURUNUZ

1. Iklim 2. hadamktyafetlerî 3. hadann genel olarak egitim düzeyi 4. Çocuklam e&tim8@timi için mevcut imkanlar 5. Yiyecekler 6. Belirli mallardaki çqitlilik (yiyecek rnaddelerinde, ilaçlarda, ev qyalamdaki çqitlilik gibi) 7. Dinh insaniarm piiniiik yqamindaki rolü 8. Yapm standardi 9. hsadann kendilerine ayirdtwan man 10. Bq zamdarda yapilan faaliyetler 1 1. hsadarin selamlqma tam 12. Toplum içinde ya#lara ve oziirIülere sa@um imkanlar 13. Qisel hak ve ozgiirlillder 14. Evlenme y- 15. ÇifUerin bo-a egilimi 16. Evlilik Oncesi kadin-erkek ïh&ileri 17. hadana ziyaret anlay~~t(ziyaret sfi& haberli/habersiz ziyaret gibi) 18. hian i&kileri 19. Arkada&klar 20. Aile Üyeleruiin kimlerden olqtugU 2 1. Anne-baba ve çocuk il@kileri 22. Çocukia~yet-e tam 23. Yakm akrabdarla digkiler 24. Aile içinde yqliya saygi 25. Erkem aile içindeki rolü 26. Kadinui aile içindeki rolü 27. Kan-koca arasl Wkiler SU AN ÇOcrn< SAHb3f DEG~LSENIZ, ÇOCUKLARLA fLGfLf SORULARI, "ÇoCU&M OLSA TER~H~~NE OLURDU?" D~YE D~~$~REK CEVAPLAYINIZ. HER G~I"KANADALI", ASILLI OLMAYAN, KANADA'DA D&UP BU~S,NES~LLERD~ KANADA'DA OLUP, ANA DILI NGfLm VEXA FRANSWA OLAN AVRUPA KOKENLI KANADALI ANLAMINDA KULLANLLMISTIR. ne katthyonim kesinlikie ne de kesinlikie katilmyorum katilrmyom kaûlmryorum katiltyorurn katihyorum 1. TWbayramlanndan çok Kanada bayramlanm kutlarnay tercih ederim. 2. Tiirkler'den çok Kanadalilar'la biraraya gelip vakit geçinneyi tercih ederim. 3. Hem Kanada hem TWc bayram- lmkutlamap tercih ederim. 4. Kanadaliar'dan çok TWder'le biraraya gelip vakit geçirmeyi tercih ederim. 5. "Bayrarn"bana biqey Meetmiyor. 6. Hem KanadalrIar'la hem Türklde biraraya gelip vakit geçirmeyi tercih ederim. 7. Kanada bayramianndan çok Tiirk bayramlanni kutlamayi tercih ederim. 8. Kimlerle biraraya gelip vakit 1 2 3 4 5 geçirdigime alham. 9. Çocuklanmin hem Kanada 1 2 3 4 5 hem Titrk tanlama uygun ye@nelerini isterim. 10. Evde Tûrk yemeklerinden çok 1 2 3 4 5 Kanada yerneweri yemeyi tex& ederim. 1 1. Evimde Tiirkler'e Bzgü 1 siislemelerden çok KanaAsililar'a 6zgü sihlemelerin olmasini tercih ederim. 12. Yakm ar~lanmui 1 Kanadali'dan çok TUrk olmasuu ter& ederim. 13. Evde ne çqit yemek yedigime 1 21- etmem. 14. Çocuklanmin Türk 1 brpndan çok Kanada tarana uygun yetisrnelerini isterim.

17. Yalun ar~lanmui 1 hem Kanadah hem Türk olmasm tercih ederim.

19. Çocuklanmin Kanada deger 1 ve geleneklerinden çok Tiirk degerlerini ve geleneklerini S$enmelerini isterim. 20. Evde Tfirkçe'den çok hgilizce konugmayi tercih ederim. 2 1. Kanada gazetelerïnden çok T0U.k gazetelerini okumayl tercih ederim. 22. Evimde Kanadalilar'a ôzgii süslemelerden çok TCSrklere 6zgU sçislemele~ olmasini tercih ederim. 23. Çocuklanmin de@ veya gelenekleri B$enip ô@enmemeIerine aldumam. 24. Kanadalidan çok bir TiÏrk gibi ~asamaktanW=w= Soyleyebilirim. 25. Tûrk gazetelexinden çok Kanada gazetelerini okumayi tercih ederim. 26. Evde hem Kanada hem Türk yemekleri yemeyi tercih ederim. 27. Evi aleme gibi ônemsiz 1 geylerle kafarm yormam. 28. Evde hem hgilizce hem Türkçe 1 konqmayi tercih ederim. 29. Çocuklanmm evlenene kadar 1 benimle otunnalarini. beklerim. 30. Çocuklanmui Türk de@ ve 1 geleneklerinden çok Kanada degerlerini ve geleneklerini Omnmelerini isterim. 3 1. Evde Kanada yemeklerinden 1 çok Tûrk yemekleri yemeyi tercih ederim. ne katiliyorurn kesinlikle ne de kesinlikle kaûlnuyorum kaûlmryom katllmiyorum katdryonun kaûlry onim 32. Hem Kanada hem Türk 1 2 3 4 5 gazetelerini okumayi tercih ederim. 33. Çocuklanmin nadyetigtigine 1 2 3 4 5 al- etmem. 34.Tmk'tençokbhKanadaligibi 1 2 3 4 5 Y%- hoSand@= s6yleyebilirim. 35. Çocuklmkendilerini 1 hazu hisseffikleri andan itibaren kendi bqlanna yapmalanni beklerim. 36. Çocuklanmin hem Tkk hem Kanada degerlerini ve geleneklerini O$enmelerini isterim. 37. Yakm arkadaglanmin kimler oldu- al- etmem. 38. Evde hpiiizce'den çok Tiirkçe konwma~tercih ederim. 39. Evimde hem Kanadalrlar'a hem Tiirkler'e oz@ süslemelerin ohnufercih ederirn.

4 1. Çocuklanmin evlenene kadar 1 benide oturmalanxun daha iyi olacagrni d~iiyonunan& eger ki aynlmak istederse bu kararlanna saygi duyarim. 42. Yakui arkadaglrrnmin 1 Türk'ten çok Kanadah olmasini tercih ederim.

hiçbir zaman 1. Kanadalilar'la biraraya gelip biqeyler 1 yapmak isterim (ziyaret, tiyatro, yemek gibi). 2. Kanada klitp, dernek veya kunimlannxn 1 sosyal faaliyetlerine kahlmak isterim. 3. Bir sonmum olursa, Kanadali bù 1 arkadapmdan yardun istemeyi tercih ederim. kesinlikle bir do* bk dereceye degil dom kadar dom 4. Birçok Kanadah arkdiqm 1 olsun isterim. 5. Bir Kanadalr'yla çok yakm arw 1 olmay isterim. 240

B6liim 13 A$A&DA a$fSEL OZELL&LE~ TANIMLAYAN iFADELER BULCJNWWTADIR L-N BUMARA NE DERECEDE KATILIP KATZLMADIGINIZIASAGIDAKI OLÇEGE GORE BELIRT~N~Z

ne kaûhyorum

1. KanadaUa uyum sa@ayabilmek için kendimi degistirmm gerekti@ni bissediyorum. 2. Türk oldugUmu belli eden yonlerimi gostermemeye çaiqyorum. 3. Sik nk kqiligixm veya dammqlanmi biriikte oldu@m insanin etoik kokenine gBre defitirmern gerektigini hissediyorum. 4. Etnik k8kenirn.b taqhgim yeni insaniaria ve o$endigim yeni ~eylerle uyusrnadrgint d~linüyonim. 5. yerimdeki veya çevremdeki Türk anlli obyanKanadali arknrfaslanmla aïkm veya külttiriim hakkinda pek konqaniiyonim. 6. Ailemle, iq yerimdeki veya çevremdeki Türk aslh olmayan Kanadali arkaàq1an.mhakkinda pek konqamiyonun. 7. Slk sik, JSanada toplummda istenmedigimi hissediyonnn. 8. Türk asilli olmayan Kanadalila. tarafindan Qiandi@mhiç 9. Bazen Tilrk adh oldu- için aylnma ugradiw hissediyonmi. 1 O. Kanada toplummda her zaman iyi ka@andi@tm hissediyonmi. 11. Hiçbir zaman Türk adh oImayan Kanadalildm beni tan anlamqla kabul derini hissetmiyorum. 12. Bazen Tiirk adhoimayan Kanadalilar'm bana karp olduklanm hissediyorum. 13. Bazen Tiirk asfiolmayan KanadaMar'm bana bda&imdan rahatsiz oluyorum. 14. Türk asdh oirnayan Kanadalildm TiirWain arkasindan konqup alay ettiklerini metmiyonim. 15. Bazen Türk adholdu@ için ayut edile bildigimi hissediyonim. 16. Tiirk aslh olmayan Kanadalilar 4k sk kendimi aSa$l~ bissetmeme neden oluyorlar. 17. Tùrk asdh olmayan Kanadaliiar'm et& kokenimden dolay bana farkh davrandikllanni hissenniyonim. 18. Kanada'da Türk acilll bir insan oImak çogU zarnan hopna gitmiyor. 242

BoIllm 14 A~AGIDAI~SORULARI CEVAPLAMAK içfN L~NE~~N~ZLEOLAN m$IubL~m ~ff$m.MADDELERE NE DERECE KATILIP KATILMADIGINIZI DA~REtCfNE ALARAK BELIRTMZ

1. E@ kendi bildigini yapmakta israr eder. 2. Qim, çogunlukla, bana verdi@den daha fazlasini ona vermemi bekler. 3. Qim, ço@dukla, sanki dedeki tek Bnemli k&i oymq gibi davranul. 4. Genelde qirnin istekierini, kendisinin benimkileri kabuilendiginden daha fazla kabullenirim. 5. Qim bana sevgiyle yaklqir. 6. Qim paray bilinçli harcar. 7. Bimin yaptigi $i velveya evi idare eQini îakdir ederim. 8. Qim cinsel açidan iyi bir

** 9. Qim yapt@rn &i vdveya evi idare edi&ni takdir eder. 10. &im benim en iyi 1 yonlerimi ortaya çk. 1 1. Fqim beni oidu@m gibi 1 takdir der. 12. Evliligim bana istedigim 1 gibi bir k$i olma gamm yeterince tanimiyor. 14. @inde benim için 6nedi 1 2 3 4 5 olan seyler hakkmda geqekten konqabilirim. 15. (Maddi, pratik veya bilgi 1 2 3 4 5 alma konulannda) Yardima ihtiyacun oldugUnda qimden isteyebilirim. 16. Aile içindeki problemlerde 1 2 3 4 bana yafdtmci olmas konusunda qime gûvenebiiirim. 17. Egim benim problemlerimi 1 2 3 4 çok iyi anlar. 18. Bim genelde bana çok 1 2 3 4 destek olur. 19. Çocuklanmla iyi anlasinm. 1 2 3 4 20. Çocuklanm beni genelde 1 2 3 4 iizerler. 2 1. Çocuklanm benden, onlara 1 2 3 4 verebilecegimden fazlasini beklerkr.

