1

Factors Affecting Immigrants’ Acculturation Intentions: A Theoretical Model and Its

Assessment among Adolescent Immigrants from Russia and Ukraine in Israel

Abstract

In this study, a new Acculturation Intentions Model (AIM) was formulated to help explain

immigrants’ preferences for different acculturation strategies and their further emigration

intentions, i.e. their plans to either remain in the host country, return to their country of

origin, or emigrate to a third country. The AIM applies the theory of planned behavior

(Ajzen, 1991) to the case of immigration. In the present study, the AIM was assessed among

high-school adolescents who immigrated from Russia and Ukraine to Israel as part of an

educational program (n=151). The adolescents completed questionnaires twice: half a year

before and three years after their immigration. In accordance with the theoretical model,

attitudes towards the country of origin and the host country and perceived environmental

constraints (including perceived discrimination as well as perceived social support from

parents, peers, and teachers) affected the immigrants' acculturation intentions. In contrast

with what was hypothesized in this study, immigrants’ psychological resources were not

related to their acculturation intentions. The significance of these findings for both the

immigrants and the host society are discussed.

Keywords: the acculturation intentions model (AIM), planned behavior theory, acculturation

strategies, further emigration intentions, attitudes towards a country, perceived

discrimination, perceived social support, adolescent immigrants, Russia, Ukraine, Israel.

1. Introduction

Acculturation is an extremely popular concept in immigration studies. The PsycNet

database of the American Psychological Association lists nearly 4000 articles on

acculturation published in peer-reviewed journals during the last twenty years (APA, 2010).

However, an overwhelming majority of these studies focused on the outcomes of different

acculturation strategies, i.e. they examined how preferences for different acculturation

strategies affect the immigrants’ social and psychological adjustment in the host country,

family relations, and the psychological development of immigrant children and adolescents.

Very few studies have focused on the factors affecting the immigrants' preferences for

different acculturation strategies. Understanding these factors is important for both theoretical

and practical reasons, and this article aims to partially fill this gap.

2

The main goal of this article is to formulate and empirically test a model that will help

explain immigrants’ acculturation intentions; i.e., their preferences for different acculturation

strategies as well as their plans to remain in the host country, return to their country of origin,

or emigrate to a third country. The study was conducted among high-school adolescents who

participated in an educational program and immigrated from Russia and Ukraine to Israel

without their parents. The program’s conditions enabled assessment both during the pre-

migration period (about half a year before emigration) and in the post-migration period (at the

end of the three-year immigration program, when the adolescents completed high school in

Israel).

1.1. Models explaining immigrants’ preferences for different acculturation

strategies

Several theoretical models have been suggested to explain immigrants’ preferences

for different acculturation strategies, each with their advantages and drawbacks, which will

be briefly reviewed. The first model was suggested by Berry (1997). This model is based on

the assumption that the choice of acculturation strategies can best be understood in terms of

the interaction between the immigrants’ psychosocial characteristics (which are mainly

formed in the pre-migration period) and the acculturation policy of the host society.

Following this assumption, Berry’s model includes a large number of variables grouped

according to where they originate – in the country of origin or in the host country – and

according to their intrapsychic or environmental nature (Berry, 1997, 2005). The main

advantage of this model is its comprehensiveness, while its main drawback is that it is too

complex to be empirically tested.

Safdar and her colleagues (Safdar, Lay, & Struthers, 2003) suggested a more

parsimonious model, which assumed that the psychological resources of immigrants, their co-

national connectedness, and daily hassles predict their acculturation preferences. Empirical

testing of this model (Safdar, Struthers, van Oudenhoven, 2009) has demonstrated that the

immigrants’ psychological resources and co-national “connectedness” indeed predict their

preferences for different acculturation strategies. Unfortunately, this model did not include

variables related to the immigrants’ connectedness with the host society and social conditions

existing in the host society, which may be important predictors of the immigrants’

acculturation preferences.

A third theoretical framework was suggested by Burgelt et al. (2008). It describes the

dynamic relationships between different factors affecting the acculturation strategies of

3

immigrants as they vary with time during the immigration process. The main significance of

this model is in its analysis of the pre-migration factors (expectations, hopes, and

motivations) affecting the acculturation preferences. However, this model is based on the

ethnographic approach, which is difficult to test in a quantitative research.

The present study continues the process of building a parsimonious theoretical model

to explain the acculturation intentions of immigrants. It strives to enhance the previously

suggested models in two important ways. First, the present acculturation intentions model

(AIM) is based on a general psychological theory and, therefore, it may have greater

explanatory power. Second, the model was tested in a three-year longitudinal study that

includes the pre-migration stage. Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB), was used

as a foundation for developing the acculturation intentions model. The TPB was chosen for

three main reasons: (1) Acculturation strategies are behaviors or behavioral intentions and,

therefore, the TPB should explain them, as it explains other behaviors and behavioral

intentions (cf. Ajzen, 2002b; Ajzen, Czasch, & Flood, 2009; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2004). (2)

The TPB takes into consideration both intrapsychic and environmental factors; therefore, it is

well suited to the situation of immigration; (3) The TPB explains both stability and changes

in behavior (Ajzen, 2002a); hence, it may explain changes in acculturation intentions during

the immigration process.

1.2. Main postulates of the theory of planned behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) assumes that attitudes, social norms, and

perceived behavioral control affect the behavioral intentions of individuals, which, in turn,

affect their behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The theory further assumes that all other factors (personal

and environmental) affect the individuals’ behavior through their influence on the attitudes,

social norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 2002b). Attitudes towards a behavior

reflect the perceived benefits of the behavior from the standpoint of the individual’s values

and goals. Positive attitudes form a motivation to implement the behavior (Ajzen et al.,

2009). Social norms reflect the society’s attitude towards the behavior. Societies approve or

encourage certain behaviors while disapproving or punishing other behaviors. Individuals

internalize societal norms (to a greater or lesser degree), and tend to choose a behavior that

corresponds with these societal norms (Ajzen, 2002b). Perceived behavioral control includes

beliefs regarding the individual’s possession of the necessary resources and ability to conduct

a particular behavior (e.g., skills, time, and money) and the perceived environmental

constraints for performing the specific behavior (Ajzen, 2002b). The probability of a specific

4

behavior increases as the individual has a more positive attitude towards that specific

behavior, the more behavioral control the individual has, and the more society encourages

that particular behavior. The theory further assumes that variations in motivational factors

(attitudes), personality factors (resources), and environmental factors (social norms and

environmental constraints) can lead to a change in behavior (Ajzen, 2002a; Ajzen &

Fishbein, 2004). Ajzen’s theory does not specify the relationships between the attitudes,

social norms, and perceived behavioral control. However, several recent studies have found

that social norms and perceived behavioral control affect the individuals’ attitudes towards

various behaviors: when social norms are more permissive regarding a behavior and the

perceived control over the behavior is higher, the individuals’ attitudes towards this behavior

are more positive (Hsu & Chiu, 2004; Leach, Hennessy, & Fishbein, 2001; Ryu, Ho, & Han,

2003).

1.3. Formulation of the acculturation intentions model

Based on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), the acculturation intentions

model (AIM) assumes that three main factors influence the immigrants’ acculturation

intentions: the immigrants’ attitudes towards their country of origin and the host country;

social norms related to acculturation; and perceived control over the acculturation process

(which includes the immigrants’ personal resources and the environmental constraints that

may promote or prevent their acculturation). In addition, the AIM assumes that social norms

regarding acculturation and perceived behavioral control affect the immigrants’ attitudes

towards the two countries. The AIM further assumes that other psychosocial factors affect

acculturation intentions through their influence on the attitudes, social norms, or perceived

control over the acculturation process. Finally, the model assumes that the immigrants’

attitudes towards their country of origin and the host country, their perception of social

norms, and perceived control over the acculturation process are initially formed in the pre-

migration period and are transformed in the post-migration period depending on the

immigrants’ experience in the host country. Figure 1 graphically displays the proposed

theoretical model.

Figure 1 about here

1.3.1. Acculturation intentions

5

Acculturation intentions are the immigrants’ plans to engage in the specific cultural

practices that ensure a desired level of their interaction with people from the host country and

from their country of origin as well as the immigrants’ adherence to the corresponding

cultural norms and values. The AIM assumes that the acculturation intentions of immigrants

include two aspects: further emigration intentions and preferences for different acculturation

strategies. Unlike previous studies that considered the immigrants’ acculturation preferences

based on a two-dimensional model that included the heritage culture and the host culture, the

AIM assumes that immigrants’ acculturation occurs in a multicultural space, which includes,

in addition to the host country and the immigrants’ country of origin, a third country (or

countries) that the immigrants consider as their alternative immigration destination(s).

Further emigration intentions relate to the immigrants’ decision whether to remain in

the host country, return to their country of origin, or emigrate to a third country. Previous

studies on acculturation have not investigated this variable, probably due to the assumption

that immigrants come to the host country indefinitely (cf. Eisenstadt, 1951). However, a

growing number of immigrants move between their country of origin, the host country, and

other countries in the world (Adler & Gielen, 2003). Israeli data demonstrate that about 10%

of immigrants from the FSU and 20% of immigrants from America and Europe have left

Israel and either returned to their homeland or emigrated to other countries (ICBS, 2009).

