Summary
JCC
bjso.12113.pdf
British Journal of Social Psychology (2015), 54, 748–766
© 2015 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Marginal and happy? The need for uniqueness predicts the adjustment of marginal immigrants
R�egine Debrosse1,2*, Roxane de la Sablonni�ere1 and Maya Rossignac-Milon
3
1 Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada 2 Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 3 Psychology Department, Columbia University, New York, USA
Marginalization is often presented as the strategy associated with the worst adjustment
for immigrants. This study identifies a critical variable that buffers marginal immigrants
from the negative effects of marginalization on adjustment: The need for uniqueness. In
three studies, we surveyed immigrants recruited on university campuses (n = 119, n = 116) and in the field (n = 61). Among marginal immigrants, a higher need for uniqueness predicted higher self-esteem (Study 1), affect (Study 2), and life satisfaction
(Study 3), and marginally higher happiness (Study 2) and self-esteem (Study 3). No
relationship between the need for uniqueness and adjustment was found among non-
marginal immigrants. The adaptive value of the need for uniqueness for marginal
immigrants is discussed.
Human beings are more mobile today than ever before in world history. According to the
United Nations (2013), more than 214 million people were not living in the country in
which they were born in 2010, compared to 155 million people only two decades earlier.
It is unlikely that this trend in global migration will taper in the near future: Indeed, a
Gallup poll indicated that more than 640 million people would move to another country if
they could (Clifton, 2012). As a result of these migration trends, an increasing number of
people face the consequences of being in extensive contact with at least two cultures and
having to negotiate between different and often disparate cultural identities. Negotiating these multiple cultural identities is a challenge for many immigrants.
Failing to adopt the customs of the mainstream culture they live in may hinder their
ability to successfully navigate their social reality, whereas failing to maintain the customs
of the heritage culture they grew up in might result in a painful sense of loss. This might be
why most immigrants integrate (i.e., have strong connections to both cultures),
assimilate (i.e., only have a strong connection to their mainstream culture), or separate
(i.e., only have a strong connection to their heritage culture). However, some immigrants
have weak connections to both of their cultural groups (Berry, 1990). These immigrants experience marginalization – that is, they feel disconnected from both the heritage culture they grew up in and the mainstream culture of the society they live in.
The idea that marginalization is related to poor adjustment is widespread in the
acculturation literature. Indeed, previous studies have found that marginal immigrants are
*Correspondence should be addressed to R�egine Debrosse, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Stewart Biology Building, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada (email: [email protected]).
DOI:10.1111/bjso.12113
748
not as well adjusted as other immigrants: They are more likely to experience poor mental
health, such as high levels of stress and depression (Bhui et al., 2005; Choi, Miller, &
Wilbur, 2009; Nakash, Nagar, Shoshani, Zubida, & Harper, 2012). Some studies have
found that marginalization is also associated with lower self-esteem (Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Pham & Harris, 2001; Virta, Sam, & Westin, 2004), which might signal both low self-
evaluation and poor well-being (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel,
2004). Finally, marginalization has also been associated with lower subjective well-being:
Marginalimmigrants reported lower life satisfaction scores (Pfafferott &Brown, 2006) and
lower positive and higher negative affect scores (Abu-Rayya, 2007) than non-marginal
immigrants. Therefore, it is not surprising that marginalization has been repeatedly
identified as the acculturation strategy associated with the worst outcomes for the
adjustment of immigrants. However, the association between adjustment and marginalization deserves further
examination for two reasons. First, much emphasis has been placed on the association
between marginalization and poor outcomes, yet some studies suggest that this pattern
may not always apply. Although a large portion of marginal immigrants seems to have
trouble adjusting, some empirical evidence suggests that many marginal immigrants are
able to live happily, despite being detached from their cultural groups (de la Sablonni�ere, Debrosse, & Benoit, 2010; van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998). For instance, many
marginal immigrants have similar levels of self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and adjustment as other immigrants (Abouguendia & Noels, 2001; Nigbur et al., 2008).
Second, marginalization is not fully understood. For instance, Rudmin (2008) proposes
that results suggesting that marginal immigrants are not as well adjusted as other
immigrantsmightbeduetotheuse ofproblematicscales,suchasthefourfoldacculturation
scale. Similarly, some researchers have suggested that evidence of marginalization
outcomes can be difficult to interpret (Fosados et al., 2007). Furthermore, some
researchers propose that the concept of marginalization might need further clarification.
Specifically, some note that the definition of marginalization seems to have evolved across different papers (Rudmin, 2008). Others propose that the literature does not sufficiently
take into account the influence of the mainstream cultural context or the relationships
shared with members of the mainstream culture on the adjustment of immigrants,
regardless of their acculturation strategy (Bhatia & Ram, 2001). Other researchers have
emphasized the need to clarify the different ways in which individuals can be distant from a
social group (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000),
especially for the purposes of predicting outcomes associated with such a distant position.
For instance, certain marginal immigrants could have intentionally distanced themselves from a group that would have otherwise accepted them, whereas other marginal
immigrants could unsuccessfully attempt to be included by a rejecting group.
Taken together, this body of research suggests that marginalization is in need of
clarification. Little of the current theorizing attempts to explain why certain marginal
immigrants adjust well, whereas others do not. Furthermore, the different types of
distancing that group members may experience have been neglected. One notable
exceptiontothis trend isthework ofBoski(2008),whichsuggests that marginalizationcan
be a very positive and desirable acculturation strategy when lived as a form of detachment rather than alienation from one’s cultures. Another notable exception to this trend is the
work of Bourhis, Mo€ıse, Perreault, and Sen�ecal (1997), which distinguishes between two types of marginalization strategies: ‘Anomic marginalization’ and ‘individualism’. They
propose that the experience of certain marginal immigrants is characterized by anomie – feeling alienated from the both their heritage culture and the mainstream culture. They
Marginalization and uniqueness 749
propose that the experience of other marginal immigrants is characterized instead by
focusing on personal achievements and that the lack of connection and identification with
their heritage and mainstream cultures is simply a reflection of this individualistic
worldview. Interestingly, adopting the individualism strategy (vs. the ‘anomic marginal- ization’ strategy) was associated with more positive intergroup outcomes (Bourhis,
Montaruli, El-Geledi, Harvey, & Barrette, 2010), such as more harmonious relationships
with members of the host culture (Bourhis, Barrette, El-Geledi, & Schmidt, 2009).