23. @im iyi bir atlfle/babadir. 1 2 3 4 24. Binizin içki @ka&@ konumnda an1~rnazlrfp.woluyor mu? 1. Evet 2. Hayv 1. su an wlili@izdeki heqeyi g6zOnüne daAc, ne derece mutiu oldu~uzuen iyi sekilde ifade eden noktayi asagidaki 6lçek &minde belirtiniz. &tadaki "mutiu" noktasi, ço@ ki@in evliliade bulduw mutlduk derecesini kmd etmektedir. blçek derece derece bV yanda evliliginde çok mutsuz olan birkaç k*ye, diger yanda ise evW@nde çok mutiu olan birkaç kigiye do@ upinir.

Mutiu

A~AGDAKI HER KONU 1ÇbI ES- NE KADAR ANLASIP ANLASMADI- CINIZ~BELIRT~N~Z. CEVAPLARINEI DAIRE ALINIZ.

2. Aile biitçesinin 1 2 3 4 5 6 idaresinde

4. Sevgi gosterirninde 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. Toplum degerlerine 1 2 3 4 5 6 ve geleneklerine bakq açmda (dom iyi, uygun olani belirlemede) (14 E 17 ARAS IN DA^ MADDELE~ ÇOCUKLARINIZ VARSA $ARETLEY~V~ sfZtN IÇhl GEÇER~OLMAYAIY MADDELEM BOS BIRAKINU. EGER ÇOCUGUNUZ YOKSA 18. MADDEYE GE-

hemen hemen hemen her taman her man bazen ç@mlukla hemen hiç hiç ad- anla$mz anlaynqm anlaqmayiz anla$mayiz anlapayu

15. Çocuklann egitim- I 2 3 4 5 6 6$etiminde 1 6. Çocuklann meslek 1 2 3 4 5 6 seçiminde 17. Çocuklann 1 2 3 4 5 6 q seçiminde

-erkek e$nh fikrini kabullenir. kadm qinin fikrini kabullenir.

19. Qinizle birlikte dqarida biqeyler yapar mm? -heqeyi birlikte yapanz. bazi geyleri birlikte yapanz. -çok az geyi biriikte yapanz. birlikte hiçbir Sey yapmaylz 20. Bqzamdarmzda genelde ne yapmayi tercih edersiniz? devamh biqeyler yapmayS biqeylerle ufjraqmayi tercih ederim. -evde oturmayi tercih ederim. 21. Genelde qiniz ne yapmayi tercih der? -devamh biqeyler yapmafi biqeylerle Ugrasmayi tercih der. -evde oturmayi tercih eder. 22. Hiç "kegke evlenmeseydim" dedimolur mu? sikslk arasira nadiren hiç 23. Tekrar diinyaya gelseydiniz: aym biyle evlenirdim. bqka birisiyle evlenirdim. hiç evlenmezdim. 24. Qinize @venir misiniz? hemen hemen hiç nadiren ço@ konuda her konuda L~NKANADA'DM YASAMLNIZI. ASILLI OLMAYAN KANADmlLAOLAN ~$KkE~DÜ'S-. EGER TECR~SBE~ OLDWSA, ASAGIDAKI DURUMLARIN Sm 1- NE KADAR KOLAY VEYA ZOR OLDUCUNUVE~EN C)LW€E GC)RE BEL-:

hiç tecrllbem çok emin çok oh& mr mr zorca degilim kolayca kolay kolay O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 biç tecrûbem çok emin Wk olmadi mr zor zorca degilim kolayca kolay kolay

2. Biiyük bir süpermarkette alqvee O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 etmek. 3. Restoran veya kafekre gitmek. O 12 3 4 5 6 7 4. Yeni iasanlarla tanqnnlmak. O 12 3 4 5 6 7 5. Pek iyi tanimadiguuZ insanlarla O 12 3 4 5 6 7 birarada olmsiL.

7. Nad davranilmasi gerektigini bilmek O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (mil selam verilmesi, nasd Wilik veriimesi gerektigi gibi). 8. hadan iyi tiuiunak. O 12 3 4 5 6 7 9. Bir sohbet sirasinda kendiniz ve O 12 3 4 5 6 7 duygulanniz -da konqmak 10. hadamne demek istediklerini O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 çikarmak.

1 1. Resmi bir toplantrya katilmak. O 12 3 4 5 6 7 12. hadamiçinde ~ikayette O 12 3 4 5 6 7 buiunmak - Bmew bir diikkanda, dolanduildi~veya y- bilgi verildigini d@iindiigUniiz man. çok emm çok zor zor mrca degih kolayca kolay kolay 13. Bir doktora gOr[lnmek. O 14. Bir gmp iasanin 6nhde kontqma O yapmak 15. Kt&& bir gmbm liden olmak. O 16. Sizden daha üst seviyede olan O insanlarla temas kurmak. 17. Ken-dena.. farkh bir O kiiltiirden birçok insanui bulundugU sosyal bir toplantiya katilmak. 1 8. Yapdan saka, alay ve mizahi O aniamak. 19. Aile, akraba veya arkakqlar için O kararlar vermek veya planlar yapmk

2 1. Ozel walar satm almak O (ilaç, kitap, elektrikli vagibi). 22.0ned konular hakiunda ken@ O (politika, din gibi). 23. Bqka indananlayabihek O (kendini bir bqkasinui yerine koymak, onun nasd d@ündügiUiii, hisseteigini anlamak gibi). nadifen veya az bir hiçbkzamau mnan 1. Hayatunla ilgili hiçbir gey yapacak 1 2 giicii kendimde bulamyonrm.

3. Yerimde duramyor sakin olamryorum. 1 2

5. Gerpiniigimi kolayca atip rahatlayabiliyonun. 6. Yapmarn gereken @lembqlamakta 1 2 zorlamyonrm 7. Geceleri domdürüst uyumuyorum. 1 2 8. &ler yolunda gitmeyince, her zaman 1 2 yardun isteyebilecegim birilerinin 01dugUnu hissediyonun.

13. Faai ve dolu olmaktan zevk aliyom. 1 2 3 4 5 nadiren veya az bu baa hemen hemen hiçbir nman zaman zamaniar ço@nlukla herman 14. haniam yasamlannin ben olmasam 1 2 3 4 5 daha iyi 01- hissediyonmi. 15. hsadarla birarada ohaktan zevk 1 2 *onun. 16. EGuarlar vermenin benim için kolay 1 2 oldu@nu hissediyonm

19. Keyfim kolayca kaçar. 1 2

23. Çok egenceli bir hayatrm var. 1 -7 24. Sabahlan kenduni çok iyi hissederim. 1 2 L- L- ASAGIDAICI ~ADELERENE DERECE KATILIP KATILMADI GINIZI G~REBE--

1. Hayatlm çogU y6nden idealim- dekine yakm. 2.1çinde bulundugUm sarila- miikernmel. 3. Hayatmdan memnunuxn. 4. Bugiine kadar ha- bekledigim 6nemli seylen elde eh. 5. Hayatmu yeniden yapyabilseydim, hemen hemen hiçbir qeyi de&timezdim. Bolitm 17(c) ASAGIDAICI SAGLIK~A LG~SORULARA CEVAP OLARAK L~NEVET

1. Kalbinizde veya g~sfsntbdea@~ olur mu? Evet Hayv 2. Yemekierden soma çok ge@r misiniz? Evet Hayv 3. Sürekli olarak agm kabizlik çeker misiniz? Evet Hayx 4. Kaslaam ve eklemleriniz sürekli olarak tutulm mu? Evet Hayu 5. Cildiniz çok hassas midu? Evet Haylr - 6. Sik sik ~iddetliba@~~i çeker mise? Evet Hayv - 7. Slk sik qiddetli bqd6nmeIeriniz olur mu? Evet H~P- Evet Hayv 9. S@liguuZ konusunda çok enaelenerek kendinizi Evet Hayv ylpratlr misirilz? 10. Uykuya dalmak veya deIiksiz uyku uyumakta geneilikie Evet Hayu- zorluk çeker misiniz? 1 1. Tmdrk oimayan insaniar veya yerler ski iirkiitür mü? Evet Hayir -

12. Yammzda her ;ramiui size nasihat verecek bVinin Evet Haylr ohas111l anu eder misiniz? 13. Kendinizi genelde mutsuz ve bunalimda hisseder misiniz? Evet Hayir - 14.61~heqeyden uzak olmayi slk sik ister misiniz? Evet Haylr -

15. Enc&elenmek sürekli olarak moralinin bozar mi? Evet H~F .- 16. A~Iutangaç veya hassas mtsuuz? Evet Hayu 17. Herhangi birinin size ne yapmamz gerektim soyiemesi Evet Haylr sizi sinulendirir mi? 18. hsadar slk sik sipn canilllp shrveya Evet Hayu sinirlendirirler mi? 19. Sik sik titrediginiz veya ürperdiginiz olur mu? Evet Hayx 20. Sik nk soguk ter d6kmgtlnüz olur mu? Evet Hayx 1. Sakinim. 2. Kendimi emniyette hissediyorum. 3. Sinirlerim gergin. 4. P@manlikduygusu içindeyim. 5. Huzur içindeyim. 6. Hiç keyfim yok. 7. Bqima geleceklerden en@e ediyonun. 8. Kendimi dinleehissediyorum. 9- KaygiÙyrm- 10. Kendimi rahat hissediyonim. 1 1. Kendime güvenim var. 12. Asabxm bozuk. 13. Çok siniriiyim. 14. Sinirlerimlli çok gergin oldumu hissediyonun. 1 5. Kendimi rahatlamq hissediyonun. 16. Halimden mernnunum. 17. Eneeliyim. 18. Heyecandan kendimi saslana donmi@hissediyom. 1 2 19. Sevinçliyim. 1 2 20. Keyhyerinde. 1 2 Genel olarak, Kanadaya gilçmenizle ilgili ne hissediyorsunuz? "binp~rnm" "ne iyi ewimde gewim" 1 2 3 4 5 E@niz sizce bu konuda ne diyor? "bin pipmmm" "ne iyi ewimde gek@imw 1 2 3 4 5 EngiliSh Version of the Ouestionmire #L-- The following questions wïli inquire about yourself, your relations with non-Tinkish Canadians, and your life in Canada in gend. You WUbe asked to give your personal opinions on different issues. There are no nght or wrong itllswers to any of the questions or statements. The best answer is your personal opinion. Your responses will be kept confidentid. Please read each item carefidly and respond in a way that reflects your own views.