The second aspect of the acculturation intentions relates to the immigrants’

preferences for different acculturation strategies. The suggested theoretical model assumes

the classical definitions of integration, separation, and assimilation acculturation strategies

(Berry, 1997). However, the definition of marginalization was slightly altered: it is here

defined as an acculturation strategy that involves the rejection of the immigrants’ heritage

culture and the host culture in favor of a third culture. The classical definition of

marginalization implies that immigrants who choose marginalization reject both their heritage

culture and the host culture. However, behavior cannot be non-cultural: one must speak a

specific language or several languages, eat a culturally specific food, and befriend people

belonging to a specific culture (Rudmin, 2003; Tartakovsky, 2002). Indeed, several studies

have found that either no or very few immigrants conform to the classical definition of

marginalization (Berry et al., 1989; Dona & Berry, 1994). In addition, studies conducted in

Israel have confirmed that immigrants’ cultural practices may include not only the elements

of their heritage and the host culture, but elements of other cultures as well. Thus, some

immigrants from Ethiopia in Israel have adopted cultural practices (in their choices of music,

clothes, and language) typical of the Black or Rastafarian culture in the USA (Shabtay,

6

2001), while some immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel have adopted Western-

European cultural practices, e.g. giving their children French or English names (Tartakovsky,

2008b). This new definition of marginalization reflects the multicultural space in which

immigrants’ preferences for different acculturation strategies develop, including their country

of origin, host country, and a third country (or countries) to which immigration is possible.

1.3.2. Attitudes towards the two countries

Attitude towards a country reflects the individuals’ evaluation of the country as

satisfying or frustrating their basic needs (Kelman, 1997; Schatz & Lavine, 2007). A positive

attitude towards a country reflects its subjective evaluation as good for an individual, and is

accompanied by feelings of pride, love, and comfort, while a negative attitude towards a

country reflects its evaluation as unsatisfactory, and is accompanied by feelings of shame and

discomfort (Davis, 1999; Dekker et al., 2003; Magun & Magun, 2009; Smith & Kim, 2006).

Attitude towards a country is often considered a component of national identity, together with

self-categorization, a sense of national affiliation, the perception of oneself as similar to other

group members, etc. (Barrett, 2005; Barrett & Davis, 2008; Tartakovsky, in press). However,

when building the AIM, all other components of national identities were excluded from the

model for two reasons. First, theory of planned behavior assumes that attitudes affect

behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991); therefore, an attitudinal component of acculturation

intentions was sought and found in the immigrants’ attitudes towards the countries. Second,

recent studies have found that the attitude towards a country, but not other aspects of national

identity (e.g., identification with the nation), is connected to other psychological variables

(Barrett, 2005; Tartakovsky, 2010; Walsh & Tartakovsky, under review). A previous study

that has applied the TPB to understanding “green consumerism” supports this decision: when

testing whether identification with a group predicts specific behavior, it was found that group

identification did not significantly add to the prediction beyond the effect of attitude (Sparks

& Shepherd, 1992).

Very few studies have assessed the effect of attitudes towards the country on

acculturation intentions. However, one study conducted among ethnic minorities in Chile

found that a positive attitude towards the nation was associated with acculturation preferences

that entail close contact with the majority society (Zagefka, Brown, & Gonzalez, 2009). No

study has investigated the effect of attitudes among immigrants; however, several studies

have included attitude towards the countries as a part of the one-dimensional national and

ethnic identity scales. These studies have found that the immigrants’ strong ethnic identity

7

was associated with their preference for the separation acculturation strategy (Berry et al.,

1989; Kim & Omizo, 2006; Kim, Sarason, & Sarason, 2006), while a weak ethnic identity

and a strong host country identity were associated with the assimilation acculturation strategy

(Ben-Shalom & Horenczyk, 2003; Nesdale, 2002). Having only a strong national identity was

associated with integration (Liu, 2006; Nesdale & Mak, 2000; Zagefka & Brown, 2002).

The acculturation intentions model (AIM) assumes that the immigrants’ attitudes

towards the country of origin and the receiving country are the main motivational forces that

affect their intentions to interact with and accept the norms and values of each society. The

AIM assumes that a positive attitude towards the country of origin leads to choosing

acculturation strategies that ensure the immigrants’ interaction with people from this country,

i.e. separation or integration, while a positive attitude towards the host country leads to

choosing acculturation strategies that ensure interaction with people from the host country,

i.e. assimilation or integration. In addition, a positive attitude towards the host country should

strengthen the immigrants’ desire to continue living in this country; a positive attitude

towards the country of origin should strengthen the immigrants’ desire to return to their

homeland; and a negative attitude towards the two countries may stimulate immigrants to

look for a third country.

The AIM further assumes that immigrants’ attitudes towards their country of origin

and the receiving country are first formed in the pre-migration period and are transformed in

the post-migration period, depending on the immigrants’ experience with the host society and

with the people from their country of origin. This assumption is based on the results of

previous studies, which have demonstrated that the pre-migration attitudes towards the

country of origin and the host country were related to the corresponding post-migration

attitudes towards the two countries (Tartakovsky, 2009). In addition, perceived

discrimination has been found to be associated with a negative attitude towards a country,

while the individuals’ psychological resources have been associated with their positive

attitude towards a country (Barrett, 2005; Barrett & Davis, 2008; Tartakovsky, 2009, 2010).

1.3.3. The effect of social norms on acculturation intentions

Kalin and Berry (1996) formulated the reciprocity principle, whereby the

acculturation behavior of immigrants follows the acculturation policy of the receiving

society. When the state policy endorses multiculturalism, the immigrants' predominant choice

is integration; a "melting pot" policy is associated with assimilation; segregation is associated

with separation; and exclusion is associated with marginalization (Berry, 2005; Berry et al.,

8

2006). Empirical studies have confirmed the connection between the acculturation strategy

preferred by immigrants and that preferred by the host society (Ben-Shalom & Horenczyk,

2003; Roccas, Horenczyk, & Schwartz, 2000; Shamai & Ilatov, 2005). The AIM extends the

reciprocity principle to the immigrants’ country of origin and the immigrants’ community.

The social norms of the host society regarding acculturation are expressed in the immigration

laws, welfare programs for the immigrants, and the policies of different institutions (schools,

universities, state-owned and private companies) related to immigrant absorption. The

immigrants’ country of origin expresses its preferences regarding the immigrants’

acculturation through its policy regarding dual citizenship as well as cultural and economic

ties with expatriates and with their host country. Finally, the immigrants’ community

expresses its norms regarding acculturation through the community’s mass media and

institutions (cf. Leshem & Lissak, 2001).

1.3.4. Perceived control of the acculturation process

Perceived control of the acculturation process relates to the personal and

environmental factors, as perceived by the immigrants, which promote or hinder the

immigrants’ interaction with people from their country of origin and the host country.

Perceived control of the acculturation process combines two elements: the immigrants’

personal resources needed for acculturation (e.g., the ability to learn languages, openness to

new experiences, flexibility, financial resources, and job skills) and perceived environmental

constraints (e.g., perceived discrimination and social support). The immigrants’ personal

resources and their perception of the environmental constraints are formed in the pre-

migration period; however, they may substantially vary in the post-migration period,

depending on the immigrants’ experience with people from the host society and their country

of origin.

1.3.4.1. The effect of psychological resources on the immigrants’ acculturation

intentions

Interaction with an alien society and acceptance of its norms and values is a

cognitively and emotionally demanding task (Cushner & Brislin, 1995). It requires the ability

to learn a new language as well as personality traits such as openness to new experiences and

flexibility (Berry, 2005; Padilla, 2008). In addition, immigrants must learn to overcome the

anxiety inevitable in cross-cultural contacts (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Therefore,

immigrants who have the required psychological resources may adopt the acculturation

9

strategies that assume interaction with the host society (assimilation and integration), while

those who lack the required resources, are probably forced to choose acculturation strategies

that enable them to interact mostly within their society of origin and avoid interacting with

the host society (separation and marginalization). Previous studies have confirmed the role of

personality characteristics in the immigrants’ choice of acculturation strategies. Openness to

change (Benet-Martinez & Heritatos, 2005), flexibility (Bakker et al., 2006), sensation

seeking (Luijters, van der Zee, & Otten, 2006), high self-esteem (Giang & Wittig, 2006;

Pham & Harris, 2001), self-efficacy (Kim & Omizo, 2006), and resilience (Safdar et al.,

2003) have been associated with integration and assimilation. Rigidity and low sense of self-

efficacy have been associated with separation and marginalization (Cernovsky, 1990;

Piontkowski et al., 2000).

1.3.4.2. The effect of environmental constraints on acculturation

The perceived environmental constraints relate to both the host country and the

immigrants’ country of origin and they reflect the immigrants’ impression as to whether the

host society and the country of origin accept or reject the new immigrants. Unlike social

norms that reflect the official policy, perceived social constraints reflect the immigrants’

immediate experience with the host society and their country of origin. The AIM assumes

that immigrants tend to interact with the members and adhere to the norms and values of a

society, which they feel is accommodating towards them, while they tend to distance

themselves from a society which they perceive as rejecting. Therefore, immigrants who feel

accepted in the host society may choose the assimilation or integration acculturation

strategies and plan to remain in the host country, while those who feel accepted in the country

of origin may choose separation and may plan to return to their country of origin. Those who

feel rejected by both societies will most likely choose marginalization and may consider

emigrating to a third country. The immigrants’ perception of society as accepting or rejecting

is best reflected in the concepts of perceived discrimination and perceived social support

(Berry et al., 2006).

Various researchers have proposed that discrimination reflects the negative attitude of

a receiving society towards immigrants, showing them that the social boundaries of the host

country are impermeable (Bakker et al., 2006; Elemers, 1993). In addition, discrimination

increases the immigrants’ feelings of ethnic threat and decreases their sense of control over

their acculturation process (Padilla, 2008). Perceived discrimination has been negatively

associated with assimilation and integration and positively associated with separation and

10

marginalization in a large number of studies (Berry et al., 2006; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind,

Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003; Luque et al., 2006; Moghaddam & Taylor, 1987; Nesdale,

2002; Piontkowski et al., 2000; Roytburd & Friedlander, 2008; Birman, Trickett &

Buchanan, 2005; Zagefka & Brown, 2002).