The present research seeks to use a somewhat similar approach to Bourhis et al.
(1997) to improve our understanding of marginalization. However, whereas their work
focuses on the intergroup outcomes associated with two different types of marginaliza-
tion strategies, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of marginalization by exploring
the role of a factor that could potentially buffer adjustment. Specifically, we propose that having a high need for uniqueness might be adaptive when placed in a position in which it
is difficult to experience strong feelings of group membership. This position is
characteristic of marginal immigrants, no matter whether they adopt an individualistic
or anomic approach. In exploring the role of the need for uniqueness, we aim to shed light
on the conditions under which marginalization can be experienced more or less positively.
The need for uniqueness The need to feel and to perceive oneself as distinct has been identified by many
researchers (Brewer, 1991; Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980;
Vignoles et al., 2000). Individuals need to differentiate themselves from others, for
example by placing what they feel distinguishes themselves at the centre of their identities
or by behaving in a manner that they believe sets them apart (Vignoles et al., 2000). When
the need for distinctiveness is threatened, people adopt cognitive or behavioural
strategies to re-establish themselves as different (Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010).
Social identity theorists propose that belonging to a group and perceiving this group as distinct from other groups allow individuals to incorporate the distinctiveness of this
group’s identity into their personal identity, which in turn provides positive psychological
benefits (Tajfel&Turner,1986).Supportingthisassumption,manystudieshavefoundthat
belonging to a distinct group allows one to meet the need for distinctiveness (Jetten et al.,
2004). However, given that they feel distant from their two cultures, marginal immigrants
might not as easily satisfy their need for distinctiveness through group membership.
When attempting to meet their need for distinctiveness, people may also feel the need
to experience uniqueness – feeling unique as an individual, and perceiving that one’s uniqueness is valued (Brewer, 1991; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). The drive to feel unique as
an individual varies from one person to the next, as well as from one situation to another
(Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). Furthermore, some research suggests that uniqueness is
valued more highly in Western cultures, which are more individualistic, than in Eastern
cultures, which are more collectivistic (Kim & Markus, 1999). Fulfilling the need for
uniqueness is associated with high well-being, regardless of whether needing uniqueness
is a chronic individual tendency or whether it has been induced by situational factors
(Lynn & Snyder, 2002; Sheldon & Bettencourt, 2002).
Uniqueness and marginalization
Detached from both their heritage and mainstream cultures, marginal immigrants
likely feel quite unique. Experiencing marginalization involves feeling that one does not fit
750 R�egine Debrosse et al.
into either culture and therefore feeling different from others. For some marginal
immigrants – specifically, those high on the need for uniqueness – this feeling of being different from others may be a source of well-being. For instance, because different
cultures often promote very different sets of values and attitudes (Cheng & Lee, 2009; Stroink & Lalonde, 2009), marginal immigrants who are high on the need for uniqueness
might feel that possessing a comprehensive understanding of two such cultures
(especially without strongly identifying as a member of either) gives them the perspective
necessary to critically evaluate both cultures and develop their own point of view. As
such, their detachment from both cultures may provide them with a unique perspective
and make their exceptionality quite salient. They may feel that being detached from both
their heritage and mainstream cultures allows them to have a ‘special’ worldview.
In other words, most marginal immigrants are placed in a situation that emphasizes their individuality; for this reason, marginal immigrants who have a high need for
individual uniqueness are especially well positioned to meet this need, and are thus able to
benefit from the positive outcomes associated with meeting it. On the contrary, marginal
immigrants who do not have a high need for individual uniqueness might not be able to
capitalize as much on their individuality as a source of well-being. Indeed, if marginal
immigrants do not have a high need for individual uniqueness, then feeling unique as an
individual may not buffer them from the negative outcomes associated with being
marginal. Perhaps feeling different from those around them may instead be a source of distress.
In short, the uniqueness of marginal immigrants should emphasize their individuality.
Thus, the adjustment of marginal immigrants might be closely linked to the extent to
which they perceive that they need to feel unique as individuals. For this reason, we
hypothesize that marginal immigrants who have a high need for uniqueness are better
adjusted than marginal immigrants who have a low need for uniqueness. Furthermore, as
we do not expect that having a high need for uniqueness will play a role in the adjustment
of non-marginal immigrants, we hypothesized that the interaction of marginalization and the need for uniqueness will predict adjustment.
Overview of studies
We investigated the role of uniqueness in the adjustment of marginal immigrants in three
studies. In Study 1, we examined whether the need for uniqueness predicts the self-
esteem of marginal immigrants and non-marginal immigrants. Self-esteem indicates how
people feel about themselves and their resulting well-being (Pyszczynski et al., 2004). As such, it is a good indicator of adjustment and of self-evaluation in a wide array of domains
(Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001). Moreover, past research has suggested that
marginal immigrants can experience lower self-esteem than other immigrants (Berry &
Sabatier, 2010; Pham & Harris, 2001; Virta et al., 2004). Self-esteem is used as an indicator
of adjustment and has often been investigated among marginal immigrants; for these
reasons, it was examined in Study 1.
We turned to emotions in Study 2. Affect, a component of subjective well-being
(Diener, 2000), is a good indicator of adjustment as it is associated with success in several areas of life (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005), flourishing mental health (Fredrickson
& Losada, 2005) and enhanced coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Finally,happiness is
also related to adjustment. As such, we examined whether the hypothesis tested with self-
esteem in Study 1 would replicate with affect and happiness in Study 2.