There are no time limits; you are free to â11SWer the questionnaire at your own speed. 1 request that you mer items without omitting any, and not go back at any time to change any responses. Please meron your own, as 1 am interested in your own personal opinions alone. Part 1. Demo~~hic~ac~undInformation PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT YOURSELF: 1. Age: 2. Sex: 1. Male 2. Female 3. Place of birth (indicate name): -1. City: -2. Town: -3. Village: 4. How long have you been in Canada? years 5. Where was your last place of residence in Turkey before you came to Canada? (indicaie name): -1. City: -2. Town: -3. Village: 6. What is your present status in Canada? -1. Cdancitizen -2. Landed immigrant 7. What is your tevel of education? -1. Literate -2. Elementary -3. Junior High -4. High -5. VocationaÿTechnicai -6. Coiiege -7. Bachelor's -8. Graduate 8. How long have you been marrïed to your spouse? years 9. How many children do you have?

What is your culture of origin? -1. British (English, Scottish, or Irish) 2. French -3. British-French 4. ûther -> Please specify

For how many generations has your family been living in Canada? (for example; yourself + parents + grandparents = 3 generations) 1.3 generations -2-44 generations -3.7-1 O generations Part 2. Languaee Proficiencv

PLEASE ANSWER TBE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ON YOUR USE OF ENGLISH AND TURKlSH BY CIRCLING THE PROPER RESPONSE.

not not some fairly VerY How well do you at ail very weil what well weil 1. understand English? 1 2 3 4 5 2. speak English? 1 2 3 4 5 3. read English? 1 2 3 4 5 4. write English? 1 2 3 4 5

How sufncient is your English to handle the follovring situations? not sufficient sufficient not some fairiy (1 have sufncient what sufficient no problem) S. In the shops 2 3 4 5 6. With Cansrdian fnends, 2 3 4 5 neighbors, acqwüntances 7. With a doctor or an officia1 l'-son

to a almost a certain a au &Y little extent lot long In your daily Me, how much 8. English do you speak ? 9. Turkish do you speak ? Part 3. Social Su~port (Turks, Turkisb immigrants, Eiiro-Canadisas)

PLEASE ANSWER TEE FOLLOWING:

1. Do you have any fiends, acquaintances, or relatives, excluding your spouse, with whom you wuld share your inner feelings and thoughts? none 1-2 (proceed to #9) people some 1 2 3

not at ail 2. How rnuch do you trust him/ 3 herhhem? 3 - How important is your well-being 3 to them? 4. How much does she (do they) Men 3 to you when you need to tak about your problems? 5. How much does dhe (do they) codort 3 you when you need it? 6. How much does s/he (do they) care 3 about you? 7. How supportive is dhe (are they) in 3 general? 8. How happy are you with the support 3 you receive?

some 9. Do you have anyone (excluding your 3 spouse) whom you cm turn to when you are in need (financial, informational, or hm most not time of the at ail rarely to time fkquently tirne 10. How often do you participate in the 1 2 3 4 5 social activities of Turkish clubs, associations, or organizations? 1 1. How often do you participate in the 1 2 3 4 5 social activities of Canadian clubs, associations, or organïzations? Part 4. Acfiial Contact (Tarkish immig.nts)

FOR ALL TBE QUESTIONS IN TEIE QUESTIONNAIRE, 'CANADIAN" REFERS TO A CANADIAN OF NON-TURKBH AND OF EUROPEAN DESCENT, BORN AM) RAISED IN CANADA, WHOSE FAMILY HAS LIVED IN CANADA FOR GENERATIONS AND WHOSE MOTHER TONGUE IS EmRENGLISH OR FRENCH. fiom most not time of the at ail rarely to the fiequently time 1. How often do you spend time 1 2 3 4 5 with Cdans?(visiting, dining out, going to a theater, etc.) 2. When you have a problem, do you 1 2 3 4 5 go to a Cdanfiriend? very 1-2 some many -Y 3. How many Canadian fiiends I 2 3 4 5 do you bave? not close not ve=Y at ail close unc ertain close close 4. How close are you to your best 1 2 3 4 5 Canadian acqiiaintance?

Part 5. Accuituration Behavior (Turkish immigrants) fiom most not time of the 5. How often do you spend time at ali rarely to tune fiequently time with Turks? (visiting, 1 2 3 4 5 dining out, going to a theater, etc.) 6. Who are your close fiiends? no close fiends all mostiy mostiy none at al1 Turkish Turkish quai non-Turkish Turkish O 1 2 3 4 5

7. If not Tinkish, what are their origins? 8. Which holidays do you celebrate in Cauada?

O~Y mody mostiy O~Y 110 Turkish Turkish Cdan Canadian holi&ys holidays holidays equal holidays holidays 5

9. Which newspapers do you rad? (including electronic news)

O~Y mostiy mostiy O~Y no Turkish Tmkish Canadian Canadian newspapers newspapers newspapers equai newspapers newspapers 4

10. What kind of food do you eat at home?

O~Y mostiy mostiy O~Y no Turkish Turkish Canadian Canadian idea food food eqd food food 4 5

1 1. What kind of music do you listen to?

mostly O~Y O~Y mody North American North American no Turkish Turkish Western /Western music music music eqd music Part 6. Ethnie Identitv (Turkish ïmm@mtp)

12. People identify themselves with different groups. How do you think of yourself? Rimarily as: -1. Turkish -2. Turkish-Cdan

(Turks, Turkish immigrants, Euro-Canadi~ns)

13. Are you gainfully employed at present? - 1. Fuli-the > (proceed to # 1 5) -2. Part-thne - > (pro& to # 15) - 3. Not employed

14. if not emoloved: Why are you not employed? (after you answer, proceed to # 1 6) - 1. On sick lave or disability -2. Cannot find a job - 3. Student - 4. Retired - 5. Housewife -6. No need; husband doesnt want - 7. Other --s Specify

15. If emvloved: What do you do for a living? (describe in few words): 16. What is your average annual income? (your personal income only) - 1. O -2. less than $20,000 -3. $20,000 - $30,000 -4. $30,000 - $40,000 -5. $40,000 - $50,000 -6. more than $50,000

fart 8. Remous Attachent (Turkuh immigrants)

17. Do you fast? 1. Yes 2. No

18. How often do you pray? -1. not at al1 -2. rarely -3. Friday prayers adorduring Ramadan, Kandils, holidays -4. five times a dayfquite regulariy

19. How ofien do you go to the mosque? -1. not at all -2. rarely -3. for Friday prayers andor during Ramadan, Kandils, hoiidays -4. more than once a week Part 9. Hardiness (Turks, Tnrkish immigrants, Euro-Canadians)

BELOW ARE STA'IEMENTS ABOUT LIFE TEAT PEOPLE OTi1*EN FEEL DIFFEXENTLY ABOUT. CIRCLE A NUMBER TO SHOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH ONE. =AD THE ITEMS CAREFULLY, AND INDICATE HOW MUCH YOU TEINK EACH ONE IS TRUE IN GENERAL.

not at al1 true true true 1. Most of my life gets spent doing things that are 2 4 worthwhile. 2. Planning ahead can help avoid most future problems. 2 4 3. No matter how hard 1tq, my efforts dy 2 4 accomplish nothing. 4. I don't like to make changes in my everyday schedule. 2 4 5. The 'Yried and true" ways are always best. 2 4 6. Working hard doesn't matter, since only the bosses 2 4 profit by it. 7. By working hard you can always achieve your goals. 2 4 8. Most of what happeas in life is just meant to be. 2 4 9. When 1make plans, I'm certain 1 can make thern 2 4 work. 10. It's exciting to leam something about myself. 2 4 11.1 reaily look forward to my work 2 4 12. If I'm working on a difficult task, 1 know when 2 4 to seek help. 13. I won't mera question until I'm reaüy sure 2 4 1 understand it. 14.1 like a lot of variety in my work. 2 4 15. Most of the tirne, people listen carefiilly to 2 4 what 1 Say. not at al1 true true true true 16. Thinking of yourself as a fke person just leads 1 2 3 4 to fivstration. 17. Trying your best at work really pays off in the end. 1 2 3 4 18. My mistalces are usually vexy difficuit to correct. 1 2 3 4 19. It bothers me when my daily routine gets 1 2 3 4 intempted. 20. Most good athletes and leaders are bom, not made. 1 2 3 4 21.1 oRen wake up eager to take up my Life wherever 1 2 3 4 it Ieft off. 22. Lots of times, I don't really know my own mind. 1 2 3 4 23.1 respect desbecause they guide me. 1 2 3 4 24.1 iike it when things are uncertain or unpredictable. 1 2 3 4 25.1 can't do much to prevent it if someone wants to 1 2 3 4 harm me. 26. Changes in routine are interesthg to me. 1 2 3 4 27. Most days, Me is really interesthg and exciting 1 2 3 4 for me. 28. It's hard to imagine anyone getting excited about 1 2 3 4 working . 29. What happens to me tomorrow depends on what 1 2 3 4 1do today. 30. ûrdinary work is just too boring to be worth doing. 1 2 3 4 Part 10. Cultural Distance (Turkish immigrants)

IN YOUR LIFE IN CANADA, YOU HAVIE PROBABLY NOTICED SOME SIMILARITIES AND DWFXERENCES BETUrEEN THE TURKISH AND THE CANADIAN CULTURES. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR OPINION ON HOW SIMILAR OR DLFFERENT EACH OF TETE FOLLOWING IS LN CANADA COMPARED TO THAT IN TURKEY. WHEN MAKING COMPARISONS, THINK OF TBE TURKIEY THAT YOU LM3D IN AND YOUR OWN LLFE AND

v==Y very similar similar uncertain different different 1. The climate 1 2 3 4 5 2. People's clothing 1 2 3 4 5 3. The education level of people 1 2 3 4 5 in general 4. The opportunities available for 1 2 3 4 5 child&n7s education ïhe food 1 2 3 4 5 ïhe variety on certain bdsof 1 2 3 4 5 goods (food, medicine, etc.) nie role of religion in people's 1 2 3 4 5 daily He ïhe standard of living 1 2 3 4 5 The arnount of leisure time people 1 2 3 4 5 get to enjoy 10. The sort of leisure activities 1 2 3 4 5 1 1. The way people greet each other 1 2 3 4 5 12. Availability of sources and 1 2 3 4 5 assistance for the elderly and the disabled in society 13. Petsonal rights and fixedoms 1 2 14. Age of rnarriage 1 2 15. Couples' tendency to divorce 16, Premarital male-fernale relations 17. Visiting pattems among people (fkquency of visits, informing host in advance, etc.) 18. Interpersonal relations 19. Friendships 20. Family structure (who rnakes up the family?) 2 1. Parent-child relations 22. The way children are raid 23. Relations with close relatives 24. Respect for the elderly within the family 25. Man's role in the family 26. Woman's role in the family 27. Spousal relations Part Il(a). Accuituration Attitudes of TorkiPh Immkmnts