In contrast to perceived discrimination, social support received from the host country

provides a defense against outgroup threat and validates the immigrants’ perceived sense of

acceptance by the host society (Padilla, 2008; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Therefore, social

support received from the host society should be associated with acculturation strategies that

promote affiliation with the host country. On the other hand, social support received from the

immigrants’ community and from the immigrants’ country of origin should be associated

with a preference for cultural practices promoting affiliation with the immigrants’ heritage

culture. Only a few studies have empirically tested the effect of perceived social support on

immigrants’ acculturation strategies. Among adults, strong social support from the ethnic

community has been associated with a stronger adherence to ethnic behavior (Padilla, 2008),

while perceiving the host society as supportive has been associated with a stronger

willingness to interact with its members (Zagefka & Brown, 2002). Among children,

adolescents, and young adults, good relations with parents have been associated with

adhering to ethnic cultural practices (Kim, Sarason, & Sarason, 2006) and have been

negatively related to assimilation (Safdar et al. 2003).

1.5. The present study

Following the assumptions of the acculturation intentions model (AIM), the present

study examines the effects of attitudes towards the two countries (measured before and after

immigration), perceived environmental constraints, and psychological resources on the

immigrants’ acculturation intentions. The present study does not examine the effect of social

norms on the immigrants’ acculturation intentions. Among various environmental constraints,

the present study focuses on perceived social support from parent, peers, and teachers and

perceived discrimination in the host country. In addition, the present study includes two

factors that are specific to the studied population of adolescents participating in the Na’ale

educational program: placement in religious schools and the parents’ immigration to Israel.

Following Ajzen’s (1991) planned behavior theory, it was assumed that placement in

religious schools and parents’ immigration status would affect the adolescents’ acculturation

preferences through their influence on the attitudes towards the two countries and perceived

environmental constraints. Similar to most previous immigration studies, the present study

11

focuses on the acculturation intentions and not on the actual acculturation behaviors of

immigrants. In the present study, acculturation intentions were measured when the adolescent

immigrants completed a three-year immigration program and graduated from high school in

Israel. The participants were asked about their acculturation intentions after graduation. It

was not possible to ask these adolescent immigrants about their actual acculturation behavior,

for they did not yet engage in many of these behaviors (e.g. voting, choice of university, army

service, marriage, and raising children).

1.5.1. Main hypotheses of the present study

H1: Following the results of previous studies on the participants of the Na’ale

program (Bendas-Jacob & Fridman, 2000; Bertok & Masterov, 2006; Horenczyk, 2003;

Tartakovsky, 2009), it was assumed that the adolescents’ attitude towards Israel would be

more positive than their attitude towards Russia or Ukraine, that they had enough

psychological resources, and that the environmental conditions were benign for their positive

integration. Therefore, it was hypothesized that most of the adolescents participating in the

present study would plan to remain in Israel after the end of the program, and that integration

would be their preferred acculturation strategy. It was further hypothesized that those

immigrants who planned to remain in Israel would prefer integration or assimilation; those

who planned to return to their country of origin would prefer separation; and those who

planned to emigrate to a third country would prefer marginalization.

H2: It was hypothesized that the immigrants’ pre-migration attitudes towards Israel

and Russia/Ukraine would affect their post-migration attitudes towards these countries. In

addition, previous studies have demonstrated that personal resources and perceived

environmental constraints affected the adolescents’ attitudes towards a country (Barrett &

Davis, 2008; Tartakovsky, 2009, 2010). Therefore, it was hypothesized that the following

variables would be associated with a positive attitude towards Israel: discrimination

(negatively), social support from peers and teachers (positively), and placement in a religious

school (positively). It was further hypothesized that perceived discrimination and social

support from parents would be associated with a positive attitude towards the immigrants’

country of origin. Finally, it was hypothesized that greater personal resources would be

associated with a more positive attitude towards both countries.

H3: Based on the principles of the AIM, it was hypothesized that a positive attitude

towards Russia/Ukraine would be associated with a tendency towards separation and

marginalization, and a desire to return to the country of origin. On the other hand, a positive

12

attitude towards Israel would be associated with integration and assimilation, and a desire to

continue living in Israel.

H4: Previous studies have demonstrated that discrimination prevents interaction with

the host society and causes immigrants to interact more with people from their country of

origin (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003; Padilla, 2008). Therefore, it

was hypothesized that perceived discrimination would be negatively associated with

assimilation and integration and positively associated with separation and marginalization; it

would also be positively associated with the desire to leave the host country, either returning

back to their country of origin or emigrating to a third country.

H4: It was assumed that social support received by the adolescent immigrants from

their teachers indicates acceptance by the host society (because most teachers were Israeli-

born); thus, it was hypothesized that perceived social support from teachers would be

positively associated with integration and assimilation, as well as with the immigrants’

intention to remain in Israel. It was assumed that social support from friends symbolized the

immigrants’ acceptance by both their heritage and host societies, because some of their

friends were Israeli-born and some of them were fellow immigrants (Bendas-Jacob &

Fridman, 2000). Therefore, it was hypothesized that perceived social support from friends

would be associated with integration and the immigrants’ intention to remain in Israel.

Finally, it was hypothesized that social support received from parents would be associated

with close contact with the immigrants’ heritage culture and, therefore, with a preference for

the separation acculturation strategy.

H5: Following the results of previous studies (e.g., Padilla, 2008; Safdar et al., 2009),

it was hypothesized that immigrants’ greater psychological resources would be associated

with their preference for the integration or assimilation acculturation strategies as well as

with an intention to continue living in Israel.

H6: Adolescents who participated in the present study were placed either in secular or

religious schools according to their choice. As previous studies have demonstrated, the

immigrants’ affinity with the dominant religion of the host country facilitated their affiliation

with the host society (Berry et al., 2006; Saroglou & Mathijsen, 2007). Therefore, it was

hypothesized that studying in a religious school in Israel would be positively associated with

less discrimination and a higher level of perceived social support from Israeli society.

H7: It was hypothesized that the immigration of the adolescents’ parents to Israel

would cause an increase in perceived social support from parents, which may encourage the

adolescents to intensify their contacts with people belonging to their heritage culture and,

13

therefore, strengthen their separation intentions. However, the presence of parents in Israel

may also increase the adolescents’ intention to remain in this country in order to ensure the

maintenance of close family ties.

2. Method

2.1. Target population

The present study focused on Jewish high-school adolescents from the Former Soviet

Union who participated in an Israeli immigration program called Na'ale. Na’ale is a Hebrew

acronym for “adolescents immigrating before their parents.” Fifteen-year-old adolescents

living all over the world who are eligible for immigration to Israel according to the Law of

Return (i.e., having at least one Jewish grandparent) may participate in this program (Na'ale

Program, 2010). These adolescents undergo testing to the program about half a year before

their prospective emigration; therefore, they are available for study in the pre-migration

period. Adolescents accepted to the program live in boarding schools and kibbutzim and

study in Israeli high schools for three years. Following requests made by both the adolescents

and their parents, about 20% of the adolescents are placed in state-religious schools. The

Israeli government covers the basic needs of the adolescent immigrants, including housing,

food, school fees, and health insurance. During the summer vacations, the adolescents usually

fly home to their parents. Upon graduation from high school, about 90% of Na’ale graduates

remain in Israel and join Israeli youth in the army, work places, colleges, and universities;

others return to their country of origin (Bendas-Jacob & Fridman, 2000; Na'ale Program,

2010).

2.2. Sampling

One hundred fifty one adolescents participated in this three-year longitudinal study.

They comprised a representative sample of Russian and Ukrainian adolescents participating

in the Na’ale program. In the beginning of the study, the adolescents were 14.5-15.5 years old

and studied in the 9th grade in Russian and Ukrainian schools (as required by the immigration

program). By the end of the study, they had completed high school in Israel (through the 12th

grade). There was a higher proportion of girls (59%); most of the adolescents' parents had a

higher education (72%) and held professional or managerial positions (59%); the adolescents’

school GPA was mostly in the "good" or "very good" range. Eighty three percent of the

adolescents came from ethnically mixed families, where at least one of the grandparents was

not Jewish. Compared to Jewish adolescents who immigrated to Israel with their parents,

14

participants of the present study demonstrated higher academic achievements; their parents

had a higher education and occupied higher professional positions (cf. Slonim-Nevo &

Shraga, 2000). In addition, the studied population probably had higher motivation for

emigration and greater psychological resources than adolescents immigrating with their

parents (this is due to the program selection procedure, where motivation, academic

achievements, and the absence of psychological problems were the main criterions). During

the three years of the adolescents’ participation in the program, 26% of their parents

immigrated to Israel.

2.3. Procedure

The pre-migration assessment was conducted during testing to the Na’ale program in

Russia and Ukraine. Eight geographic locations were randomly chosen out of 18 locations

where testing was conducted. In these locations, adolescents from about 40 cities and towns

scattered across Russia and Ukraine were tested. All candidates to the program who came for

testing completed research questionnaires (n=646). Of those candidates, 211 adolescents were

accepted to the program and arrived in Israel (they consisted about a quarter of all Na’ale

students that year). About a month before their graduation from the program, the same

adolescents were asked to complete the research questionnaires once again; however, only

151 of them did so (indicating a 28% dropout rate from the first to the third year of the

study). Most of those adolescents who did not complete the questionnaires at the end of the

program explained that they were busy with their graduation exams. Statistical analyses

showed that the adolescents who dropped out did not differ significantly from those who

participated to the end in any variable in the study. Signed informed consent was obtained

from the adolescents and from their parents.