Marginalization and uniqueness 751
Finally, one limitation of Study 1 and Study 2 was that all the immigrants were recruited
among university students. To extend the scope of our findings, participants in Study 3
were recruited in a community sample of adolescent immigrants. Study 3 aimed to
replicate the results of Study 1, and extend the results of Study 2 by examining how uniqueness is associated with the other component of subjective well-being, life
satisfaction. Life satisfaction measures capture the cognitive component of subjective
well-being: They assess how an individual evaluates their life in terms of fulfilment and
happiness (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Individuals who are very satisfied with
their lives experience positive outcomes, such as success and health (Lyubomirsky et al.,
2005). For these reasons, and because marginal immigrants report lower life satisfaction
(Pfafferott & Brown, 2006), we explored the relationship between marginalization,
adjustment, and life satisfaction in Study 3.
STUDY 1
Method
Sample
Students (n = 122) who immigrated to Canada or whose parents did were recruited among students attending a university in Montreal, Canada; however, as three participants
who did not follow the instructions were excluded from the analyses, the final sample
consisted of 119 participants. Most of the participants constituting the final sample (77%)
were female (M = 19.61 years old, SD = 1.59 years old). All participants were first- and second-generation immigrants originating from more than 50 different countries.
For instance, 57% had East Asian or South Asian origins (e.g., Chinese, Sri Lankan), 13% had West European origins (e.g., Spanish, French), and 8% had East European origins
(e.g., Polish, Romanian).
Measures
Marginalization
The Vancouver Acculturation scale was used to assess whether participants were
marginal (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000). In their review of the different measurement
methods of acculturation strategies, Arends-T�oth and van de Vijver (2006) have recommended assessing the relationships with the heritage culture and with the
mainstream culture separately. This scale is made of two identical sets of 10 items each, assessing the relationship with the mainstream culture and the heritage culture.
Participants were asked to indicate on a Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 9
(Strongly Agree) the extent to which they behave in concordance with each culture (e.g.,
‘I often behave in ways that are typical of my heritage culture’). In this study, the Cronbach
alphas of both the mainstream culture dimension (a = .84) and heritage culture dimension (a = .85) indicated satisfying reliability. Participants whose heritage and mainstream culture acculturation scores were under the median were considered
marginal (n = 34; all the others were considered non-marginal, n = 85).
Need for uniqueness
Participants also completed the Self-Attributed Need for Uniqueness scale (Lynn & Harris,
1997; Lynn & Snyder, 2002). Participants chose the word missing in each of four items to
752 R�egine Debrosse et al.
express the strength of their need for uniqueness. For example, ‘I _______ intentionally
do things to make myself different from those around me’ can be answered from 1 (Never)
to 5 (Always). In this study, the Cronbach alpha of this scale (a = .83) indicated satisfying reliability.
Self-esteem
Participants completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965). They
indicated their agreement to 10 items (i.e., ‘I feel that I am a person of worth’), on a 4-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 4 (Strongly disagree). In this study, the
Cronbach alpha (a = .83) indicated satisfying reliability.
Results and discussion
Preliminary analyses
All variables were distributed normally, and no univariate or multivariate outliers were
identified. We compared whether marginal and non-marginal immigrants reported similar
need for uniqueness and self-esteem scores, on average. The need for uniqueness scores did not differ significantly among marginal (M = 3.13, SD = 0.60) and non-marginal (M = 3.05, SD = 0.72) immigrants, t(117) = 0.53, p = .60. Similarly, the self-esteem scores did not differ significantly among marginal (M = 3.02, SD = 0.49) and non- marginal (M = 2.98, SD = 0.47) immigrants, t(117) = 0.37, p = .71.
Principal analyses
We expected that the interaction of marginalization and need for uniqueness would best predict self-esteem. Specifically, we predicted that need for uniqueness would
predict self-esteem for participants categorized as marginal, but not for those
categorized as non-marginal (i.e., integrated, separated or assimilated). 1 Therefore,
despite the fact that marginalization is the main independent variable, given that it is
dichotomous, we computed a regression model in which the need for uniqueness was
entered as the main independent variable and marginalization was entered as a
moderator.
In line with our hypothesis, the regression model in which marginalization, need for uniqueness, and their interaction were predictors had a significant effect on self-esteem
(R 2 = .07; p < .05). No main effect of need for uniqueness (b = �.08, p = .46) or of
marginalization (b = .04, p = .86) was found, but the interaction of need for uniqueness and marginalization (b = .62, p < .01) significantly predicted self-esteem (see Figure 1). Testing for simple slope effects revealed the expected finding: The effect of the need for
uniqueness on self-esteem was significant for marginal immigrants (b = .55, p < .01) but not for non-marginal immigrants (b = �.08, p = .46). In other words, the self-esteem of marginal immigrants was lower when their need for uniqueness was low, and higher
1 In this study, we report regression analyses comparing marginal immigrants with all non-marginal immigrants (i.e., integrated,
separated and assimilated) placed in the same category. However, we have also performed regression analyses to examine whether the adjustment of integrated, separated, and assimilated immigrants could also be predicted by their need for uniqueness. In line with the analyses reported in this study, these regressions indicated that, in all three studies, the need for uniqueness does not predict the adjustment of integrated, assimilated, and separated immigrants. Ergo, for matters of simplicity, we have reported analyses comparing marginal and non-marginal immigrants.
Marginalization and uniqueness 753
when their need for uniqueness was high, but the self-esteem of non-marginal immigrants
did not vary significantly with their need for uniqueness.