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS REmR TO TMC VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN HANIDLE DIFF'ERENT ASPECTS OF YOUR LIFE IN CANADA. SOME STATEMENTS ARE ABOUT TURKlSH WAY, OTaERS REFER TO TECE CANADIAN WAY; WHILE SOME ARE RELATED TO BOTA THE TURICISE AND TEE CANADIAN CULTURES, OTEERS ACCEPT NEITHER PLEASE TELL MIE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCES ON TEESE ISSUES. FOR TBE STATEMENTS ABOUT CHILDREN, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHILD, THINK OF WHAT YOUR PREPERENCE WOULD BE IF YOU HAD ONE. AS ALWAYS, "CANADIAN" REFERS TO A CANADIAN OF NON- TURKlSH BUT OF EUROPEAN DESCENT, BORN AND RAISED IN CANADA, WHOSE FAMILY RESIDED IN CANADA FOR GENEXATIONS AND WHOSE MOTHER TONGUE IS El'rllER ENGLISH OR mNCH.

neither S-trond~ agree nor disagree disagree disagree 1.1 prefer to celebrate Canadian 1 2 3 holidays more than Turkish holidays. 2.1 prefer to socialize with Cdw 1 2 3 more than with Turks. 3.1 prefer to celebrate both Canadian 1 2 3 and Turkish holidays. 4.1 prefer to socialize with Turks 1 2 3 more than with Cdans. 5. Holidays don't mean anythmg to me. 1 2 3 6.1 prefer to socialize with both 1 2 3 Canzidians and Turks. 7.1 prefer to celebrate Turkish 1 2 3 holidays more than Canadian holidays. 8.1 don? really care who 1 socialize 1 2 3 with. neither S~I'(W~~Y agree nor disagree disagree disagree 9. I wouid like my chüdren to be raised in both the Canadian and the Turkish ways. 10.1 prefer to eat Canadian food more than Turkish food at home. 1 1.1 prefer to have Cdan decorations more than Turkish decorations in my home. 12.1 prefer to have Turkish close fnends more than Canadian close fiendS. 1 3.1 dont really care what khd of food 1 eat at home. 14. I would like my children to be raised more in the Canadian way tban in the Turkish way. 15.1 would say that 1 Like to live both like a Turk and like a Canadian. 16.1 don't really care what kinds of newspapers 1 read. 17.1 prefer to have both Canadian and Turkish close fnends. 18. Most of the time 1 dont care which way 1 live. 19.1 wouid like my children to ieam Turkish values and customs more than Canadian values and customs. 20.1 prefer to speak English more than Turkish at home. 2 1.1 prefer to read Turkish newspapers more than Canadian newspapers. 22.1 prefer to have Turkish decoratiom more thm Canadian decorations in my home. 23.1 don't really care whether my children leam any values or cusfoms. 24.1 would say that 1 like to live more like a Turk than like a Canadian. 25.1 prefer to read Canadian newspapers more than Turkish newspapers. 26.1 prefer to eat both Canadian and Turkish food at home. 27.1 dont worry about something as trivial as decoration. 28.1 prefer to speak both English and Turkish at home. 29.1 expect my children to live with me until they get marrîed. 30.1 would like my children to leam Canadian values and customs more than Turkish values and customs. 3 1.1 prefer to eat Turkish food more than Canadian food at home. 32.1 prefer to read both Cdanand Twkish newspapers. 33.1 don't really care how my children are raised. 34.1 would say that 1 Lice to live more like a Canadian than like a Turk. 35.1 expect my children to live on their own as soon as thev feel ready. 36.1 would like my children to leam I both Turkish and Canadian values and customs. 37.1 dont really care who rny close 1 fiends are. 38.1 prefer to speak Turkish more than 1 English at home. 39. I prefer to have both Canadian and 1 Turkish decorations in my home. 40. Most of the the1 don? care how 1 1 put my feelings and thoughts into words. 41.1 hdit better for my children to 1 live with me until they get married, but I would respect their decision if they want to leave. 42. I prefer to have Canadian close 1 fiiends more than Turkish close fiiends. 43.1 would like my children to be raised 1 more in the Turkish way thau in the Canadian way. 44. I dont really care whether my 1 children iive with me until they get rnarried. Part 1l(b). Acculturation Attitudes of Euro-Canadians

TBE FOLLOWING STA'IEMEIYTS REFER TO VARIOUS WAYS IN mmFIRST GENERATION IMMIGRAiYTS cm HANDLE DIFIFIEIRIENT ASPECTS OF THEIR LIVES IN CANADA. SOME STATEMENTS ARE ABOUT THE WAY OF IMMIGRANTS' OWN CULTURE, OTHERS REFER TO THE CANADIAN WAY; WHILE SOME ARE RELATED TO BOTH CULTURES, OmRSACCEPT NEITEER 1 WOULD LIKE YOU TO GIVE YOUR OPINION ON THESE ALTERNATIVES IMMIGRANTS HAVE WHKE LIVING IN CANADA. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY, ''CANADIAN" IS DEFINED AS A NON-IMMIGRANT OF EUROPEAN DESCENT WHO HAS BEEN LIVING IN CANADA FOR MORE THAN 2 GENERATIONS. neither

disagke disagree IN MY OPINION, IT'S BETTER IF IMMIGRANTS PREFER:

1. To celebrate mainly Caoadian holidays. 2. To socialize mostiy with Canadians. 1 2 3. To celebrate both Canadian and 1 2 their own cultural holidays. 4. To socialize mostly with those of 1 2 the same cultural background. 5. Not to care about holidays. 1 2 6. To socialize with both Canadians 1 2 and those of the same cuiturai background. 7. To celebrate mainly their own 1 2 cultural holidays. 8. Not to care who they socialize with. 1 2 9. To raise their chilien both 1 2 in the Canadian and in their own cuiturai way. 10. To eat mostly Cdanfood 1 2 at home. neither agree nor

IN MY OPINION, IT'S BETI7EIR ïF IMMIGRANTS PREFER:

1 1. To decorate their homes mostiy with Canadian omaments. 12. To have close fiiends mostly fiom their own cultural group. f 3. Not to care what kind of food they eat at home. 14. To raise their children mainly in the Canadian way. 15. To live both in the Canadian and in theu own cultural way. 16. Not to care what kinds of newspapers they read. 17. To have close fiends both fiom Cananians and fiom their own cuitutal gmup. 18. Not to care which way they live. 19. That their children leam dy their own cultural values and CUStOmS* 20. To speak mostiy English at home. 2 1. To read mostly ethnic newspapers. 22. To decorate their homes mostiy with ornaments fkom their own culture. 23. Not to care whether their children leam any values or customs. 24. To Iive mostiy in their own cuittual way. 25. To read mostly Canadian newspapers. IN MY OPINION, IT'S BE'ITER IF IMMIGRANTS PREFER: 26. To eat both Cdanand their own cultural food at home. 27. Not to worry about something as trivial as decoration. 28. To speak both English and theU own mother tongue at home. 29. That their children live with them until they get ded. 30. That their cbildren leam mainly Canadian values and custorns. 3 1. To eat rnostiy their own cultural food at home. 32. To read both Cdanand ethnic newspapers. 33. Not to care how their children are raised. 34. To live mostiy in the Canadian way. 35-That their children live on their own as soon as they feel ready. 36. That their cwdren lem both Canadian and their own cultural values and customs. 37. Not to care who their close Eriends are. 38. To speak mostiy their own mother tongue at home. 39. To decoraie their homes with both Cansidian oniaments and omaments hmtheir own culture. 40. Not to care how they put their feelin~and thoughts into words. neither -0apiy agree nor stron@y disagree disagree disagree agree agree IN MY OPMION, IT'S BETFER IF IMMIGRANTS PREmR:

41. That their children Iive with 1 2 them until they get marriecl, yet respect their chüdren's decision if they wmt to leave. 42. To have mostiy Canadian close 1 2 fiendS. 43. To raise their chiidren maidy 1 2 in the way of their own culture. 44. Not to care whether their children 1 2 live with them until they get marrieci. Part 12. Desired Contact (Turkish bmigmnts) PLEASE COMMENT ON FOLLOPYING: hm most not time of the at al1 rarely to the fkequently time 1.1 wodd Like to spend time with 1 2 3 5 Canadians (visiting, dining out, going to a theater, etc*). 2.1 would like to participate in the 1 2 3 5 social activities of Canadian organkzations, associations, or clubs. 3. If 1 had a problem, 1 would prefer I 2 3 5 to go to a Canadian fkiend. somewhat very true true 4.1 wodd like to have many 1 2 3 5 Canadian friends. 5.1 wodci like to be dose fkiends 1 2 3 5 with a Canadian. Part 13. Perceived Discrimination

LISTED BELOW ARE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS DESCRIBING PERSONAL CHARACTERISTKS. PLEASE RATE TEE EXTENT TO WEüCH YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENTS BELOW. RESPOND TO EACH STATEMENT BY USING THE FOLLOWHVG SCALE: neither -nd~ disagree agree nor agree =O@Y disagree disigree somewhat disagree somewhat agree Wee

nei ther -0nd~ agree nor strongly disagree disagree We 1.1 feel that 1 have to change myself 1234567 to fit in, in Canada 2.1 try not to show the parts of me 1234567 that are distinctly Turkish. 3.1 often feel 1 have to change 1234567 my pemnality or behaviour depending on the ethnicity of the person 1 am with. 4.1 feel that my ethnicity is incompatible with the new people 1 am meeting, and the new things 1 am Iearning. 5.1 can't reaily talk to my non-Turkish 1234567 Canadian fiiends at work or in the neighborhood about my family or my culture. 6.1 can't really ta& to my family about 1234567 my non-Turkish Canadian fiends at work or in the neighborhood. 7. Often 1 feel 1 am not wanted in 1234567 Canadian society. neither mn@~ disagree agree nor agree W~@Y disagree disagree somewhat disagree somewhat %ree agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

neither agree nor disagree 8.1 never feel dismissed by non-Turkisti 1 Canadians. 9. I sometimes feel discriminated against 1 because 1 am of Turkish origin. 10.1 always feel welcome in Canadian 1 society. 1 1.1 never really feel completely 1 accepted by non-Turkish Canadians. 12. I sometimes feel non-Turkish 1 Canadians have sornething agaiost me. 13.1 sometimes feel uncornfortable by 1 the way non-Turkish Canadians look at me. 14.1 don't think non-Turkish Canadians 1 make fun of us (Turks) behind our backs. 15.1 sometimes feel I get singled out 1 because 1 am of Turkish ongin. 16. Non-Turkish Cdansofien rnake 1 me feel iderior. 17. I don't feel 1 get treated differently 1 by non-Turkish Cdansbecause of my ethnicity. 18.1 ofien find it unpleasant being 1 of Turkish origin in Canada. Part 14. Marital Stressors (Turks, Turkish immigmnts, Euro-Canadians)