2.4. Instruments

The current study used self-report questionnaires. The questionnaires were in Russian.

They were translated from English by the author, back translated to English by a native

English speaker, and the disparities were ironed out by a team of three multilingual

translators. Cultural equivalence of all the scales used in this study has been tested in

previous studies (Tartakovsky, 2008a, 2009, 2010). All questionnaires used 5-point Likert

scales. For all the questionnaires, mean scores of all the items were calculated. Internal

consistency of the scales was measured using Cronbach’s α.

15

2.4.1. Acculturation intentions

In the present study, two aspects of acculturation intentions were measured: the

immigrants’ preferences for acculturation strategies and further emigration intentions. Both

variables were measured in the third year after immigration, one month before the

adolescents' graduation from high school.

2.4.1.1. Preferences for acculturation strategies were measured by a 24-item

questionnaire that was a modification of the questionnaire developed by Roccas, Horenczyk

and Schwartz (2000). Items related to assimilation reflected affiliation with Israeli culture and

rejection of Russian/Ukrainian culture (6 items); items related to separation reflected

affiliation with Russian/Ukrainian culture and rejection of Israeli culture (7 items); items

related to integration reflected affiliation with both Russian and Israeli cultures (5 items); and

items related to marginalization reflected rejection of both Israeli and Russian/Ukrainian

cultures and an intention to affiliate with European or American culture (6 items). The

participants reported to what extent they planned to adopt a specific behavior after graduating

from the Na'ale program. Items related to seven areas: language usage ("I will speak mostly

Russian and use Hebrew only when needed"), social contacts ("I will spend most of my free

time with Israelis"), camaraderie in the army ("I will choose an army unit with an even

number of Russians and Israelis"), holidays ("I will celebrate only Russian holidays"),

marriage ("I will try to marry somebody from Europe or America"), choice of university ("I

plan to study in a branch of a European or American university in Israel"), and voting for a

political party ("I will vote for a ’Russian’ party in the Israeli elections"). Each item was

assigned to one of the four acculturation strategy scales, and the general structure of the

questionnaire was verified using the Smallest Space Analysis. Scales measuring the four

acculturation intentions demonstrated moderate internal consistency: integration (.64),

separation (.77), assimilation (.69), and marginalization (.67).

2.4.1.2. Further emigration intentions were measured by three one-item 5-point

scales that asked the adolescents about their intentions after graduating from the program –

whether they plan to remain in Israel, return to Russia or Ukraine, or emigrate to a third

country.

2.4.2. Attitudes towards the country of origin and the host country

Attitude towards each country was measured using a scale developed by Tartakovsky

(2008a, 2009, 2010). The scale includes 20 items, 10 positively and 10 negatively worded.

16

The scale's items relate to the individual's feelings of fondness and pride related to the

country. Item examples: "I am proud of Russia/Ukraine"; "I feel comfortable in

Russia/Ukraine"; "I love Russia/Ukraine"; "I tend to devalue Russia/Ukraine" (reversed).

Instruments measuring the attitudes towards the two countries were identical; only the name

of the country varied (Russia/Ukraine or Israel). Immigrants from Ukraine reported on their

attitude towards Ukraine, while immigrants from Russia reported on their attitudes towards

Russia. Attitudes towards both countries were measured before immigration and in the third

year after immigration. Internal consistency of the scale measuring attitude towards Israel

was .81 in the pre-migration period and .90 in the post-migration period; internal consistency

of the scale measuring attitude towards Russia/Ukraine was .89 in the pre-migration period

and .92 in the post-migration period. The immigrants’ attitude towards Israel was more

positive than their attitude towards Russia/Ukraine both before immigration (4.56(.32) vs.

3.02(.61), t(206)=31.2, p<.001) and in the third year after immigration (3.90(.54) vs.

3.49(.72), t(140)=5.36, p<.001).

2.4.3. Perceived psychological resources

Perceived psychological resources of immigrants were measured using the Self-

liking/Self-worth scale (Tafarodi & Swann, 1995). This scale consists of 20 positively and

negatively formulated items reflecting feelings of social worth and personal efficacy. Item

examples: "Owing to my capabilities, I have much potential"; "It is often unpleasant for me to

think about myself." The scale demonstrated medium internal consistency both in the pre-

migration (.79) and post-migration period (.77).

2.4.4. Environmental constraints

The following variables related to environmental constraints were measured in the

present study: perceived discrimination and perceived social support from parents, peers, and

teachers. These variables were measured only in the post-migration period.

2.4.4.1. Perceived discrimination was measured using the Discrimination

Questionnaire (Phinney, Madden & Santos, 1998). The questionnaire consists of ten items

measuring immigrants’ suffering due to negative attitudes of the receiving society. Item

examples include the following: "Israeli students in my school are hostile towards me

because I am from Russia/Ukraine"; "I feel that I am not wanted in Israeli society because I

am from Russia/Ukraine." Internal consistency of the scale was .87.

17

2.4.4.2. Perceived social support was measured using the Multidimensional Scale of

Perceived Social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet & Farley, 1988). This questionnaire

consists of 12 items, which are divided into three subscales reflecting social support from

parents, peers, and teachers. Item examples: "My parents really try to help me"; "I have

friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows"; "There is a teacher who is around when

I am in need." Each of the three subscales demonstrated high internal consistency (.79, .84,

and .87). The three subscales were positively correlated; the correlation coefficients ranged

from .20 to .32.

2.5. Analyses of data

To ascertain which acculturation strategies and emigration intentions are most and least

preferred, the means of these variables were compared using t-tests. Pearson correlation

coefficients were calculated in order to test for the relationships between the immigrants’

acculturation strategies’ preferences and their further emigration intentions. Multiple

regression analyses were conducted in order to test for the effects of the pre-migration

attitudes, personal resources, and environmental constraints on the immigrants’ attitudes

towards the two countries and their acculturation intentions. Multiple regression analyses

were also conducted in order to test for the effects of the post-migration attitudes, personal

resources, and environmental constraints on the acculturation intentions. Finally, path

analyses were conducted to test the interrelations between the pre- and post-migration

variables when predicting the immigrants’ acculturation intentions. For reasons of brevity,

the path analyses were limited to two structural equation models: for the integration

acculturation strategy and the plans to remain in Israel. These acculturation intentions were

selected, because it was assumed they would be the most prominent among the study sample.

3. Results

Means and standard deviations as well as correlations between the acculturation

strategies and further emigration intentions are presented in Table 1. T-tests for dependent

samples demonstrated that integration was preferred more than assimilation (t(149)=17.9,

p<.001); assimilation was preferred more than separation (t(148)=3.32, p<.01); and the

preferences for separation and marginalization were the same (t(147)=.16, ns). T-tests for

dependent samples demonstrated that immigrants preferred to remain in Israel after

graduating from the program rather than emigrate to a third country (t(151)=11.5, p<.001);

and they preferred emigrating to a third country more than returning to their country of origin

18

(t(151)=6.29, p<.001). Confirming the hypothesis, the immigrants' intention to remain in

Israel was positively correlated with the assimilation (.29) and integration (.25) acculturation

strategies, and it was negatively correlated with marginalization (-.40) and separation (-.17).

The immigrants’ intention to return to their country of origin was positively correlated with

the separation (.47) and marginalization strategies (.29), and negatively correlated with

integration (-.32) and assimilation (-.20). Finally, the immigrants’ intention to emigrate to a

third country was positively correlated with marginalization (.62) and negatively correlated

with assimilation (-.21) and integration (-.19).

Table 1 about here

To examine the effect of various factors on the post-migration attitudes towards the

two countries, two multiple regressions were conducted (Table 2). The predicting variables

included the pre-migration attitudes towards Israel and Russia/Ukraine, the variables

reflecting social constraints in the post-migration period (perceived discrimination and social

support from parents, teachers, and peers), post-migration personal resources (self-esteem),

and two socio-demographic variables (parents’ immigration to Israel and the adolescents’

placement in a religious school). All the predicting variables together explained 20% of the

variance in the immigrants’ post-migration attitude towards Russia/Ukraine and 30% of their

post-migration attitude towards Israel. The obtained regression coefficients confirmed that

the pre-migration attitudes predicted the corresponding post-migration attitudes: towards

Russia/Ukraine (β = .25) and Israel (β = .14). As predicted, perceived discrimination was

negatively correlated with attitude towards Israel (β = -.23); however, it was not correlated

with the attitude towards Russia/Ukraine (β = -.01). Perceived social support from parents

was correlated with a positive attitude towards Russia/Ukraine (β = .15). Perceived social

support from peers was correlated with a positive attitude towards Russia/Ukraine (β = .15)

and towards Israel (β = .19). Perceived social support from teachers was correlated with a

positive attitude towards Israel (β = .15). Post-migration self-esteem was correlated with a

positive attitude towards Russia/Ukraine (β = .16). Parents’ immigration to Israel was

correlated with a negative attitude towards Russia/Ukraine (β = -.18). Finally, placement in a

religious school was correlated with a positive attitude towards Israel (β = .13).