Discussion
Study 1 examined the relationship between marginalization, uniqueness, and self-
esteem. We found that the need for uniqueness predicts the self-esteem of marginal
immigrants, but not the self-esteem of non-marginal immigrants. Also, marginal
immigrants were no more likely to be high on the need for uniqueness, or to experience
low self-esteem, than non-marginal immigrants. Whereas Study 1 focused on self-esteem,
Study 2 examined whether the need for uniqueness of marginal immigrants would influence emotions, measured with affect and happiness. As such, Study 2 was an
attempt to replicate the results found in Study 1 with a similar sample but with different
measures of adjustment.
STUDY 2
Method
Sample
Students (n = 116) who immigrated to Canada or whose parents did were recruited among students attending a university in Montreal, Canada (M = 20.28 years old, SD = 2.31 years old), on the condition that they had not participated in Study 1. Most participants were women (81.9%), and almost half were born in Canada (46.6%). Most participants had East Asian or South Asian origins (48%; e.g., Japanese, Korean), West
European origins (25%; e.g., British, Luxembourgian), or East European origins (13%; e.g.,
Bulgarian, Ukrainian).
Measures
Marginalization
We used the same method as in Study 1 to assess marginalization. In this study, the
Cronbach alphas of both the mainstream culture dimension (a = .82) and heritage culture
Figure 1. The need for uniqueness predicts the self-esteem of marginal immigrants.
754 R�egine Debrosse et al.
dimension (a = .87) indicated satisfying reliability. In this sample, 30 immigrants were marginal and 86 were non-marginal.
Need for uniqueness
We used the same scale as in Study 1 to assess the need for uniqueness. In this study, the
Cronbach alpha of this scale (a = .82) indicated satisfying reliability.
Positive and negative affect
Participants were asked to report their affect by completing the positive and negative
affect scale (PANAS, Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS is a widely used measure of positive affect (10 items, e.g., ‘enthusiastic’) and of negative affect (10 items,
e.g., ‘afraid’), which were combined in a single score in the present study (the negative
items were reversed). Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale from 1
(Very slightly or not at all) to 5 (Extremely) to what extent each item described how they
felt at the moment. The Cronbach alpha of this scale indicated satisfying reliability
(a = .87).
Happiness
Finally, participants answered the single-item happiness scale (Fordyce, 1988), thus
indicating how happy they were on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (Extremely unhappy
– utterly depressed, completely down) to 10 (Extremely happy – feeling ecstatic, joyous, fantastic!). Unfortunately, however, due to a technical defect, only 78 participants were presented this scale and answered it.
Results and discussion
Preliminary analyses
All variables were distributed normally, and no univariate or multivariate outliers were
identified. We computed t-tests to compare the need for uniqueness and the affect
of marginal and non-marginal immigrants. No significant differences were found
between the scores of marginal and non-marginal immigrants, when we compared their need for uniqueness scores, Mmarginal = 2.78, SDmarginal = 0.70; Mnon-marginal = 2.96, SDnon-marginal = 0.69; t(114) = 1.26, p = .21, their affect scores, Mmarginal = 3.75, SDmarginal = 0.60; Mnon-marginal = 3.64, SDnon-marginal = 0.53; t(114) = 0.87, p = .39, and their happiness scores, Mmarginal = 5.92, SDmarginal = 1.55; Mnon-marginal = 5.96, SDnon-marginal = 1.56; t(76) = 0.11, p = .91. In short, marginal immigrants yielded scores on the need for uniqueness, affect, and happiness that were as high as those of
non-marginal immigrants.
Principal analyses
Similar to Study 1, we computed two regression models that tested for the interaction
effects of marginalization and of the need for uniqueness on affect and on happiness. The
regression model that predicted affect with marginalization, need for uniqueness, and
their interaction yielded results that were in line with our hypothesis (R 2 = .07; p = .05).
Marginalization and uniqueness 755
The interaction of the need for uniqueness and marginalization significantly predicted
affect (b = .46, p < .05; see Figure 2). Analysing the simple slopes revealed that the effect of the need for uniqueness on affect was significant for marginal immigrants (b = .48, p < .01), but not for non-marginal immigrants (b = .02, p = .85). Neither the need for uniqueness (b = .02, p = .85) nor marginalization (b = �.28, p = .18) had a significant main effect on affect.
The regression model that included marginalization, need for uniqueness, and their
interaction as predictors of happiness yielded results that were also in line with our
hypothesis (R 2 = .08; p = .09). The interaction of the need for uniqueness and
marginalization had a marginally significant effect on happiness (b = .44, p = .06; see Figure 3). Analysing the simple slopes revealed that the effect of the need for uniqueness
on happiness was significant for marginal immigrants (b = .49, p < .05), but not for non- marginal immigrants (b = .05, p = .72). Furthermore, neither the need for uniqueness (b = .05, p = .72) nor marginalization (b = .03, p = .90) had a significant main effect on happiness. In other words, marginal immigrants who possessed a high need for
uniqueness felt happier than marginal immigrants who had a low need for uniqueness.
However, the happiness of non-marginal immigrants did not vary based on the level of
their need for uniqueness.
Figure 2. The need for uniqueness predicts the affect of marginal immigrants.
Figure 3. The need for uniqueness marginally predicts the happiness of marginal immigrants.
756 R�egine Debrosse et al.
Discussion
Whereas Study 1 investigated the association between the need for uniqueness and self-
esteem, Study 2 examined the association between the need for uniqueness and emotions.
Preliminary analyses indicated that marginal and non-marginal immigrants did not differ in measures of affect, happiness, or need for uniqueness. However, in concordance with our
hypothesis, the results indicate that the higher marginal immigrants’ need for uniqueness,
the better their affect. The results further suggest that the more marginal immigrants need
uniqueness, the happier they are.