FOR TEIE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS PLEASE THINK ABOUT YOUR RELATIONS WITH YOUR SPOUSE. PLEASE INDICATE HOW MUCH YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT BY CIRCLING YOUR RESPONSE. neither agree nor strongl~ di- disagree wee agree 1. My spouse insisis on having hidher own way. 2. My spouse usually expects more hmme than what she gives back. 3.Myspousedlyactsasif dhe were the only important person in the family. 4. Genedy, 1 give in more to my spouse's wishes than dhe gives in to mine. 5. My spouse is affectionate towards me. 6. My spouse spends money wisely. 7. I appreciate the job my spouse does as a breadwinner ador a housekeeper. 8. My spouse is a good sexual partner. 9. My spouse appreciates the job 1 do as a breadwinner andfor a housekeeper. 10. My spouse brings out the best in me. 1 1. My spouse appreciates me iust as 1 am. neither agree nor disag~e 12. My marriage doesn't give me 3 enough opportun.hy to become the sort of person I'd like to be. 1 3.1 cannot completely be myself aromd my spouse. 14.1 can redy talk with my spouseaboutthuigs that are important to me. 15.1 can tum to my spouse when 1 am in need (financial, informational, or practical). 16.1 can rely on my spouse to help me with the problems within the family. 17. My spouse is very good at understanding my problems. 1 S. My spouse is very supportive in general. 19.1 wmmunicate well with my children. 20. My cbildren usually upset me. 21. My children expect more fiom me tkum 1 can hande. 22.1 am happy with my children. 23. My spouse is a good mothedfather . 24. Do you have a disagreement over your srnuse's drinkine? 1. Yes 2, No Part 15. Maritai Ada~taüon (Turks, Tu&h immigrants, Euro-Canadians)

1. Check the dot on the sale fine below which best describes the degree of happiness, everything considered, of your present marriage. The middle point, "happy", represents the degree of happiness which most people get nom &age, and the scale gradualiy ranges on one side to those few who are very imhappy in marriage, and on the other, to those few who experience extreme joy or felicity in marriage.

STATE TEU3 APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR MATE ON TEE FOLLOWING ITEMS. PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE.

almost almost always hys fiequently always always agtee disagree disagree disagree 2. Handling family 1 2 4 5 6 finsuices 3. Matters of 1 2 4 5 6 recreation 4. Demonstration 1 2 4 5 6 of affection 5. Friends I 2 4 5 6 6. Sex relations 1 2 4 5 6 7. Conventionality (@& go04 or 1 2 4 5 6 proper conduct) 8. Philosophy of 1 2 4 5 6 life 9. Ways of deaiing 1 2 4 5 6 with in-laws 10. Religious matters 1 2 4 5 6 1 1. Making major 1 2 4 5 6 decisions almost almost always always occasionally fkquently always always agree agm disagree disagree disagree disagree 12. Household tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Time spent 1 2 3 4 5 6 together (IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN, PLEASE ANSWER #14 TO #17, IF NOT, PROCEED TO #18. SKI.THOSE ITEMS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO YOU)

almost almost always always occasionally fiequently always always agree agree disagree disagree disagree disagree

16. Chiidren's career 1 2 3 4 5 6 choice 17. Childrenls choice 1 2 3 4 5 6 of spouse 18. When disagreements arise, they usually resdt in: -husband giving in -wife giving in -agreement by muhial give and take 19. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? -ail of them -some of them -very few of them -none of them 20. in leisure tirne, do you generdly prefer: -to be "on the go" -to stay at home 2 1. Does your mate generaily prefer: -to be "on the go" -to stay at home 22. Do you ever wish you had not marrieci? -nesuenfly -occasiody -rarely -never 23. Ifyou had your Meto live over, do you think you would: -marry the same person -many a different person -not marry at all 24. Do you confide in your mak? -ahost never _ =IY -in most thuigs -in everything Part 16. Sociocultursl Ada~tation (Turks, TuWh immigrants, Euro-Canadians)

PLEASE TEUN'K ABOUT YOUR DAILY LIFE IN CANADA, YOUR RELATIONS WITE NON-TURKISH CANADIANS. IlYDlCATE ACCORDING TO TBE SCALE BELOW HOW EASY OR DIFFICULT, IF EXPERLENCIED AT ALL, IT IS FOR YOU TO DEAL WITlCI EACH OF THE FOLLOWING:

never VerY somewhat somewhat VerY experienced di£ficult ciifficuit difficult uncertain easy eaSy eaSy

some some never very what what VerY experienced diff. dE M. uncertain easy easy easy

2. Shopping in a large O 123 4 5 6 7 supermarket.

4. Being introduced to new people. O 123 4 5 6 7 5. Being with people that you O 123 4 5 6 7 dont know very well. 6. Approaching others - making O 123 4 5 6 7 the first move in stamng up a fiîendship. 7. Knowing the proper way of O 123 4 5 6 7 conduct (Nehow to greet, how to respond). 8. Getting to know people weii. O 123 4 5 6 7 9. Tallcing about yomeif and O 123 4 5 6 7 your feelings in a conversation. 10. Figuring out what people O 123 4 5 6 7 mean. 11. Attending a formai meeting. O 123 4 5 6 7 some some never vexy what what VerY expenenced m. diK diff. uncertain easy easy easy 12. Complaining in public, for O 12 3 4 5 6 7 example, at a shop where you think you have been cheated or misidonned. 13. Seeing a doctor. O 123 4 5 6 7 14. Giving a speech in hntof O 123 4 5 6 7 a group of people. 15. Being the leader of a smd O 123 4 5 6 7 WUP* 16. Dealing with people of O 123 4 5 6 7 higher statu than you. 17. Taking part in a social O 123 4 5 6 7 occasion where there are many people of another cultural group to yourself. 18. Understanding jokes, humour O 123 4 5 6 7 and sarcasm. 19. Making decisions or plans for O 123 4 5 6 7 fdy,relatives, or fiiends. 20. Dealing with somebody who O 123 4 5 6 7 is angry and aggressive. 2 1. Buying special go& O 123 4 5 6 7 (iike medicine, books, electid goods). 22. Talking about serious matters O 123 4 5 6 7 (like politics, religion). 23. Relating to other people O 123 4 5 6 7 (like putting oneself into another's shoes, understanding how s/he thinks, feels) Part 17. Psvcholoeical Adantation Sdes (Turks, Turkish immigrants, Eud8tladirns)

FOR THESE LAST 4 SECTIONS THINK ABOUT HOW YOU EAVE BEEN FEELING ABOUT YOURSELF DURING THE PAST Ii'EW WEEKS AND ANS'WER ACCORDINGLY. DO NOT SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON AMONE STATEMENT BUT GIVE THE ANSWR WCE SEEMS TO DESCRIBE YOUR mELINGS BEST.

Part 17(a). De~ression

THE FOLLOWING SET OF ITEMS WILL MEASURE THE DEGREE OF CONTENTMENT THAT YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR LIFE AND SURROUNDINGS. PLEASE CHOOSE THE ONE TEAT DESCRIBES YOU BEST. ~IY most or none a little some good part or al1 ofthe of the of the of the of the time time time time time 1.1 feel powerless to do anything 3 4 5 about my Me. 2.1 feel blue. 3 4 5 3. 1 am restless and cm't keep still. 3 4 5 4. I have crying spells. 3 4 5 5. It is easy for me to relax. 3 4 5 6.1 have a hard time getting 3 4 5 starteci on things that 1 need to do. 7.1 do not sleep weil at ni& 3 4 5 S. When &Jiingsget tough, I feel 3 4 5 there is always someone 1can nun to. 9.1feel that the future look 3 4 5 bright for me. 1O. 1feel downbearted. 3 4 5 11.1 feel that 1 am needed. 3 4 5 286 most some gdpart or al1 of the of the of the of the of the time time time time time 12.1 feel that 1 am appreciated 1 2 3 4 5 by others. 13.1 enjoy being active and busy. 1 2 3 4 5 14.1 feel that others would be 1 2 3 4 5 better off without me. 15.1 enjoy being with other 1 2 3 4 5 people. 16.1 feel it is easy for me to 1 2 3 4 5 make decisions. 17.1 feel downtrodden. 1 2 3 4 5 18.1 am uriîable. 1 2 3 4 5 19.1 get upset easily. 1 2 3 4 5 20.1 feel that 1 don? deserve to 1 2 3 4 5 have a good time. 21.1 have a fui1 Me. 1 2 3 4 5 22.1 feel that people really 1 2 3 4 5 care about me. 23. I have a great deal of fun. 1 2 3 4 5 24. I feel great in the moming. 1 2 3 4 5 25.1 feel that my sihmtion is I 2 3 4 5 hopeless. Part 17(b). Satisfaction with LZe

PLEASE INDICATE YOUR DEGmE OF AGREEMENT WITH ACCORDING TO TBE SCALE BELOW.

neither strond~ slightly agree nor slightly -o~&$Y dsagree disagree disagree disagree agree agree agree

*ongiy disagree 1. In most ways my Meis close 1 2 3 to my ideal. 2. The conditions of my life are 1 2 3 excellent. 3.1 am satisfied with my Me. 1 2 3 4. So far 1 have gotten the 1 2 3 important things 1 want in life. 5. if I could live my life over, 1 2 3 I would change almost nothing. Part 17(c). Stress

ON THE FOLLOWING LIST OF HEALTH-RELATED QUESTIONS, PLEASE ANSWR YES OR NO:

1. Do you have pains in the heart or chest? 2. Do you usuaily belch a lot after eating? 3. Do you constantly sufTer fkorn bad constipation? Yes 4. Do your muscles and joints constantly feel stin! y=- 5.1s your skin very sensitive or tender? Yes 6. Do you suffer bady from muent severe headaches? Yes 7. Do you ofien have spells of severe dizziness? Yes 8. Do you usually get up tired and exhausted in the morning? Yes- 9. Do you Wear yourself out worrying about your health? Yes 10. Do you dyhave great dBculty in fahgasleep or Yes staying asleep? 1 1. Do strange people or places make you Md? Yes 12. Do you wish you always have someone at your side to yes_ advise you? 13. Do you usually feel unhappy and depressed? Yes 14. Do you often wish you were dead and away fkom it dl? Yes 15. Does worrying continually get you dom? Yes 16. Are you extrernely shy or sensitive? Yes 17. Does it make you angry to have anyone tell you what to do? Yes 18. Do people ofken annoy or irritate you? Yes 19. Do you often shake or tremble? Yes 20. Do you often break out in a cold sweat? Yes Part 17(d). Anxiety

A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS WCHPEOPLE HAVE USED TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES ARE GIVEN BELOW. READ EACH STATEMENT AND TEEN CETOOSE THE OM THAT DESCRIBES YOUR FEELINGS DURING TEE PAST FEW MEKS BEST.

not at al1 somewhat moderately very much

1.1 feel calm. 2.1 feel secure. 3. Iamtense. 4.1 am regretfiil. 5. I feel at ease. 6.1 feel upset 7. I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes. 8.1 feel rested. 9. 1 feel anxious. 10.1 feel cordortable. 11.1 feel selfi=onfident. 12.1 feel nervous. 13.1 am jittery. 14.1 feel "high mg". 1S. 1 am relaxed. 16.1 feel content. 17.1 am womed. 18.1 feel over-excited and "rattled". 19.1 feel joyful. 20.1 feel pleasant. In generai, how do you feel about immigrating tu Canada?