Table 2 about here

19

To examine the effect of the post-migration predicting variables on the post-migration

acculturation intentions a series of multiple regressions were conducted (Table 3). The

predicting variables included the immigrants’ post-migration attitudes towards

Russia/Ukraine and Israel, the immigrants’ psychological resources (self-esteem), four

indicators of social constraints (perceived discrimination, perceived social support from

parents, peers, and teachers), and two socio-demographic variables (parents’ immigration to

Israel and the adolescents’ placement in a religious school). All the predicting variables

together explained from 21% to 29% of the variance in the immigrants’ acculturation

intentions. A positive attitude towards Russia/Ukraine was positively correlated with

separation (β = .19) and negatively correlated with assimilation (β = -.27); it was also

positively correlated with the plans to return to Russia/Ukraine (β = .28) and negatively

correlated with the plans to remain in Israel (β = -.19). A positive attitude towards Israel was

positively correlated with integration (β = .19) and assimilation (β = .18), and it was

negatively correlated with separation (β = -.16) and marginalization (β = -.38); it was also

positively correlated with the plans to remain in Israel (β = .37), negatively correlated with

the plans to return to Russia/Ukraine (β = -.19), and negatively correlated with the plans to

emigrate to a third country (β = -.40). Perceived discrimination was positively correlated with

separation (β = .29) and negatively correlated with integration (β = -.22); in addition, it was

positively correlated with the plans to return to Russia/Ukraine (β = .26). Perceived social

support from parents was positively correlated with separation (β = .17) and marginalization

(β = .17) and negatively correlated with assimilation (β = -.15); in addition, it was positively

correlated with the plans to emigrate to a third country (β = .14). Perceived social support

from peers was positively correlated with integration (β = .18) and negatively correlated with

assimilation (β = -.23). Perceived social support from teachers was positively correlated with

assimilation (β = .21) and negatively correlated with separation (β = -.21); in addition, it was

positively correlated with the intention to remain in Israel (β = .16). Parents’ immigration to

Israel was negatively correlated with the adolescents’ plans to return to Russia/Ukraine (β = -

.13). Placement in a religious school was negatively correlated with marginalization (β = -

.14) and was positively correlated with the intention to remain in Israel (β = .13). Immigrants’

self-esteem did not correlate with any measure of acculturation intentions.

Table 3 about here

20

In order to test for the effects of the pre- and post-migration predicting variables on

the immigrants’ acculturation intentions while also taking into account the interconnections

between the predicting variables, path analyses were conducted. For reasons of brevity, the

analyses were limited to two structural equation models. In the first, the predicted variable

was preference for the integration acculturation strategy; in the second, the predicted variable

was the intention to remain in Israel.

Following the formulated hypotheses, the model predicting the immigrants’

integration intentions included the attitudes towards the two countries (pre- and post-

migration), perceived social support from parents, peers, and teachers, perceived

discrimination, parents’ immigration to Israel, placement in a religious school, and the

immigrants’ self-esteem (pre- and post-migration). However, fit indexes of the suggested

model were unsatisfactory. In addition, in contrast to the hypotheses, none of the paths

related to the immigrants ’attitude towards Russia/Ukraine, social support from parents,

parents’ immigration to Israel, and the immigrants’ self-esteem were significant. To improve

the model, these variables were omitted from the model. Moreover, to account for the

positive connection between the two components of perceived social support (from peers and

teachers), the disturbance associated with the latent variable of social support from peers was

allowed to covary with the latent variable of social support from teachers. The modified

model (Figure 2) revealed an excellent fit: χ2(10) = 8.507, p = .579, χ

2/df = .851; a goodness-

of-fit index (GFI) = .984, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 1.023 and a root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA) = .013. The model explained 45% of the variance in the

immigrants’ preference for the integration acculturation strategy.

Figure 2 about here

The initial model predicting the immigrants’ intentions to remain in Israel included

the immigrants’ attitudes towards the two countries (pre- and post-migration), self-esteem

(pre- and post-migration), perceived social support from parents, peers, and teachers,

perceived discrimination, placement in religious schools, and parents’ immigration status.

However, in contrast to the hypothesis, the immigrants’ self-esteem was not related to their

intention to remain in Israel; therefore, it was omitted from the model. In addition, to account

for the positive connection between the three components of perceived social support (from

parents, peers and teachers), the disturbance associated with the latent variable of social

support from peers was allowed to covary with the latent variables of social support from

21

teachers and parents. The modified model (Figure 3) revealed an excellent fit: χ2(38) = 36.27,

p = .550, χ2/df = .955, a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .959, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) =

1.014, and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .027. The model explained

31% of the variance in the immigrants’ intention to live in Israel.

Figure 3 about here

4. Discussion

This article presents a new theoretical model that explains how immigrants form their

preferences for different acculturative strategies, and what factors affect their plans to remain

in the host country, return to their country of origin, or emigrate to a third country. The

suggested Acculturation Intentions Model (AIM) assumes that four groups of factors

determine the immigrants’ acculturation intentions: the immigrants’ attitudes towards their

country of origin and the host country, social norms related to acculturation, perceived

environmental constraints, and the immigrants’ personal resources. The model further

assumes that the immigrants’ attitudes towards the two countries are formed in the pre-

migration period, and they are transformed in the post-migration period depending on the

influence of perceived social constraints and personal resources. The theoretical model was

tested on a sample of adolescents immigrating from Russia and Ukraine to Israel. In what

follows, the suggested theoretical model is discussed in light of the empirical findings of the

present study.

4.1. Acculturation strategy preferences and further emigration intentions

The most preferred acculturation strategy of the adolescent immigrants participating

in the present study was integration; the second was assimilation, and the least preferred

strategies were separation and marginalization. Most adolescents intended to remain in Israel

after the end of the program. In terms of the AIM, this pattern of acculturation intentions is a

result of a specific constellation of psychosocial factors: a positive attitude towards the host

country, social norms favoring immigration and integration of immigrants, a low level of

discrimination and a high level of social support, and adequate personal resources of the

immigrants for their successful adjustment in the host country. Previous studies on Na’ale

students have demonstrated that these conditions indeed exist in the program (Bendas-Jacob

& Fridman, 2000; Bertok & Masterov, 2006; Plotkin-Amrami, 2008; Tartakovsky, 2009).

22

As predicted by the AIM, the immigrants' preferences for different acculturation

strategies were related to their further emigration intentions. Immigrants who planned to

remain in Israel preferred those acculturation strategies that increased their interaction with

Israeli society and decreased their interaction with people from their heritage culture and

other cultures: these immigrants preferred integration and assimilation, and avoided

separation and marginalization. Immigrants who considered returning to their homeland,

preferred acculturation strategies that fostered their interaction with Russians or Ukrainians

or with Americans or Europeans and distanced themselves from Israelis: these immigrants

preferred separation and marginalization, and avoided integration and assimilation

acculturation strategies. Finally, immigrants, who considered emigration to a third country,

preferred cultural practices that increased their interaction with people from these countries,

while still living in Israel. They wanted to befriend people from Europe or America, to use

English as their language of communication, and looked for a branch of an American or

European university in Israel for their studies. They also tended to avoid interaction with

Israelis, as expressed in a low preference for the assimilation and integration acculturation

strategies.

4.2. The role of attitudes towards the country of origin and the host country in

predicting acculturation intentions

The obtained results fully support the AIM’s assumptions regarding the immigrants’

attitudes towards the host country. As expected, a positive attitude towards Israel was

associated with the intention to remain in Israel and with the preference for those

acculturation strategies that ensured close contacts with Israelis and acceptance of their

values and norms (assimilation and integration). In contrast, a negative attitude towards Israel

was associated with the intention to leave Israel and either return to the country of origin or

emigrate to a third country. It was also associated with a preference for those acculturation

strategies that ensured little contact with Israelis and a rejection of their values and norms

(separation and marginalization).

The theoretical assumptions regarding the immigrants’ attitude towards their country

of origin were only partially confirmed. A positive attitude towards Russia/Ukraine was

associated with the immigrants’ plans to return to their country of origin, and a negative

attitude towards Russia/Ukraine was associated with the plans to remain in Israel. In addition,

a positive attitude towards Russia/Ukraine was associated with a preference for separation,

and a negative attitude towards Russia/Ukraine was associated with assimilation. However,

23

the attitude towards Russia/Ukraine was not related to the integration and marginalization

acculturation strategies; it was also not related to the plans to emigrate to a third country.

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) may help explain the asymmetry found

between the attitudes towards the host country and the country of origin. The TPB assumes

(and this assumption was empirically confirmed) that the individuals’ attitudes have a weaker

effect on automatic behaviors as compared to behaviors that require conscious control

(Ajzen, 2002a; Ajzen et al., 2009). Therefore, the asymmetrical effects of the attitudes

towards the two countries on acculturation intentions may be explained by assuming that

cultural practices associated with the country of origin are more automatic, while the cultural

practices associated with the host country are more consciously controlled. For those born

and raised in Russia, speaking Russian, communicating with Russians, eating Russian food,

and listening to Russian music comes naturally and automatically. In contrast, the

immigrants’ engagement in Israeli cultural practices (speaking Hebrew, communicating with

Israelis, and listening to Israeli music) requires conscious efforts. Thus, when choosing

integration, the immigrants may more consciously control the part of their integration

behavior that relates to their interaction with the host country, while exerting less control on

their behavior that relates to their interaction with their country of origin. Therefore, the

preference for integration is associated with a positive attitude towards the host country while

it is not associated with a positive attitude towards the country of origin. On the other hand, it

is possible that acculturation strategies that require rejecting the cultural practices of one of

the countries (assimilation and separation) require a conscious comparison of the two

countries and, therefore, they depend on the immigrants’ attitudes towards both countries.

When considering the marginalization acculturation strategy or planning emigration to a third

country, immigrants probably compare Israel with the country of possible emigration. The

immigrants’ attitude towards the country of origin is not relevant to this comparison, and this

may explain why it is not related to the immigrants’ marginalization acculturation intentions

and their plans to emigrate to a third country.