Both Study 1 and Study 2 examined the association between the need for uniqueness
and the adjustment of marginal immigrants recruited among the university student
population. However, many have underlined the overrepresentation of ‘WEIRD’
populations, that is Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, in psycho- logical research (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Although their bicultural
background might not make of the participants of Study 1 and Study 2 typical ‘WEIRD’
participants, we deemed important to examine whether our hypothesis was also
supported among a population that would not be constituted of university students. As
such, the goal of Study 3 was to replicate the association between uniqueness,
marginalization, and self-esteem found in Study 1, and to extend the scope of Studies 1 and
2 by examining whether similar results can be found among marginal immigrants from a
community sample.
STUDY 3
Method
Sample
We recruited 61 first-generation and second-generation immigrants in the youth
programme of a community centre located in a highly multicultural neighbourhood in
Montreal. This sample was comprised of 42 girls and 19 boys (M = 17.78 years-old, SD = 4.11 years old). The community centre where we recruited participants welcomes many immigrants who recently arrived in Canada as well as many students who face
difficulties in school – as such, 56% reported that their last school year was spent in Middle School and, on average, their last school year was the 10th grade (M = 10.4th grade, SD = 2.7 grade). Approximately half of the participants (49.2%) were born in Canada, and about a third of the participants (31.1%) moved to Canada before 12 years of age.
Measures
Marginalization
To assess whether or not the participants adopted the marginalization strategy, they
indicated their agreement with six items. The three-first items evaluated the relationship
with the heritage culture (i.e., ‘I identify with the members of my heritage culture’, ‘Being
a member of my heritage culture is an important characteristic of my person’, ‘I find it
important that others identify me as a member of my heritage culture’), and its internal reliability was adequate (a = .82). The three last items were almost identical, but pertained to the relationship with the mainstream culture (i.e., ‘I identify with the
members of the Quebec culture’, ‘Being a Quebecker is an important characteristic of my
person’, ‘I find it important that others identify me as a Quebecker’); its internal reliability
was also satisfying (a = .90). Immigrants whose heritage and mainstream culture scores
Marginalization and uniqueness 757
were under the median were considered marginal (n = 13), whereas the others were considered non-marginal (n = 48).
Need for uniqueness
Participants also self-reported their need for uniqueness by indicating their agreement
with this single item adapted from the Self-Attributed Need for Uniqueness scale (Lynn &
Harris, 1997; Lynn & Snyder, 2002): ‘I prefer being very different from other people’ on a
Likert scale ranging from 1 (Highly disagree) to 7 (Highly agree). Many authors found using
single items is appropriate (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001), notably because it
reduces participants’ fatigue (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007), which is critical when
conducting research among populations that are less used to formal questionnaires (de la Sablonni�ere, Auger, Taylor, Crush, & McDonald, 2012).
Satisfaction with life
Participants also completed the 5-item Satisfaction With Life scale (Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), which had a satisfying internal reliability in the present study
(a = .77). Participants rated their agreement to all items on Likert scales ranging from 1 (Highly disagree) to 7 (Highly agree).
Self-esteem
Finally, participants completed the RosenbergSelf-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965).In this
study, the Cronbach alpha (a = .85) indicated satisfying reliability.
Results and discussion
Preliminary analyses
All variables were distributed normally, and no univariate or multivariate outlier was
identified. We computed t-tests to compare the need for uniqueness, self-esteem, and life
satisfaction of marginal and non-marginal immigrants. We found no significant difference
of the need for uniqueness scores of marginal (M = 4.62, SD = 1.45) and non-marginal (M = 4.81, SD = 1.61) immigrants, t(59) = 0.40, p = .69. Also, we found no significant difference in the self-esteem scores of marginal (M = 5.06, SD = 0.93) and non-marginal (M = 5.36, SD = 1.04) immigrants, t(59) = 0.94, p = .35. However, we found a signif- icant difference in their life satisfaction scores, t(59) = 2.24, p < .05. Marginal immigrants (M = 4.51, SD = 1.14) reported lower life satisfaction than non-marginal immigrants (M = 5.25, SD = 1.04).
Principal analyses Similarly as in Study 1 and Study 2, we computed two regression models that tested for the
interaction effects of marginalization and of the need for uniqueness on self-esteem and on
life satisfaction. A regression model in which marginalization, need for uniqueness, and
their interaction were entered as self-esteem predictors presented results that were in line
with our hypothesis (R 2 = .10; p = .10). The interaction of the need for uniqueness and
marginalization marginally predicted self-esteem (b = .62, p = .07; see Figure 4). The
758 R�egine Debrosse et al.
effect of the need for uniqueness on self-esteem was significant for marginal immigrants
(b = .70, p < .05), but not for non-marginal immigrants (b = .08, p = .55). Therefore, marginal immigrants who had a high need for uniqueness reported higher self-esteem,
whereas marginal immigrants who had a low need for uniqueness reported lower self-
esteem.
Furthermore, the need for uniqueness alone had no effect (b = .08, p = .55), which indicates that the self-esteem of non-marginal immigrants did not significantly vary with a
high or low need for uniqueness. Also, being marginal did not have a significant main
effect (b = �.22, p = .47) on self-esteem. In line with our hypothesis, a regression model that included marginalization, need for
uniqueness, and their interaction as predictors significantly predicted life satisfaction
(R 2 = .16; p < .05). The interaction of the need for uniqueness and marginalization
significantly predicted life satisfaction (b = .67, p < .05; see Figure 5). We then performed simple slope analyses to examine the effect of uniqueness for marginal and
non-marginal immigrants. For immigrants who adopted the marginalization strategy, the
effect of the need for uniqueness on life satisfaction was significant (b = .68, p < .05). However, for non-marginal immigrants, the need for uniqueness had no effect on life
satisfaction (b = .00, p = .97). Finally, in this model, the need for uniqueness alone had no effect (b = .00, p = .97), whereas being marginal had a significant main effect (b = �.61, p < .05) on life satisfaction. In sum, marginal immigrants who had a high need for uniqueness reported higher life satisfaction than those who had a low need for
uniqueness. 2
Figure 4. The need for uniqueness marginally predicts the self-esteem of marginal immigrants.