"1 regret if' '4 am ve~yglad" 1 2 3 4 5

How do you think your spouse feels about it?

"1 regret if' "1 am very glad" 1 2 3 4 5 Turkish Version of the Information and Screening Fom for Turkish Immimts Tlirkler'in Kanada'ya yerlqmeleri 1WO'li flanri sonlaruia dom baglama~l~la ra@nen, genel olarak Tibkler'in Kanada kiiltiirline nad uyum sagladxklanna fazla 6nem verilmemi@r. Buradaki hayatuni~daha iyi anlayabilmerniz için bu tür bir arqtmnaya ihtiyacirmz vardu. Bu qtuma, problemlerimize ç6zIim bulabilmemiz ve g[inlük hayatimuda yapdkianmizi düzene sokabilmemiz ve iyileghnemiz için ilk admu olugturmaktlr. Bugiin sizlerden, terne1 olarak "Türk gBçmeder Kanada'daki hayata nad intibak ediyoriar?" sorusuna yamt araym bu ar- bana yardimci olmanizi istiyorum. Su anda Queen's 8niversitesi Psikoloji BBlümü'nde doktora ogrencisiyim ve bu mayi doktora te* olarak yapiyonmi. Çaiqmam Tûtkler'in, Kanada'daki yapmlannda kqrlqtddan birçok konudaki duygu ve diQûnce1erini araStinyor. TOirk ve Kanada kiiltiirien, konqulan diller, uyum, destek, Kanadalilar'la olan ilbkiler ve qler arasi iligkilerle ilgili sodar Tltrk g6çmenlerin buradaki hayadanna bir qik ~abilmek amaciyla sonilmqtur. Eger ki bana yardm etmeye karar verirseniz çok mutlu olururn. Tüm yapmaniz gereken, ortalama 45 dakikanizi alacak, Kanada'daki yaprmnizla ilgili duygu ve d&üacelerinizi belirtecem bir anket formunu doldurmak. Sonilara do@ veya yadq olarak Bnceden belidenmis bir cevap yoktur. Aym ~ekildeqinizden de sizden yapmanin istedigimi yapmasmi isteyecegim; bundaki amaç da erkek ve kaduilardaki gorie benzerlik ve farkliliklanm aylrt edebilmektir. Toronto'daki 180 kadar Tiirk goçrneninden bilgi toplamayi hedeflemekteyim. Ottawa'daki on çalqmam için de 50 eiye ihtiyaç duymaktaym. Bu anket için seç- olmaniztn tek wdeni Tiirk kokenli ol~~unuzBqka birisinin degil de sizin seçihiq 01- budan bqka hiçbir nedeni bulunrnamakiadir. Ya bir tant& tarafindan one~siaizdir,ya da TT[irk klup ve topluluklannui üye listelerùiin birinden rasgele seçi1migsinizdi.r. Katlliminiz sadece sizin isteminize baglidn ve bu arastymayi istediginiz man, ne nedenle olursa olsun ve hiçbir açiklama yapmadan blrakabilirsiniz. Bitakma kanin aldigrniz zaman sizin cevaplannizla ilgili tiun bilgiler yok edilecektir. Tüm cevaplanniz gdi tutulacaktrr ve isminiz cevapliyor olaca$niz anket formu11un merinde yer almayacakfll. Vereceginiz tüm cevaplar sadece ve sadece aqtmnanln yukanda belirtilen amacma yoneik kulldacaktir, maç, herhangi bk biyi ayut etmek degildir. Genel olarak vanlacak tüm sonuçlar konferanslarda sunulabilir veya bilimsel gazete ve dergilerde yaylmianabilir, an& araqtumaya katdan wileri tqhis ettirecek herhangi bir referansta bulunulmayacakûr. Araqtmnanm sonuçlanni ômnmek istersenh, arqtuma bitiminde sonuçlan benden alabilirsiniz. Katilmaya karar verdiyseniz ve eger ki am@umayia ilgili herhangi bu sorunuz veya en&& olursa, benimle (Bilge Ataca), daqmanunla (Dr. John W. Berry) veya Psikoloji B6lumli Bagkani'yla (Dr. Rudolf Kalin) Queen's lhiversitesi'nde temas kurabilirsiniz.

Bilge Ataca Dr. John W.Berry Dr. Rudy Kalin Dept of Psychology Dept of Psychology Head of Dept. of Psychology Queen's University Queen's University Queen's University Kingston, Ontario, Kingston, Ontario, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 K7L 3N6 KZ3N6 (613) 531-8517 (6 13) 545-2482 (6 13) 545-2492

B~GEATACA size yardma olmak istiyorum- -istemiyonim.

* Katllmak ~S~ORSANIZ,size nadulaybilirim? ADRES : TELEFON :

* ~abiiecekseaiz,ilk qamada qa@hki bilgilere ihtiyacun bulunmaktadir : - Ne &leugraSmaktasm? - EvIi misi&? Evet Hayv (Cevabmz evet ise); - Eginiz Tiirk mti? Evet Hayr - sWebirlikte Kanada'da mi yqiyor? Evet Hayu - Kaç *du Kanada'dasmz? - Kanada'daki vatandagllc durumunuz ne&? -Türk vatandap @$enci vizeli, sodqmeli, vs.) -Kanada vatandap -Çift vatan~hk -Immigrant (gemen) -Diger -> Lutfen belirtiniz Ennlish Version of the Information and Screeninn Form for Turkish Tmmimants Turkish migration to Canada dates back to late 19709, yet, not enough attention has been paid to how Turks adj- to the Canadian culture in general. Such an inqujr is essential if we want to have a mer understanding of our life here in Canada. This is the first step towards hding solutions to our problems and improving our everyday life. Today 1 am asking for your cooperation in such an inquiry which addresses this basic question: "How do Tmkish immigrants in Canada adapt?" I am currently working towards my Ph.D in Psychology at Queen's University and this study will be my Ph.D thesis. The shidy will investigate Turks' feehgs and opinions on many issues they face in the* Life in Canada Specifidy, questions about Turkish and Canadian cultures, language, adjusûnent, support, contact with Canadiaas, discrimination, and spousal relations aim to shed light on Turkish imigrants' me. I'il be really gratefbi if you agreë to help me. Ail you wiU have to do is to fill out a questionnaire about your feelings and opinions on your He in Canada. There are no iight or wrong mersto the cpestions. 1 will also ask your spouse to do the same for me so that I can examine simildties and differences in opinions between males and fernales. 1 am ainring to collect information fkom 180 Turkish immigrants in Toronto. 1 need 50 volunteers for rny pilot study in Onawa You have been selected just because you are of Turkish background. There's no other speciai reason why you were picked over anyone else. You may have been suggested by a fiend, or randomly chosen fiom a Iist of members of a Turkish club, association, or society. Participation is entirely voluntary and you rnay withdraw fkom this study at any tirne for any reason. You do not have to give an expImtion for your withdrawal. If you decide to withdraw, aLl information concerning you will be destroyed- AU your answers will be strictly confidentid. Your name will not appear on the questionnaire; no single individual will be identified in the redts of the study. Ail the information you provide will be used for the purposes of this research only. The general fhdings rnay be presented at a conference or a scientïfic journal, but no specific references wiil be made which can idenfisr participants. If you are interested in the findings of this study, you can request them fkom me when the study is over. If you decide to participate, and if you should have any concems about any aspect of this study, you may contact either me, Bilge Ataca, or my supenisor, Dr. John W. Berry, at Queen's University. Bilge Ataca Dr. John W. Berry Dept of Psychology , Queen's University Dept. of Psychology, Queen's University Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6 Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6 (613) 531-8517 (6 13) 545-2482 * Please state whether you would like to participate:

-1 am wilhg to participate. -1 am not willing to participate.

* If you are willing to participate, how can 1reach you? Address : Tel. :

* 1 need the following information at present: - What do you do for a living? - Are you rnarried? -Yes No w Y=); - 1s your spousê Turkish? Y= -No - Does dhe live with you here Yes No in Canada? - How long have you been in Canada? - What is your present status in Canada? -Turkish citizen (visa dent,on a contract, etc.) -Cdan citizen -Dual citizen -Landed immigrant -Other- > Please specify Sample Variable

-- - Sex Male Q Fernale

13.1 3 generations % 40.0 4-8 generations % 36.7 8-1 2 generations % 23.3

Citizen % 74 British 56.3 Culture of French 31.3 Landed Ongin Immipt % O!. - British x 6.3 French

Educaîion High School & under % 36.6 31.3 VocationaVCollege % 14.3 3.1 Univemity & above % 48.9 65 -6 APPENDIX D 2

- -- -- Possible Range of Cmnbach's Variable Cuiturai Group Scale Mean Scores MP~

Hardiness Turkish immigrant (composite) Euro-Cadan

Cornmitment Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadian Challenge Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadian Control Turkish immigrant Euro-Cdan

Marital Turkish immigrant Stressors Euro-Canadian

Marital Turkish immigrant SUPPO~~ Euro-Cdan

L~~guage Tmkish immigrant Proficiency Euro-Canadian

Social Turkish immigrant Support Euro-Cdan

CuItural Turkish immigrant Distance Euro-Cdan

Contact Turkish immigrant Euro-Cansnian

Desired TurkiP'i immigrant Contact Euro-Canadian Possible Range of Cronbach's Variable Culturai Group Scale Mean Scores Alpha

Acculturation: Integration Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadia. Separation Turkish immigrant Eure-Canadian Assimilation Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadian Marginaiization Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadian

Perceived. . Tinkish immigrant Discrrmuiation Euro-Canadian

Depression Tutkish immigrant Euro-Canadian stress Turkish immigrant Euro-Cansdian