The obtained results confirm that the immigrants’ attitudes towards the country of

origin and the host country begin forming in the pre-migration period, and the pre-migration

attitudes affect the post-migration attitudes towards the two countries. These finding are

especially noteworthy when taking into account that there was a three-year interval between

the pre-migration and post-migration measurements. These findings confirm the AIM‘s

assumption that the motivational forces that affect the immigrants’ acculturative intentions

begin to form in the pre-migration stage and not after contact with the host country has been

24

established, as has been previously assumed (cf. Berry, 1997; Berry et al., 1989). Similar

results were obtained by Abu-Rayya (2007) and by Yijälä and Jasinskaja-Lahti (2009).

Further studies should focus on further delineating and understanding the factors affecting the

formation of the immigrants’ attitudes towards the two countries in the pre-migration period.

4.3. The effect of environmental constraints and personal resources on

acculturation intentions

The obtained results confirmed the AIM’s assumption regarding the effect of

environmental constraints on the immigrants’ acculturation intentions. Those immigrants who

experienced the host society as accepting and satisfying the immigrants’ needs tended to

engage in cultural practices that ensured their close contact with this society. Those

immigrants who experienced the host society as rejecting and frustrating their needs, tended

to affiliate with the society of their origin. Indeed, perceived discrimination was associated

with a strong preference for separation, a refusal to integrate, and the intention to return to the

immigrants’ country of origin. Therefore, when feeling threatened by the host society,

immigrants look for a secure refuge in their society of origin (cf. Berry et al., 2006;

Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2003; Piontkowski et al., 2000). On the other hand, social support

from teachers had a primarily opposite effect: perceived social support from teachers was

associated with a preference for assimilation, it contradicted the separation acculturation

strategy, and it was associated with the immigrants’ intention to remain in Israel. Therefore, it

may be deduced that social support from teachers indicated to the adolescent immigrants that

the host society accepts them and helps them to adjust to the new society and this increased

their motivation to affiliate with the host country.

In the present study, two variables related to the adolescents’ parents were

investigated: perceived social support from the parents and parents’ immigration to Israel.

Both factors were found to be related to the adolescents’ acculturation intentions. It was

assumed that for the adolescents who immigrated alone, social support from parents would

indicate the willingness of their country of origin to accept them and satisfy their needs. The

obtained results mainly confirm this assumption: Perceived social support from parents was

associated with a preference for separation and marginalization while rejecting the

assimilation acculturation strategy. In contrast to what was predicted, perceived social

support from parents was not related to the desire to return to the country of origin; rather, it

was associated with an intention to emigrate to a third country. It is possible that the parents’

plans to emigrate to a country other than Israel may explain this finding. Parents’

25

immigration to Israel affected only the adolescents’ intention to return to their country of

origin: those whose parents immigrated to Israel had less desire to return than adolescents

whose parents remained in Russia or Ukraine. This finding was expected; however, a

surprising finding was that the parents’ immigration did not affect the adolescents’

acculturation strategies, as has been found in some previous studies (cf. Kim & Omizo,

2006). A possible explanation lies in the fact that the adolescents whose parents immigrated

to Israel continued to live in boarding schools and kibbutzim. However, it is also possible that

the parents were too occupied with their own absorption process and were unable to influence

the acculturation processes of their children.

Perceived social support from peers was positively associated with the preference for

integration and negatively associated with the preference for the assimilation acculturation

strategy. According to previous studies on Na’ale students (Bendas-Jacob & Fridman, 2000),

most of these adolescents have friends among both their fellow immigrants as well as among

non-immigrant adolescents in Israel. Therefore, friends who belonged to the two cultures

probably encouraged the immigrant adolescents to engage in cultural practices associated

with both their heritage culture and the host culture. Another possible explanation of the

obtained results may be related to the social norm regarding acculturation that exists among

immigrants from the FSU in Israel. Previous studies have demonstrated that the

overwhelming majority of immigrant adolescents from the FSU preferred integration and

opposed assimilation (Shamai & Ilatov, 2005). Therefore, adolescents who were more

connected with their immigrant peers (as expressed in their high level of perceived social

support) would choose the acculturation preferences as determined by the community’s social

norm.

The adolescents placed in religious schools reported a stronger intention to remain in

Israel after the end of the program and a lower preference for marginalization compared with

those who studied in secular schools. Two factors may explain these findings. First, Israeli

religious schools, more than secular schools, educate their students towards the values of

collectivism and solidarity with the Jewish people (Sagy, Orr & Bar-On, 1999). Moreover,

living in Israel is one of Judaism’s commandments. Thus, their internalization of the values

taught in the religious schools may have encouraged the adolescents to remain in Israel. In

addition, adolescents studying in religious schools are more isolated from other cultures than

their peers studying in secular schools, because the internet is usually censored in religious

schools and contact with non-Jews is not encouraged. This lack of interaction with people

from other cultures may discourage the adolescents from choosing the marginalization

26

acculturation strategy after graduating the program. The effect of religious schools on the

immigrants’ acculturation intentions is especially interesting, because adolescent immigrants

who chose these schools were not different from those who chose the secular schools on any

pre-migration variable (except there was a larger proportion of non-Jewish adolescents

among those who chose religious schools).1 This finding confirms the important role of the

absorbing institutions in forming the immigrants’ acculturation intentions, as suggested by

the reciprocity theory of Kalin and Berry (1996).

The hypothesis that the immigrants’ psychological resources would be related to their

acculturation intentions was not confirmed. This finding contradicts the results of previous

studies that found positive correlations between immigrants’ self-esteem and other variables

related to psychological resources and their preference for the integration or assimilation

acculturation strategies (Giang & Wittig, 2006; Pham & Harris, 2001; Kim & Omizo, 2006).

It is possible that the specific characteristics of the adolescents who participated in the present

study are responsible for this contradiction. These adolescents were selected for the

immigration program, and their psychological resources were one of the selection criterions.

Thus, adolescents participating in the present study probably had higher than average

psychological resources and the variability of this parameter was lower than in the general

population. However, it is also probable that when the immigrants’ attitudes towards the two

countries and the environmental constraints are taken in the account, the immigrants’

psychological resources become irrelevant for predicting their acculturation intentions. This

finding is of great practical importance, because it indicates that immigrants who have little

psychological resources may also adopt the integration acculturation strategy, when they

highly appreciate the host country and when the environmental conditions support their

integration.

4.4. The effect of environmental constraints and psychological resources on the

immigrants’ attitudes towards the two countries

The results obtained confirmed the AIM’s assumption that environmental constraints

affect the immigrants’ post-migration attitudes towards their country of origin and the host

country. Several factors affected the post-migration attitude towards the country of origin.

Stronger perceived social support from parents and peers was associated with a more positive

attitude towards the country of origin, while parents’ immigration to Israel was associated

1 Many adolescents choose religious schools because they want to convert to Judaism, which is possible in

religious but not in secular schools in Israel.

27

with a less positive attitude towards the country of origin. Finally, immigrants’ higher self-

esteem was associated with a more positive attitude towards their country of origin. A

country is evaluated as subjectively good when people from this country are perceived as

supportive (Barrett & Davis, 2005; Tartakovsky, 2010). Therefore, it is possible that social

support from parents and peers (those who were immigrants from the former Soviet Union)

symbolized for the adolescent immigrants the “goodness” of their country of origin. On the

other hand, parents who immigrated to Israel probably did so because their attitude towards

their country of origin was negative, and they may transmit this negative attitude to their

children. The connection between the adolescents’ self-esteem and their positive attitude

towards their country of origin found in the present study corroborates previous studies on

this issue conducted in Russia and Ukraine among non-emigrating adolescents (Tartakovsky,

2010; Walsh & Tartakovsky, under review). It is possible that adolescents who have greater

psychological resources adjust better to the social conditions existing in their country of

origin. Consequently, they may attribute their positive adjustment to the “goodness” of the

country and form a more positive attitude towards this country than adolescents who have

less psychological resources and, therefore, do not adjust as well.

Slightly different factors affected the immigrants’ attitude towards Israel. Stronger

perceived social support from teachers and peers was associated with a more positive attitude

towards Israel, while stronger perceived discrimination was associated with a less positive

attitude towards Israel. Placement in a religious school affected attitude towards Israel both

directly and through their influence on perceived social support from peers. All these findings

demonstrate that immigrants form their post-migration attitude towards the host country

based on their experiences in interacting with the host society – the better the experience the

more positive the attitude towards the country.

The results of the present study regarding the effects of environmental constraints on

the immigrants’ attitudes towards the two countries perhaps require an amendment to Ajzen’s

planned behavior theory. As mentioned above, Ajzen (1991, 2002b) did not consider possible

connections between the factors affecting behavioral intentions. Thus, no connection was

assumed between perceived behavioral control and one’s attitude towards a behavior.

However, other psychological theories, e.g. cognitive dissonance theory (Van Overwalle &

Jordens, 2002) or social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), assume a connection between the

two variables. It is probable that people who sense that their psychological resources are

insufficient for attaining a desired goal, as well as those who sense that the environmental

28

factors prevent them from attaining this goal, alter their attitude towards the behavior aimed

on attaining this goal.

4.5. Limitations of the present study and suggestions for further research

The main limitation of the present study is its focus on a specific sample of immigrant

adolescents – Diaspora immigrants participating in a specific immigration program and

immigrating without their parents. These adolescent immigrants were highly motivated for

immigration – mainly seeking better possibilities for personal development (Bertok &

Masterov, 2006). They also had high scholastic abilities and fewer psychological problems

than their peers in the general population (cf. Slonim-Nevo & Shraga, 2000). Finally, they

received greater financial, social, and psychological support when adjusting to the host

society; however, they had little support from their parents, most of whom remained in the

country of origin (Bendas-Jacob & Fridman, 2000). Therefore, to generalize the findings of

the present study, the obtained results need to be replicated in other groups of immigrants.