2 Following the excellent suggestion of our reviewers, we computed supplementary analyses examining whether generation was a
moderator in our models. No effect, or even marginal effect, of generation,or of interactionsthat includedgeneration in their term, was found in Study 2 or in Study 3. In Study 1, however, one significant effect of generation was found. More precisely, marginal immigrants from the first and second generations both benefitted from a higher self-esteem when their need for uniqueness was higher; however, the effects were stronger for the first generation.
We also computed supplementary analyses examining whether the level of individualism (vs. collectivism) of the heritage culture was a moderator in our models. No effect, or even marginal effect, of culture, or of interactions that included culture in their term, was found in Study 1 or in Study 3. In Study 2, however, a significant effect of culture was found on happiness (but not on affect). In this case, marginal immigrants from collectivistic and individualistic heritage cultures both benefited from a higher happiness when their need for uniqueness was higher; however, the effects were slightly stronger for immigrants whose heritage culture was collectivistic.
Marginalization and uniqueness 759
Discussion
Study 1 and Study 2 examined whether marginalization and uniqueness predicted the
happiness, affect, and self-esteem of university students; Study 3 attempted to extend their scope by examining the self-esteem and the life satisfaction of youths recruited in the
community. In Study 3, marginal immigrants who had a higher need for uniqueness
reported significantly higher life satisfaction and marginally higher self-esteem, but did not
predict the life satisfaction or the self-esteem of non-marginal immigrants. Furthermore,
the self-esteem scores of marginal and non-marginal immigrants did not differ
significantly; however, lower life satisfaction scores were found among marginal (vs.
non-marginal) immigrants. This was the only instance in which we found a difference
between the adjustment of the marginal and non-marginal immigrants across the three studies. This finding might suggest that, although our main hypothesis was replicated in a
community sample, the association between adjustment and marginalization might
present variations across different groups of immigrants.
On the whole, Study 3 is in line with Study 1 and Study 2; marginal immigrants are
better adjusted when they have a high need for uniqueness.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Although marginalization is often presented as the strategy associated with the worst
adjustment for immigrants, research has not provided a clear understanding of how
marginalization and adjustment are related. We propose that having a high need for
uniqueness may allow well-adjusted marginal immigrants to overcome some of the
difficulties associated with dual cultural group membership.
In three studies, a consistent pattern of results emerged that supported our main assertion: Marginal immigrants who reported a high need for uniqueness experienced
significantly higher self-esteem (Study 1), marginally higher self-esteem (Study 3), better
affect (Study 2), marginally higher happiness (Study 2), and higher life satisfaction (Study
3) than those reporting a low need for uniqueness; whereas this pattern did not exist for
non-marginal immigrants. These trends held for a range of adjustment measures and were
found both among university students and a community sample. In other words, having a
high need for individuality may allow marginal immigrants to respond positively to the
feeling of being marginal.
Figure 5. The need for uniqueness predicts the life satisfaction of marginal immigrants.
760 R�egine Debrosse et al.
The results of all three studies suggest that marginal immigrants are able to experience
better adjustment when they need to feel unique as individuals. Uniqueness could
partially explain why some marginal immigrants are better adjusted than others. Adding to
previous work suggesting that marginal immigrants might be isolated and might not benefit from the social networks of their cultural groups (Berry, 1990), the present studies
suggest that the extent to which one needs to experience uniqueness might also have a
critical impact on the adjustment of marginal immigrants.
Perhaps surprisingly, considering the work on acculturation suggesting that marginal
immigrants should be the least adjusted, we only found a difference between the
adjustment of marginal and non-marginal immigrants when assessing their life satisfac-
tion, in Study 3. This trend would be contrary to what many researchers have found;
however, similar to what we found and as noted earlier, several studies also found no differences. Although we cannot fully explain these results in the present paper, we
believe that they underline the necessity to deepen the understanding on marginalization,
notably by examining the potential moderators that can explain when marginal
immigrants are well or not so well adjusted.
On marginalization, individuality, and Western mainstream cultures
Certain cultures seem to place a higher value on distinctiveness and individuality than other cultures. For instance, some research suggests that the uniqueness of individuals is
valued more highly in Western cultures than in Eastern cultures (Kim & Markus, 1999).
Perhaps paradoxically, certain marginal immigrants who have a high need for uniqueness
might be inadvertently adhering to the values and enacting behaviours typical of their
Western mainstream cultures (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004).
Are Western marginal immigrants who experience a high need for uniqueness truly
distant from their mainstream culture? Past research suggest that individuals who identify
highly with a North American culture are more likely to embrace individualism than low identifiers (McAuliffe, Jetten, Hornsey, & Hogg, 2003). Thus, one could expect that
marginal immigrants are not particularly likely to embrace individualism, or at least not
more than most people. Yet, one could expect that living in a Western culture might allow
marginal immigrants who endorse individualistic values such as uniqueness to feel
particularly well adjusted, which could reconcile our findings with the work of Bhatia and
Ram (2001), who argued that one cannot use acculturation strategies to explain the
adjustment of immigrants without considering the mainstream societal context.
Would marginal immigrants who have a high need for uniqueness and live in an Eastern mainstream culture also experience better adjustment? If the expression of the need for
distinctiveness in Eastern cultures has received less attention than it deserves, the work of
Becker et al. (2012) is one notable exception to this trend. Their data, which were
collected among 4,751 people in 21 cultures, indicated that the need for distinctiveness is
expressed differently but is as strong in collectivistic cultures as in individualistic cultures.
These findings underline the importance of exploring whether the need for uniqueness
also plays a role in the adjustment of marginal immigrants living in Eastern contexts.