Anxiety Turkish immigrant Euro-Cansnian

Satisfaction Turkish immigrant Euro-Canadian

Sociocultural Adaptation

Marital Turkish immignint Adaptation Euro-Cdaa Turkish Version of the Consent Fonn for Turkish Tmmimts Bu aragtirma Kanada'daki Tiirk güçmenleriyle ilgilidir. Doldurac@mz anket Kanada'daki yapmmda ilgili duygu ve dQÜncelerinin arajtmyor. Anket ôzellikle Türk ve Kanada kiütiirleri, Türk adh olmayan KanadaWar'la iliskiler, onlann nmunlarini algilayq, hgilizce ve Türkçe'yi kullanq, uyum, mutluldc, sosyal yardmlqma, bisel 6zellüder ve qle ilbkiler üzerine sonilasdan oltqmaktad~.Yaklw 1 saatlik zamanirun alacakûr. Sorulann dom veya y- cevab~ yoknn; en iyi cevap kendi Mise1 gor@Ieriniz olacaktr. einizden de bu kondarla ilgili gor[iSlerini belirtmesi için myakathas isteniyor. Araqûrmaya katilip katilmamak tamamiyle isteginize bagiidir. Herhangi bir nedenden dolafi istediginiz an hiçbir neden bektmeksizin çekilebilirsuliz Araqtmmya katdmaktan vazgeçerseniz, sizinie ilgiti tüm bilgiler yokedilecektu. Cevapianman tthü kesinlikle gizii tutulacakûr. hiniz anketin Szerinde yeralmayacaktir. Aqtmmm buigulannda tek tek ki&el sonuçlar belirmme~ecektir~Bu formda ve ankette bulunan numarafllIl amaci, si.zi.deil@ bilgiyi qinionkiyle biraraya gehek içindir. Verdiginiz bilgilerin %ü, yalw bu ara@mmm amaçlan için kulladacaktu. Gdbbulgular bir konfeveya biii.mse1 bir dergide sunulabilir, fakat arzqûmaya katdadan belirleyecek hiçbir ozel Sade kullanilmayacaktir. mtmnanln sonuçlanm merak ederseniz, a-a bittikten sonni budan benden isteyebilirsiniz. Ar-yla ilgili herhangi bir sikayet veya eneeniz olduw takdirde, bana, Bilge Ataca (613-531-8517), veya daqmanim Dr. John W. Berry'e (613-545-2482) baqvurabilirsiniz. Eger herlüuigi bir konu Çozümsüz kalirsa, Queen's Üniversitesi Psikoloji B61ii.m Baskani Dr. Rudy Kzili.de (6 13-545-2492) bqvurabilirsiniz. Eger katilmaya karar verirseniz, lütfen bu formu iïnzalapuz. Bu fom anketten ayn olarak toplanacakcu.

Be% (isim-soyacli), yukandaki açiklamay okudum ve Kanada'daki Türk goçmenleriyle ilgili bu araqtuniaya katdmayi kendi amnnla kabul ediyom.

ha Tarih Tel. No. Enfish Version of the Consent Form for Turkish Immigtants This shidy is about Turkish immigrants in Canada. The following questionnaire asks about your feelings and opinions on your life in Canada Specincaily, there are questions about Turkish and Canadian cultures, relations with Canadians, perceptions of their attitude, use of English and Turkish, djustment, well-being, social support, self characteristics, and relations with spouse. It wili take about 1 hour of your time. There are no right or wrong atl~wersto the questions, the best answer is your own personal opinion. Your spouse is also asked to participate in the study to reflect his/her views on these issues as welt. Participation is entirely voluntay and you may withdraw fiom this study at any time for any reason You do not have to give an explanation for your withdrawal. If you decide to withdraw, all information conceming you will be destroyed. AU your mers will be strictly confidential. Your name will not appear on the questionnaire; no single individual wilI be identified in the results of the study. The number on the questionnaire is for the purpose of linkuig you with your spouse. AU the information you provide will be used for the purposes of this research only. The general findings may be presented at a conference or a scientinc jod, but no specific references will be made which can iden@ participants. if you are interested in the hdings of this study, you can request them from me when the snidy is over. In the event that you have any amplaints or wncerns about this study, you may contact either me, Bilge Ataca (613-53 1-8517), or my supervisor, Dr. John W. Berry (613-545-2482). If any issues remain unresolved, you may contact the Head of Department of Psychology, Dr. Rudy Kalin (61 3-545-2492), at Queen's University. Lf you decide to participate, please sign this consent form. This form will be collected separately fiom the questionnaire.

1, (fùll name), have read the above statement and fkeely consent to participate in the study on Turkish immigrants in Canada.

Signature Date Tel. No.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!!!! Consent Form for Euro-Canadians This study is about Turkish immigrants in Canada. In order to undmd how immigrants are doing in Cauada, it is essential that the views of Canadians are also heard so that cornparisons can be made with those of immigrants to provide a much wider under~bndingof the issue. The following questionnaire asks about your feelings and opinions on your daily life. Specifically, there are questions about your opinions on how immigrants should be handling different aspects of their lives, your adjustment, well- being, social support, self characteristics and relations with spouse. It will take about 45 minutes of your time. There are no nght or wrong aflswers to the questions, the best aoswer is your own personal opinion, Your spouse is also asked to participate in the study to reflect his/her views on these issues as well. Participation is entirely voluntary and you may withdraw fkom this midy at any tune for any reason. You do not have to give an explanation for your withdrawal. If you decide to withdraw?aii information concerning you will be destroyed. Al1 your anmers will be stnctly confidentid. Your name wili not appear on the questionnaire; no single individual will be identified in the results of the study. The number on the questionnaire is for the purpose of linking you with your spouse. Al1 the information you provide will be used for the purposes of this research only. The general findings may be presented at a conference or a scientific journal, but no specific references will be made which cm identify participants. if you are interested in the findings of this study, you can request them fiom me when the study is over. In the event that you have any cornplaints or concems about this study, you may contact either me, Bilge Ataca (613-53 1-85 17), or my supervisor, Dr. John W. Berry (613-545-2482). If any issues rernain unresolved, you may contact the Head of Department of Psychologv, Dr. Rudy Kab(6 l3-545-2492), at Queen's University. Ifyou decide to participate, please sign this consent form. This fom wiU be collected separately nom the questionmire.

1 have read the above statement and fieely consent to participate in the study on Turkish immigrants in Canada.

- Signature Date Tel. No.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!!!! Turicish Version of the Debriefing Form for Turkish Immigrants

Bu ara@maya kadds@mz için çok teqekkllr ederim. A.ayaseçilmb olmaninn tek nedeni TW( mih olqmuz. Bqkasinin de@ de sizin seçilmiq ohanian bundan ba&a Bzel hiçbir nedeni yob. Bir arkadapm tarafindan tavsiye edi- olabilirsiniz., bu Tilrk toplantrsinda ya da bir Tikk klüp veya deme- iiye listesinden gelbiglizel seçiude olabilirsiniz. Cigçmenler Welerinden aydp bqka bir ülkeye yerlqtklerinde büyük degisiklikler yapr1a.r. Yeni kurailar, beceder, degerler Qrenmek u>m&lar. Tümüyle de&& bir çevre ve ban toplulu@ içindedirler. Ve bu yeni ülke yeni evleri olacagi için bu kiiltigde nadyapyacaklarini ve nad mutlu olacaklanni 6Wnmek ihtiyacm hissederler. Bu deg &im sCneci içersinde sik sik sosyal ve psikolojik sodar ortaya çikar. G6çmenler yeni Mtiire uyum saglarnaya çalisirken çok stresli bir d6nemden geçerler. G6çmenlerin uyum saglamdanndaki 6nemli faktorler bu yeni kûltiirle nad bir ilhki içinde ohak istediklerine, bu yeni topiumun bireyleriyle olan Ukilerine, bu bireyle~g6çmenlerle nad bir iligki içinde oldukianyla ilgili gor[islerioe, kültWer arasi farkliliklara, Wise1 ozelliklere, dil yetenegine ve sosyal yardrmiqmaya bedir. Evlilik yqami da bu ge& dgneminde çok 6nem tqiyabilir. EvWe ilgili problemler hayati zorlaqtuabilecegi gibi, mutlu bir evlilik Bte yandan yeni kliltüre uyumu çok daha kolayl~bilir.Kisacan, bu anqtmnanln amach Kanada'daki Tùrk goçmenlerin uyumunu ve bu uyum sürecindeki Onemli faktOrleri amprmaktu. Bu qtirmaya katiimalan için arwveya akrabalanniza da araqürmamdan bahsederseniz çok memnun olunim. Beni apgidaki telefon numaralmdan bulabilirler. Kendinizi, duygu ve d@iincelerinizi, ve Kanada'daki yyasaminizi aynnhlanyla -tiran bir anket doldurdunuz. Boyle bir arqtumaya katilan ki@n sorularui içerigi hakiunda dügiinürken enae duygusutls~kaphnasr olagandu. Bazi sodann içerigi -den kenduiizi k0ît.i hissederseniz veya 6zellikle umutsuzluk hissi içindeyseniz ve "6lüp heqeyden uzak olmay sik sdc ister misiniz?", "hadam yqamlannin ben oimasam daha iyi 01acam hissediyonun", "Durumumun umutsuz oldugUnu hissediyod gibi soru ve ifadelerle apgOrÜqteyseniz, isterseniz qagidaki merkezlere bqvurabilirsiniz: Communiîy Information Center ...... 41 6-3 92-0505 Ontario Welcome House ...... -...... 4 16-3 14-6747 Toronto Distress Centre ...... 4 16-598- 1 12 1 Immigrant and Visible Minority Wornen ...... 6 13-729- 1 1 19 (including Turkish) Immigrant Women's Health ...... 41 6-323-9986 Woments Shelter ...... 4 16-264-4357 Clark Institute of Psychiatry ...... 4 16-979-222 1 Mount Sinai Emergency ...... 41 6-586-5054 Araqûmayla ilgili herhangi bir Wyet veya en- oldum takdirde, ba~,Bilge Ataca, veya daqmamm Dr. John W. Bwebapurabilirsiniz. Eger herhangi bir konu Çoz[tmsiiz kalusa, Queen's Ünivemitesi Psikoloji B6Iiim Bqkani Dr. Rudy Kdin'e bmbilirsiniz.