Another limitation relates to the scales used in this study to measure preferences for

acculturation strategies. The internal consistency of these scales was relatively low, and

although it was similar to that of the scales used in previous studies (see a review in

Matsudaira, 2006), the low internal consistency of the scales may have decreased the chances

of finding significant correlations with other variables. The reason for the low internal

consistency is that the scales measuring acculturation strategies consist of double-barreled

items, which embrace a wide range of cultural practices (Rudmin, 2003). Further studies may

use other measures of acculturation, for instance, separate scales to measure cultural

behaviors related to the immigrants’ heritage culture and the host culture (e.g., Birman &

Trickett, 2001; Sfadar et al., 2009).

Only some elements of the acculturation intentions model were tested in the present

study. Further research is required to investigate factors affecting the formation of the

immigrants’ attitudes towards the country of origin and the host country in the pre-migration

period. The effect of social norms on the immigrants’ acculturation intentions and behavior

also require further investigation. The issue of changes in acculturation intentions and

acculturation behavior over time in the host country also warrants further investigation.

Finally, the connection between acculturation intentions and the actual acculturation behavior

of immigrants should be studied.

5. Conclusion

29

The present study mainly corroborated the acculturation intentions model (AIM).

Data obtained in a population of adolescents immigrating from the FSU to Israel confirms

that immigrants’ attitudes towards their country of origin and the host country as well as

environmental factors related to the two countries affect their acculturation intentions. In

addition, it was confirmed that the immigrants’ attitudes towards the two countries are

formed in the pre-migration period and are modified in the post-migration period depending

on environmental constraints related to the immigrants’ interaction with the host society and

their heritage society. Thus, results obtained in the present study confirm that the immigrants

prefer those acculturation strategies that permit them to sustain their affinity with the society

they value while they distance themselves from the society they dislike. At the same time,

preferences for different acculturation strategies and further emigration intentions are the

immigrants' responses to the social conditions existing in the host country and in their

country of origin. Immigrants, who feel accepted by the host society, i.e. enjoy sufficient

social support and suffer little discrimination, are more likely to choose the integration or

assimilation acculturation strategies and remain in the host country. Immigrants who feel

rejected by the host society are more likely to choose the separation or marginalization

acculturation strategies and have a stronger desire to leave the country.

The results obtained in the present study have important practical ramifications. They

indicate what the immigrants and the host society may do in order to achieve desired

acculturation results. Thus, to promote integration, the host society may attempt to reach out

to immigrants already in the pre-migration period, to help foster positive attitudes towards the

country of provisional immigration. In addition, the host society should do its utmost to

prevent discrimination, because this is probably the most important factor responsible for the

immigrants’ choice of the separation acculturation strategy and the decision to return to their

country of origin. The obtained results also demonstrate that social support from teachers and

peers is crucial for choosing integration and not the separation acculturation strategy by the

immigrant adolescents. Therefore, host societies that strive for the integration of new

immigrants should invest resources in building a system of social support for them. The

implementation of the acculturation intentions model suggested in the present paper in

research and practice may improve the understanding of acculturation processes as well as

facilitate the most adaptive acculturation behaviors of both immigrants and the host society.

30

Acknowledgments

This study was partly supported by a grant from the Chief Scientist’s Office at the

Israeli Education Ministry. The author thanks the psychologists, social workers, and

counselors working in the Na’ale program in Israel, the psychologists cooperating with the

Na’ale program in Russia and Ukraine, and the Na’ale administration for their help in

conducting the study. The author is grateful to the adolescents who participated in this study.

References

APA, American Psychological Association. (2010). PsycNet.

http://psycnet.apa.org.rproxy.tau.ac.il/

Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2007). Acculturation and its determinants among adult

immigrants in France. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 1-9.

Adler, L. L. & Gielen, U. P. (Eds.) (2003). Migration: immigration and emigration in

international perspective. Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2002a). Residual effects of past and later behavior: habituation and

reasoned action perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 107-122.

Ajzen, I. (2002b). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the

theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683.

Ajzen, I., Czasch, C., & Flood, M. G. (2009). From intentions to behavior:

implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 39(6), 1356-1372.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2004). Questions raised by a reasoned action approach:

comment on Ogden 2003. Health Psychology, 23(4), 431-434.

Bakker, W., van der Zee, K., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2006). Personality and Dutch

emigrants' reaction to acculturation strategies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(12),

2864-2891.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive

theory. Prentice Hall.

31

Barrett, M. (2005). National identities in children and young people. In S. Ding & K.

Littleton (Eds.), Children’s personal and social development (pp. 181-220). Milton Keynes:

The Open University/Blackwell Publishing.

Barrett, M., & Davis, S. C. (2008). Applying social identity and self-categorization

theories to children’s racial, ethnic, national and state identifications and attitudes. In S. M.

Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism and the developing child (pp. 72-

110). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Bendas-Jacob, O., & Fridman, Y. (2000). Na’ale: Adolescents emigrating without

their parents. Henrietta Sold Research Institute of Social Science, Jerusalem. (In Hebrew).

Benet-Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII):

Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015-1049.

Ben-Shalom, U., & Horenczyk, G. (2003). Acculturation orientations: a facet theory

perspective on the bidimensional model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(2), 176-

188.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology:

an International Review, 46(1), 5-34.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: living successfully in two cultures. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697-712.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation

attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 185-206.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth:

acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(3),

303-332.

Birman, D., & Trickett, E. J. (2001). The process of acculturation in first generation

Immigrants: A study of Soviet Jewish refugee adolescents and parents. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 456-477.

Burgelt, P. T., Morgan, M., & Pernice, R. (2008). Staying of returning: Pre-migration

influences on the migration process of German migrants to New Zealand. Journal of

Community and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 282-298.

Cernovsky, Z. Z. (1990). Stressful events and assimilation level of refugees. Social

Behavior and Personality, 1990, 18(1), 27-34.

32

Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (1995). Intercultural interactions: a practical guide

(Cross cultural research and methodology). Sage Publications, Inc. Second edition.

Davis, T. C. (1999). Revisiting group attachment: ethnic and national identity.

Political Psychology, 20(1), 25-47.

Dekker, H., Malova, D., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2003). Nationalism and its explanations.

Political Psychology, 24(2), 345-376.

Deaux, K. (2000), Surveying the landscape of immigration: social psychological

perspectives. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10(5), 421-431.

Dona, G., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of

Central American refugees. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 57-70.

Eisenstadt, S. N. (1955). The absorption of immigrants. Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.

Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity

enhancement strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27-57.

Giang, M. T., & Wittig, M. A. (2006). Implications of adolescents' acculturation

strategies for personal and collective self-esteem. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority

Psychology, 12(4), 725-739.

Horenczyk, G. (2003). The benefits of multiple identities: Implications from studies

on cultural identity and adaptation. In E. Leshem & D. Roer-Strier (Eds.), Cultural diversity:

A challenge to human services (pp. 127-138). Jerusalem: Magnes Press (in Hebrew).

Hsu, M.-H., & Chiu, C.-M. (2004). Internet self-efficacy and electronic service

acceptance. Decision Support Systems 38, 369– 381.

ICBS, Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, (2009). Statistical abstract of Israel.

http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st04_04.pdf

Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G., & Schmitz, P. (2003). The

interactive nature of acculturation: perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress

among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel, and Germany. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 27, 79–97.

Kalin, R., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Interethnic attitudes in Canada: Ethnocentrism,

consensual hierarchy, and reciprocity. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 28, 253-261.

Kelman, H. C. (1997). Nationalism, patriotism, and national identity: social-

psychological dimensions. In D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the lives of

individuals and nations (pp. 165-189). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

33

Kim, B. S. K. & Omizo, M. M. (2006). Behavioral acculturation and enculturation

and psychological functioning among Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity

and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(2), 245-258.

Kim, D.-Y., Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (2006). Implicit social cognition and

culture: explicit and implicit psychological acculturation, and distress of Korean-American

young adults. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(1), 1-32.

Leach, M., Hennessy, M., & Fishbein, M. (2001). Perception of easy-difficult:

Attitude or self-efficacy? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 1-20.

Leshem, E., & Lissak, M. (2001). Social and cultural consolidation of Russian

community in Israel. In M. Lissak & E. Leshem (Eds.), From Russia to Israel: identity and

culture in transition. Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Meuchad, pp. 27-77. (In Hebrew)

Liu, S. (2006). An exminaiton of the effects of print media exposure and contact on

subjective social realtiy and acculturaiton attitudes. International Jouranl fo Intercultural

Relations, 30, 365-382.

Luijters, K., van der Zee, K. I., & Otten, S. (2006). Acculturation strategies among

ethnic minority workers and the role of intercultural personality traits. Group Processes and

Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 561-575.

Luque, M. N., Fernandez, M. C. G., Tejada, A. J. R., Fernandez, P. P., & Guirado, I.

C. (2006). Prejudice and attitudes of acculturation: perspectives of autochthonous and

immigrants. Psicothema, 18(2), 187-193.

Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned

behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

18(1), 3-9.

Magun, V., & Magun, A. (2009). Feeling of affiliation with a country and pride for its

achievements: Russian data in the context of international comparison.

www.polit.ru/science/2009/03/26/honor.html (in Russian).

Matsudaira, T. (2006). Measures of psychological acculturation: a review.

Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(3), 462-487.

Na’ale Program (2010). http://www.naale-il.org/a1

Nesdale, D. (2002). Acculturation attitudes and the ethnic and host-country

identification of immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(7), 1488-1507.

Nesdale, D., & Mak, A. S. (2000). Immigrant acculturation attitudes and host country

identification. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 483-495.