Conceptualizing and assessing marginalization
Some researchers have underlined the issues inherent with using a fourfold scale to assess
acculturation strategies, especially when assessing marginalization (Rudmin, 2008). To
answer these concerns, many researchers have noted the importance of measuring
Marginalization and uniqueness 761
acculturation using two dimensions and crossing them to obtain four acculturation
strategies (Arends-T�oth & van de Vijver, 2006; Ryder et al., 2000), which is what we decided to do in the present studies. One of the two common ways to derive acculturation
strategy is to use a scalar mid-point split, but it often results in unequal groups that can be difficult to compare to each other (Pfafferott & Brown, 2006; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999)
and there is disagreement regarding how to interpret the neutral point (Arends-T�oth & Van de Vijver, 2007).
Notably, for these reasons, many acculturation researchers use a median split (Berry &
Sabatier, 2010; Cemalcilar & Falbo, 2008; Zagefka, Gonz�alez, & Brown, 2011), which facilitates comparisons across acculturation strategies (Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009).
Some researchers go as far as computing results using both techniques, but it was not
possible to perform such analyses with our studies, considering the small number of participants/cell.
3 One of the limits associated with the median-split technique is that it
does not allow categories as ‘pure’ as those created using scalar mid-point splits: One
could argue that only the participants labelled as marginal using a scalar mid-point split are
truly marginal. As such, this technique makes the generalization of results more difficult,
and it is possible that using median splits prevented us from obtaining major differences
on outcome variables across strategies.
While we acknowledge that the use of the median split has its limits, there is no ideal
technique (Berry & Sabatier, 2010) and no consensus on the one that should be chosen to derive the four acculturation strategies. Finally, and although the use of the median-split
technique might have not allowed to find ‘pure’ marginal immigrants, we labelled
marginal immigrants those that had the weakest ties to their groups and that thus
displayed the most a tendency to be marginal – a tendency which interacted with the need for uniqueness to significantly predict their adjustment. As such, using median split
allowed us to inform research on immigrants who tend to be the most detached from their
heritage and host cultures.
Conclusive remarks: Intervening with marginal immigrants
The present paper identifies a factor that may buffer marginal immigrants from the
negative effects of marginalization on self-esteem, life satisfaction, and affect. However, it
presents several limitations. Notably, the use of a single-item measure to assess the need
for uniqueness in Study 3, and of different items to measure marginalization is Study 3,
makes it difficult to compare the findings of Study 3 to the findings of Study 1 and Study 2.
Furthermore, although the community sample of Study 3 enriches the scope of the present paper, one should take into account its small size when interpreting the results.
Also, despite the fact that all five regressions showed a similar pattern aligned with our
hypothesis, two of them produced marginally significant results. As mentioned earlier, the
use of median split and the impossibility of computing scalar mid-point split as a
comparative may undermine the potential to generalize from the findings. Finally,
although possessing a high need for uniqueness was associated with the adjustment of
marginal immigrants, we have not assessed the influence of experiencing the fulfilment of
the need for uniqueness (i.e., actually feeling unique), which we hope will be addressed in future studies.
3 There were <10 participants per study who would have been labelled marginal when using the scalar mid-point split technique
to compute acculturation strategies. Unfortunately, for this practical reason, we could not compare the use of the median-split technique with the use of the scalar mid-point split technique.
762 R�egine Debrosse et al.
Despite these limitations, these studies allow us to identify the need for uniqueness as
an individual difference that seems to play a role in the adjustment of marginal immigrants.
It is our hope that these results provide a first step to help these at-risk marginal
immigrants who are low on the need for uniqueness to cope with the lack of group identity they feel. For instance, future studies may test interventions designed to improve
the adjustment of marginal immigrants by helping them foster a high need for uniqueness.
Interventions could emphasize the advantages that stem from developing a unique
worldview or explain how to use the distance one feels from both cultures to adopt a
special perspective. We hope that such interventions, by helping to reconcile immigrants
low on the need for uniqueness with their marginalized position, might increase their
adjustment and well-being.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a SSHRC Armand-Bombardier Fellowship (number 766-2009-
1180), a FQRSC Master’s Fellowship (number 131913) and a SSHRC Vanier Fellowship
(number 770-2011-0018) that were awarded to the first author, as well as by a grant from
SSHRC (number 820-2009-0039) that was awarded to the second author.
References
Abouguendia, M., & Noels, K. A. (2001). General and acculturation-related daily hassles and
psychological adjustment in first- and second-generation South Asian immigrants to Canada.
International Journal of Psychology, 36, 163–173. doi:10.1177/0022022104268386 Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2007). Acculturation, Christian religiosity, and psychological and marital well-
being among the European wives of Arabs in Israel. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10, 171– 190. doi:10.1080/13694670500504901
Arends-T�oth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Assessment of psychological acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 142– 160). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Arends-T�oth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1462–1488. doi:10.1111/ j.1559-1816.2007.00222.x
Becker, M., Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Brown, R., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M., . . . Yamakoglu, N. (2012). Culture and the distinctiveness motive: Constructing identity in individualistic and
collectivistic contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 833–855. doi:10.1037/a0026853
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184. doi:10.1509/ jmkr.44.2.175
Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second
generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 34, 191–207. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.11.007 Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001). Rethinking ‘acculturation’ in relation to diasporic cultures and
postcolonial identities. Human Development, 44, 1–18. doi:10.1159/000057036 Bhui, K., Lawrence, A., Klineberg, E., Woodley-Jones, D., Taylor, S., Stansfeld, S., . . . Booy, R. (2005).