Bilge Ataca Dr. John W. Beny Dr. Rudy Kalin Dept. of Psychology Dept. of Psychology Head of Dept of Psychology Queen's University Queen's University Queen's University Kingston, Ontario, Kingston, Ontario, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 K7L 3N6 K7L 3N6 (416) 698-5907 (6 13) 545-2482 (6 13) 545-2492 (613) 531-8517 EnPilish Version of the Debriehg Fonn for Tirrkish Immimts Thank you for parîicipating in this study. You were selected just because you are of Turkish ongin. There was no other special reason why you were picked over anyone else. You were either suggested by a fiend or chosen randomly fiom a list of members of a Turkish club, association, or at a Turicish social gathering. Immigrants go through immense changes when they leave their country and senle in a different one. They need to leam new rules' skills, and values. They are surrounded by a totaily different environment and people, and now this new country is their home, they feel the need to learn how to live and be happy in this culture. Social and psychological problems fkquently appear during these changes. Immigrants live a very stressful time as they try to adapt to the new culture. How immigrants waut to relate to the new culture, their relations with the members of the larger society, their perceptions of how these members interact with the immigrants, the differences between the two cultures, personality characteristics, language ability, social support are known to be vq important factors in immigrants1adaptation. Marital Me can also be very important during this transition. Marital problems cm make He more dinicult in the new culture, or converseiy, a happy marriage cm lead to a much better adjment Hence, the aim of this study is to investigate how Turkish immigrants in Canada adapt, and what factors are important in their adaptation. If you could also ask any of your fiends or relatives to participate in this study for me, I'll be most grateful. They cm contact me at the number below. You have ken asked to fiil out a detailed analysis of your feelings, opinions, and your life in Canada It is not undfor individuals participating in a study like this one to becorne concemed as they think over the content of questions. If you hdyourself distressed by the content of any of the questions, or especially if you feel hopeless and agreed with the questions such as " Do you often wish you were dead and away fiom it all?", " 1 feel that others would be better off without me", " 1 feel that my situation is hopeless", you may wish to consider contacting any of the following resources:

Community Information Center ...... 41 6-392-0505 Ontario Welcome House ...... 4 16-3 14-6747 Toronto Distress Centre ...... 4 1 6-598-1 12 1 Immigrant and Visible Minority Women ...... 6 13-729-1 1 19 (including Turkish) Tmmigrant Womenls Health ...... 4 1 6-323-9986 Women's Shelter ...... 4 16-264-4357 Clark Institute of Psychiatry ...... 4 16-979-2221 Mount Sinai Emergency ...... 4 1 6-586-5 054 In the ment that you have any cornplaints or concems about this study, you may contact either me, Bilge Ataca, or my supervisor, Dr. John W. Beny. If any issues Rmain unresol-=eci,you rnay contact the Head of Department of Psychology, Dr. Rudy Kalin, at Queen's University.

Bilge AAtaca Dr. John W. Berry Dr. Rudy Kalin Dept. of Psycholog. Dept. of Psychoiogy Head of Dept. of Psychology Queen's University Queen's University Queen's University Kingston, Ontario, Kingston, Ontario, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 KX3N6 K7L 3N6 (613)531-8517 (6 13) 545-2482 (61 3) 545-2492 APPEMIIX G

Al1 statistid analyses were conducted by using SPSS for Windows 6.1. Data were screened prior to analysis. First, the data file was checked for invalid data. Every case was checked against the questionnaire to detennine the accuracy of data entxy. The values of the variables were also checked to detennine whether they were within range.

Only a few mors were detected and they were corrected. Since recruiting eligible respondents had been labor- and time-intensive, loss of data was not desired. Instead, missing values were estimateci. Up to 10% of missing items were allowed in the calculation of scaie scores for each participant. In order to calculate individual scale scores, ht, the negatively worded items were reverse scored. Second, the mean of the completed items was cdculated and multiplied by the Ml number of items in the scale.

This method substitutes each person's individual mean for missing values rather than the group mean, hence, is a more accurate estimate than mean-substitution.

Univariate and multivariate outiiers were examined by box plots and Mahalanobis distances, respective$. There were only a few outliers and there was no reason to believe that these cases were not sampled hmthe target population; hence, they were kept in the anaiyses.

Nodtyof variables was assessed by examining the distributions and the residuais. Standard values of skewness and kurtosis were calcuiated for each sample. A few measures were found to exceed the cut off point of a,but it was decided not to tnmsfonn the vanables for the following reasons: First, transformation increases the 307 diniculty of interpretation, especidly when the scale is meaningfïd (Tabachnick & Fideii,

1989). Seconci, the F test is ver-robust to violations of the assumption of normality.

Simulation studies have shown that nomorrnality must be very emme before Type 1 mrprobabilities are seriously aitered (Judd & McClelland, 1989). Third, the residuals plot in regression was also examined and no serious nonnormality was detected.

However, the F test is not robust to the violation of the assumption of independence. The violation may produce a substantial effect on the level of significance and the power of the F statistic. If two observations are nonindependent, then knowing the value of one of them gives an idea about the value of the other. According to Kenny

( 1W6), nonindependence in couples research results fiom various processes. First, there is the compositional effect reflecthg spouses' similarity on variables such as education, age, and socioeconomic status even before the relatiomhip began. Second, with partner effects, a characteristic or behavior of one person affects the other person. Third, with mutual influence, one spouse's score causes the other2sscore. And the final source of nonindependence is common fate in which both spouses are exposed to the same causal factors such as family incorne or media effects. Ln marital research, then, if the individual is the unit of analysis and the couple is ignored, the independence assumption is likely to be violated. This will lead to bias in the tests of sigiincance and distortion of Type 1 and

Type II errors. However, if the couple is the unit of analysis by using a matched-pairs, repeated-measures analysis, or by creating couple-level scores, then nonindependence does not bias the signincance testing (Kenny, 1988). The degree of nonindependence between husbands' and wives' scores cm be estimateci by ushg a Pearson correlation coefficient However, it is recomended that data involving even low levels of interdependence be treated as nonindependent data, and hence, a very liberal test @ = .25) be used (Kenny & Kashy, 1991). These guidelines were followed in the present study.

Most of the correlational analyses for the outcome variables in each sample revealed nonindependence between spouses. Hence, it was decided to create couple-level scores and treat the couple as the unit of anaiysis. In gender related analyses, however, individual scores of men and women were used, oooo O iii * ?Y?mm- oral Pa- of SD. Perce-

From Most Not time to of the Behavior Group a Mean at ail Rarely the Frequently time

Organization Participation: Femaie 100 2.89 1.20 13.0 25.0 35.0 Turkish Male 100 3.07 1.26 9.0 28.0 30.0 Total 200 2.98 1.23 11.0 26.5 32.5

Female 99 1.92 1.06 44.4 30.3 18.2 Canadian Male 99 2.33 1.20 29.3 31.3 23.2 Totai 198 2.13 1.4 36.9 30.8 2C.7

Socializing with: Femaie 99 3.94 1.02 1.0 6.1 30.3 Turkish Male 100 3.73 -97 - 11.0 31.0 Totai 199 3.83 1.00 .5 8.5 30.7

Female 100 1.96 .99 44.0 22.0 29.0 Canadian Male 100 2.24 -88 21.0 41.0 32.0 Totai 200 2-10 .95 32.5 31.5 30.5

To a Ahost A certain Almost none little extent A lot ail day L~~guage Use: Female 99 4.29 Turkish Male 100 3-85 Total 199 4-07

Female 99 3.19 Engiish Male 100 4.00 Total 199 3.60 Five Special times Behavior Group ri Mean Never bely days a day

Fernale 98 2.07 1.22 48.0 19.4 10.2 22.4 Praying Male 99 2.35 i.15 34.3 15.2 31.3 19.2 Totai 197 2.21 1.19 41.1 17.3 20.8 20.8

Visiting Female 100 1.94 .95 41.0 3 1.0 21 .O 7.0 the Male 99 2.29 1.00 30.3 19.2 41.4 9.1 mosque Total 199 2.12 .99 35.7 25.1 31.2 8.0

No Yes

Female 100 2.59 1.51 47.0 53.0 Fasting Male 100 2.53 1.51 49.0 51.0 Total 200 2.56 1.50 48.0 52-0 Bath Turkish and NonTurkisW NoneNo Behavior Group p Turkïsh NonTurkisW Canadian idea Canadian

Friends Femaie 99 80.8 Male 99 82.9 Totd 198 81.8

Hoiidays Femde 98 57.2 Male 100 48.0 Total 198 52.5

Newspaper Fade 100 32.0 Male 100 18.0 Total 200 25.0

Food Fade 100 76.0 Male 100 78.0 Total 200 77.0

Music Femde 100 48.0 Male 100 43.0 Total 200 45.5

Ethnic Femde 98 74.5 Identity Male 100 56.0 Total 198 65.2 APPENDIX J 1

heck for Act-n Att&ude Scale Us- the Variable Friendship Pana

- Female Male Separation

Cornparison Groups n M S&l nM

Turkish Friends 79 41.61 9.13 82 40.79 7.93 VS. 2-65** 4.07" * * mers 18 35.39 8.25 17 32.53 5.78

Both Turkish and Non-Turkish Friends VS* mers

Assimilation

Non-Turkish Friends 6 26.53 7.38 2 35.50 3.54 VS. 2.W 2.5 1 * ûthers 93 21.07 5.85 97 23.65 6-63

No Friends vs. Mers Note. * p s .O5 ** p a .01. *** p s .001. Femaie Male Separation

kups n M 321 n SB1

Turkish Holidays VS. Others

Both Turkish and Canadian Holidays vs. Mers

Canadian Holidays VS. Mers

No Holidays VS. Mers APPENDIX J 3

for Acc- AweScale UsueVariable Newspaper

Female Male

- -

Comparison Groups n SITt nM S11t

Turkish Newspapers 32 46.41 7.06 18 45.39 5.62 VS. 5.04*** 3.69'"" Others 66 37.42 8-80 82 38.00 8.07

Both Turkish and Canadian Newspapers 27 36.19 7.15 32 36.93 6.85 VS. 1.76, nos. -84, ns. mers 73 33.05 9.61 68 35.60 7.56

Assimilation

Canadian Newspapers 37 24.44 4.78 48 25.59 7.02 VS, 4.07*** 2.38" mers 63 19.70 6.06 52 22-44 6.24

No Newspapers VS. mers the Variable Food Preference at Home

Female Male

Cornparison Groups s M SRI nM 2221

Turkish Food 75 42.52 8.96 78 40.58 7.35 VS. 4.58*** 3.OOF* Others 23 33.3 1 6.32 22 34.88 9.51

Both Turkish and CaMdian Food 23 40.48 3.05 21 39.75 5.60 vs. 6.88*** 2.70** mers 77 31.93 9.37 79 35.04 7.45 Note,**ps .01. ***ps .001, for Acculturation Attitude Scaie U& the Variable Music Preference

Female Male

G~OUPS n M SITr QM SITE

Turkish Music 48 45.29 7.57 43 44.38 5.79 VS. 6.04*** 6.35*** Others 50 35.62 8.25 57 35.52 7.65

- - Both Turkish and North Amerid Western Music VS. mers

Assimilation North Amerid Western Music 18 26.33 4.83 19 29.26 5.99 VS. 4.07*** 4.08*** Others 82 20.38 5.77 81 22.71 6.37 k for AccwonAttitude Scde UmMfeEwc Id-

Female Male

Cornparison

Turkish VS. ûthers

Neither Turkish nor Canadian 3 24.83 4.07 4 21.13 3.73 VS. 1.13, n.s. -.25, ns. Mers 92 21.54 5.00 93 21.78 5.06 l MAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED IMAGE. Inc -.-a 1653 East Main Street --, Rochester, NY 14609 USA ,== Phone: 716/402-0300 --- Fw71 6i288-5989