34

Padilla, A. M. (2008). Social cognition, ethnic identity, and ethnic specific strategies

for coping with threat due to prejudice and discrimination. In C. Willi-Esqueda (ed.),

Motivational aspects of prejudice and racism. The Nebraska symposium on motivation.

Pham, T. B., & Harris, R. J. (2001). Acculturation strategies among Vietnamese-

Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(3), 279-300.

Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity,

immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493-

510.

Phinney, J. S., Madden, T., & Santos, L. J. (1998). Psychological variables as

predictors of perceived ethnic discrimination among minority and immigrant adolescents.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(11), 937-953.

Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., Obdrzalek, P. (2000). Predicting

acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 24, 1-26.

Plotkin-Amrami, G. (2008). From Russianness to Israeliness through the landscape of

the soul: therapeutic discourse in practices of immigrant absorption of ‘Russian’ adolescents.

Social Identities, 14(6), .

Reizabal, L., Valencia, J., Barrett, M. (2004). National identifications and attitudes to

national ingroups and outgroups amongst children living in the Basque Country. Infant and

Child Development, 13, 1-20.

Roccas, S., Horenczyk, G., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Acculturation discrepancies and

well-being: the moderating role of conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30,

323-334.

Roytburd, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2008). Predictors of Soviet Jewish refugees'

acculturation: differentiation of self and acculturative stress. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 14(1), 67-74.

Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of

assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7,

3-37.

Ryu, S., Ho, S., Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in

hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113-122.

35

Safdar, S., Lay, C., & Struthers, W. (2003). The process of acculturation and basic

goals: testing a multidimensional individual difference acculturation model with Iranian

immigrants in Canada. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(4), 555-579.

Safdar, S., Struthers, W., van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2009). Acculturation of Iranians in

the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands: a test of the multidimensional

individual difference acculturation (MIDA) model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,

40, 468-491.

Sagy, S., Orr, E., & Bar-On, D. (1999). Individualism and collectivism in Israeli

society: comparing religious and secular high-school students. Human Relations, 52(3), 327-

348.

Saroglou, V., & Mathijsen, F. (2007). Religion, multiple identities, and acculturation:

a study of Muslim immigrants in Belgium. Archive for the Psychology of Religions, 29, 177-

198.

Schatz, R. T. & Lavine, H. (2007). Waving the flag: national symbolism, social

identity, and political engagement. Political Psychology, 28(3), 329-355.

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Basic human values: theory, measurement, and applications.

Revue Française de Sociologie, 47(4).

Shabtay, M. (2001). Between reggae and rap: the integration challenge of Ethiopian

youth in Israel, Tcherikover, Tel Aviv (in Hebrew).

Shamai, S., & Ilatov, Z. (2005). Acculturation models of immigrant Soviet

adolescents in Israel. Adolescence, 40(159), 629-644.

Slonim-Nevo, V., & Shraga, Y. (2000). Psychological and social adjustment of

Russian-born and Israeli-born Jewish adolescents. Child and Social Work Journal, 17(6), 455-

475.

Smith, T. W., & Kim, S. (2006). National pride in comparative perspective: 1995/96

and 2003/04. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 127-136.

Sparks, P., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1992). An investigation into the

relationship between perceived control, attitude variability and the consumption of two

common foods. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(1), 55-71.

36

Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior:

Assessing the role of identification with "green consumerism. Social Psychology Quarterly,

55(4), 388-399.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social

Issues, 41, 157-175.

Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as

dimensions of global self-esteem: initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 65(2), 322-342.

Tartakovsky, E. (2002). Acculturation attitudes of potential emigrants: Jewish youths

in Russia. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(9), 1845-1862.

Tartakovsky, E. (2008a). Psychological well-being and ethnic identities of Jewish

adolescents planning emigration from Russia and Ukraine to Israel: changes during the post-

perestroika period. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(6), 553-564.

Tartakovsky, E. (2008b). Israel immigration policy and its influence on absorption of

the last wave of mass immigration from the Former Soviet Union. Diasporas, 35(1), 260-280.

(In Russian).

Tartakovsky, E. (2009). Cultural identities of adolescent immigrants: a three-year

longitudinal study including the pre-migration period. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

38(5), 654-671.

Tartakovsky, E. (2010). National identity of high-school adolescents in an era of

socio-economic change: Russia and Ukraine in the post-perestroika period. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-010-9509-6

Tartakovsky, E. (in press). National identity. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia

of adolescence. Springer Publishes.

Van Overwalle, F., & Jordens, K. (2002). An adaptive connectionist model of

cognitive dissonance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 204–231.

Walsh, S., & Tartakovsky, E. (under review). The relationship between national

identities and psychosocial adjustment among high-school adolescent immigrants from Russia

and Ukraine to Israel.

Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Second

edition. Routledge.

37

Yijälä, A., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2010). Pre-migration acculturation attitudes among

potential ethnic migrants from Russia to Finland. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 34(4), 326-339.

Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies,

relative fit and intergroup relations: immigrant-majority relations in Germany. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 171-188.

Zagefka, H., Brown, R., & Gonzalez, R. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of

acculturation preferences of non-indigenous Chileans in relation to an indigenous minority:

longitudinal survey evidence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 558-575.

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment,

52(1), 30-41.

38

Figure 1. A graphical display of the acculturation intentions model

Pre-m

igration

attitude towards the

country of origin

Pre-m

igration

attitude towards the

host country

Post-m

igration attitude

towards the country of

origin

Post-m

igration attitude

towards the host

country

Acculturation

intentions, including

acculturation

strategies preferences

and further

emigration intentions

Pre-m

igration perception

of social norm

s, personal

resources, and

environmental constraints

Post-m

igration perception

of social norm

s, personal

resources, and

environmental constraints

Immigration

Acculturation

behavior

39

Table 1. Acculturation intentions: correlations, means, and SD

Acculturation intentions

Remain in

Israel

Return to the

Russia/Ukraine

Emigrate to a

third country

Separation

Assimilation

Integration

Marginalization

Rem

ain in Israel

1.00

-.38*

-.58*

-.17*

.29*

.25*

-.40*

Return to Russia/U

kraine

1.00

.28*

.47*

-.20*

-.32*

.29*

Emigrate to a third country

1.00

.08

-.21*

-.19*

.62*

Separation

1.00

-.36*

-.21*

.10

Assim

ilation

1.00

.14

.03

Integration

1.00

-.08

Marginalization

1.00

Mean and SD

4.13 (1.01)

1.63 (.98)

2.30 (1.19)

2.35 (.68)

2.67 (.73)

3.92 (.56)

2.33 (.71)

* p<.05

40

Table 2. Multiple regression analyses of the post-m

igration attitudes towards the country of origin and the host country

Predicting variables

Post-m

igration attitude towards Russia/Ukraine

Post-m

igration attitude towards Israel

Pre-m

igration attitude towards the country

.25*

.14*

Perceived discrim

ination

-.01

-.23*

Perceived social support from parents

.15*

.00

Perceived social support from peers

.15*

.19*

Perceived social support from teachers

.01

.15*

Post-m

igration self-esteem

.16*

.12

Parents’ im

migration to Israel

-.18*

.07

Placement in a religious school

-.08

.13*

R2

.20*

.30*

* p<.05

41

Table 3. Multiple regression analyses of the acculturation intentions

Post-m

igration predicting variables

Integration

Assimilation

Separation

Marginali

zation

Remain

in

Israel

Return to Russia/

Ukraine

Emigrate to a

third country

Attitude towards Russia/Ukraine

.08

-.27*

.19*

-.06

-.19*

.28*

.04

Attitude towards Israel

.19*

.18*

-.16*

-.38*

.37*

-.19*

-.40*

Perceived discrim

ination

-.22*

-.07

.29*

.01

-.06

.26*

.06

Perceived social support from parents

-.01

-.15*

.17*

.17*

-.06

.02

.14*

Perceived social support from peers

.18*

-.23*

.09

.04

-.02

-.10

.05

Perceived social support from teachers

.11

.21*

-.21*

.01

.16*

-.12

.04

Self-esteem

-.07

.03

.03

-.03

.00

-.04

-.04

Parents’ im

migration to Israel

-.07

-.08

-.04

-.01

-.05

-.13*

.01

Placement in a religious school

.12

.02

.09

-.14*

.13*

.03

-.10

R2

.29*

.23*

.23*

.20*

.29*

.29*

.21*

* p<.05

42

Figure 2. The best-fit structural equation model predicting immigrants’ preference for the integration acculturation strategy

Standardized regression weights. p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001

v.e. – variance explained

Pre-m

igration

attitude towards

Israel

Integration

Post-m

igration

attitude

towards Israel

Perceived

social support

from teachers

Perceived social

support from peers

Perceived

discrim

ination

.19* -.38***

-.29**

.26**

.22*

.30**

v.e.=.45

-.27**

Placement in

a religious

school

.33***

.19*

.20*

43

Figure 3. The best-fit structural equation model predicting the immigrants’ intentions to remain in Israel

Standardized regression weights. p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001

v.e. – variance explained

Pre-m

igration

attitude towards

Russia/Ukraine

Post-m

igration

attitude towards

Russia/U

kraine

Plans to

remain in

Israel

Perceived

discrim

ination

Perceived

social support

from teachers

Perceived

social support

from peers

Perceived

social support

from parents

.36***

.21*

.20*

.18*

.19*

-.27**

.47***

-.23*

.18*

v.e.=.31

Placement in

a religious

school

.31***

-.39***

.21*

.21*

Parents’

immigration

to Israel

-.21*

Post-m

igration

attitude towards

Israel

Pre-m

igration

attitude

towards Israel