Acculturation and health status among African-Caribbean, Bangladeshi and White British
adolescents: Validation and findings from the RELACHS study. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40, 259–266. doi:10.1007/s00127-005-0890-5
Marginalization and uniqueness 763
Boski, P. (2008). Five meanings of integration in acculturation research. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 32, 142–153. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.005 Bourhis, R. Y., Barrette, G., El-Geledi, S., & Schmidt, R. (2009). Acculturation orientations and social
relations between immigrant and host community members in California. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 40, 443–467. doi:10.1177/0022022108330988 Bourhis, R. Y., Mo€ıse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Sen�ecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation
model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. doi:10.1080/002075997400629
Bourhis, R. Y., Montaruli, E., El-Geledi, S., Harvey, S. P., & Barrette, G. (2010). Acculturation in
multiple host community settings. The Journal of Social Issues, 66, 780–802. doi:10.1111/ j.1540-4560.2010.01675.x
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001 Cemalcilar, Z., & Falbo, T. (2008). A longitudinal study of the adaptation of international students in
the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 799–804. doi:10.1177/ 0022022108323787
Cheng, C. Y., & Lee, F. (2009). Multiracial identity integration: Perceptions of conflict and distance
among multiracial individuals. The Journal of Social Issues, 65, 51–68. doi:10.1111/j.1540- 4560.2008.01587.x
Choi, J. W., Miller, A., & Wilbur, J. E. (2009). Acculturation and depressive symptoms in Korea
immigrant women. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 11, 13–19. doi:10.1007/s10903- 007-9080-8
Clifton, J. (2012). 150 Million adults worldwide would migrate to the U.S. Retrieved from Gallup
website: http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-million-adults-worldwide-migrate.aspx
de la Sablonni�ere, R., Auger, E., Taylor, D. M., Crush, J., & McDonald, D. (2012). Social change in South Africa: A historical approach to relative deprivation. British Journal of Social Psychology,
52, 1–23. doi:10.1111/bjso.12003 de la Sablonni�ere, R., Debrosse, R., & Benoit, S. (2010). Comparing three identity integration
conceptualizations: A study among Quebec immigrants. Les Cahiers Internationaux de
Psychologie Sociale, 88, 663–682. doi:10.3917/cips.088.0661 Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national
index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34 Diener,E., Emmons, R. A.,Larsen, R.J., &Griffin, S.(1985). The satisfaction withlife scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of
progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American
Psychologist, 55, 647–654. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.647 Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty-second index of
happiness and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20, 355–381. doi:10.1007/ BF00302333
Fosados, R., McClain, A., Ritt-Olson, A., Sussman, S., Soto, D., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., & Unger, J. B.
(2007). The influence of acculturation on drug and alcohol use in a sample of adolescents.
Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2990–3004. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.015 Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human
flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678 Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1038/466029a Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong
with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_2
764 R�egine Debrosse et al.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-
analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 862–879. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.86.6.862
Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785–800. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.77.4.785
Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework
for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 63–113. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43002-6 Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness through
consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1861–1883. doi:10.1111/j.1559- 1816.1997.tb01629.x
Lynn, M., & Snyder, C. R. (2002). Uniqueness seeking. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook
of positive psychology (pp. 395–411). Oxford, UK: University Press. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.131.6.803
McAuliffe, B. J., Jetten, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Individualist and collectivist norms:
When it’s ok to go your own way. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 57–70. doi:10.1002/ejsp.129
Nakash, O., Nagar, M., Shoshani, A., Zubida, H., & Harper, R. A. (2012). The effect of acculturation
and discrimination on mental health symptoms and risk behaviors among adolescent migrants in
Israel. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 228–238. doi:10.1037/ a0027659
Nigbur, D., Brown, R., Cameron, L., Hossain, R., Landau, A., Le Touze, D., . . . Watters, C. (2008). Acculturation, well-being and classroom behaviour among white British and British Asian
primary-school children in the south-east of England: Validating a child-friendly measure of
acculturation attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 493–504. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.03.001
Pfafferott, I., & Brown, R. (2006). Acculturation preferences of majority and minority adolescents in
Germany in the context of society and family. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
30, 703–717. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.005 Pham, T. B., & Harris, R. J. (2001). Acculturation strategies among Vietnamese-Americans.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 279–300. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(01) 00004-9
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why do people need self-
esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 435–468. doi:10.1037/ 0033-2909.130.3.435
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct
validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161. doi:10.1177/0146167201272002 Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Rudmin, F. (2008). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative
stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 106–123. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel. 2008.12.001
Ryder, A., Alden, L., & Paulhus, D. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-
to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49–65. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.49 Sheldon, K. M., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2002). Psychological need-satisfaction and subjective well-
being within social groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 25–38. doi:10.1348/ 014466602165036
Marginalization and uniqueness 765
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events?
Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
325–339. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325 Snyder, C., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York, NY:
Plenum.
Stroink, M. L., & Lalonde, R. N. (2009). Bicultural identity conflict in second-generation Asian
Canadians. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 44–65. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.1.44-65 Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies and integrative complexity
the cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 105–139. doi:10.1177/0022022108326279
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel &
W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. United Nations, Economic and Social Council (2013). New trends in migration: Demographic
aspects (document No. E/CN.9/2013/3). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/
view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.9/2013/3
van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority
members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995– 1013. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<995:AID-EJSP908>3.0.CO;2-8
Vignoles, V. L., Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, G. M. (2000). The distinctiveness principle: Identity,
meaning, and the bounds of cultural relativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4,
337–354. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0404_4 Virta, E., Sam, D. L., & Westin, C. (2004). Adolescents with Turkish background in Norway and
Sweden: A comparative study of their psychological adaptation. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 45, 15–25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00374.x Ward, C., & Rana-Deuba, A. (1999). Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 30, 422–442. doi:10.1177/0022022199030004003 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Zagefka, H., Gonz�alez, R., & Brown, R. (2011). How minority members’ perceptions of majority
members’ acculturation preferences shape minority members’ own acculturation preferences:
Evidence from Chile. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 216–233. doi:10.1348/ 014466610X512211
Received 16 July 2014; revised version received 24 March 2015
766 R�egine Debrosse et al.
