In recent decades, there has been a rapid increase in immigration rates throughout Europe, and many immigrants remained permanently. As a result, a substantial part of society are second-generation immigrants. Despite an increase in research related to this population, predominantly from the US, it remains unknown, whether growing up and living in two cultures fosters immigrants’ subjective well-being. The present study investigated the association between acculturation (here heritage and mainstream culture orientation) and subjective well-being of second-generation immigrants in Switzerland. We further ran a multigroup analyses for women and men separately. Data of N = 492 adult children of immigrants (66% women; Mage = 32.39, SDage = 10.46) were analyzed. Structural equation modelling showed that both orientation toward heritage and toward mainstream culture were positively related to subjective well-being, and that this was moderated by gender. Furthermore, the interaction between both kinds of orientation had a significant effect on subjective well-being. The study addresses several gaps in the existing research literature in three key ways: (1) it adds a European perspective; (2) it focuses on understudied second-generation immigrants; (3) it measures acculturation bilinear and multidimensional, as is required theoretically. Moreover, the findings may contribute to a more nuanced public discourse, where the significance of both mainstream orientation and heritage culture is occasionally called into question.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1 The Association of Acculturation and Subjective Well-Being: Second-Generation Immigrants in Switzerland
In recent decades, many European countries, such as Germany, France, and United Kingdom have experienced a massive influx of immigration (Eurostat, 2011). This is also the case for Switzerland, where the number of immigrants has been continuously increasing since the 1950s (FSO, 2023). In 2022, Switzerland had Europe's third-largest foreign-born population (Eurostat, 2023). Although guest workers (i.e., those that immigrated for work) were expected to return to their home countries after several years, many of them started families and stayed in Switzerland (Bolzmann et al., 2006). The same is true for other groups of immigrants in Switzerland, such as refugees from former Yugoslavia. As a result, a high number of individuals with a migratory background, the second-generation, grew up with at least two cultures: the culture of their parents (i.e., the heritage culture) and the culture of their host country (i.e., the mainstream culture). Although the attention for adolescent second generation immigrants by the scientific community has increased (Sabatier et al., 2016), little is known about adult second-generation immigrants. For example, it is still unknown whether for adult second-generation immigrants living with two cultures is a burden due to higher acculturative stress, or a benefit due to a broader range of resources. This may impact the relationship between acculturation and subjective well-being. The present study adds to the discussion by performing an investigation on adult second-generation immigrants in Switzerland.
1.1 The Acculturation Process of Second-Generation Immigrants
Acculturation has often been defined as the process that takes place when people from different cultures come into contact with each other (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2010). In his seminal work, Berry (e.g., 2005) emphasized that the individual acculturation of immigrants is a bilinear process, covering the orientation toward the heritage and the mainstream culture. According to his theoretical approach, a high orientation toward both cultures (i.e., the acculturation strategy of integration) is seen as the most favorable acculturation strategy for mental health and psychological adaptation (Berry, 2005). According to this approach, the other three, less optimal, strategies are: assimilation (high orientation toward mainstream, low orientation toward heritage culture), separation (low orientation toward mainstream, high orientation toward heritage culture), and marginalization (low orientation toward both cultures).
Anzeige
Moreover, several authors have underlined that the acculturation process is multidimensional and varies depending on the cultural dimensions. For example, according to Schwartz et al. (2010) acculturation covers practices, values, and identification while Arends-Tóth and Van de Vijver (2006) defined two main dimensions of acculturation (i.e., public vs. private). Public aspects of acculturation for example include behavior, language, and social relations, whereas private aspects of acculturation entail values and identity. Arends-Tóth and Van de Vijver (2006) also added the critique that proxy measures and single item assessments do not capture the complex multifaceted construct of acculturation. Thus, the present study will investigate acculturation as a bilinear and multidimensional construct.
The acculturation process of second-generation immigrants (here children of immigrants who were born in the host country or immigrated at a young age), differs remarkably from the acculturation process of the first generation (Schwartz et al., 2010). According to Sam and Oppedal’s theoretical approach (2003), development generally entails adaptation to a culture and society (i.e., enculturation and socialization). In the case of second-generation immigrants, the natural development involves adapting to two cultures, namely their heritage and mainstream culture. The simultaneous acculturation to both cultures is supported by interactions with protagonists from the respective culture. For second-generation children and adolescents these interactions are often part of their daily life. The acquisition of cultural competence in both cultures is therefore a fundamental part of their developmental process from childhood to adolescence (Sam & Oppedal, 2003). Adolescence is a time when many developmental tasks occur and cultural identity exploration starts (Titzmann & Lee, 2018). However, in the period of emerging adulthood (age 18–29) intense identity exploration is still reported (Arnett, 2014; Schwartz, 2016), which also might cover cultural identity. Compared to this period, identity seems to have reached a certain stability after this (Sneed et al., 2012), Nevertheless, the issue of cultural identity can be reactivated during adulthood by transitions (i.e., entering the labor market, becoming a parent; Feliciano & Rumbaut, 2018). Thus, the meaning of acculturation for adult second generation individuals as well as the differences in meaning across different phases of adulthood need further investigation.
1.2 The Role of Acculturation in Subjective Well-Being
Subjective well-being (SWB) is a multifaceted construct, which includes affective (e.g., low negative affect) and cognitive evaluations (e.g., high global life satisfaction) of one’s life (Diener, 1994). In acculturation research, Ward and Kennedy (1994) referred to the term psychological adjustment, which includes very similar aspects, such as life satisfaction, positive and negative affect, self-esteem, or loneliness. SWB has been positively related to several aspects of functioning, such as psychological and physical health (Oishi et al., 2021). Additionally, a recent global study has shown that stress is negatively associated with SWB (Ng & Diener, 2022). Thus, it is highly relevant to understands the association between acculturation, and the multi-facetted construct SWB among adult second-generation immigrants.
In general, studies have pointed to a lower life satisfaction of immigrants compared to natives, for instance with data of the European Social Survey (ESS; e.g., Arpino & de Valk, 2018; Hadjar & Backes, 2013). This is often explained by stress caused in the acculturation process. In these studies, life satisfaction of the second generation was higher compared to the first generation (also Morawa et al., 2020). This is in line with the acculturation process described by Sam and Oppedal (2003), who argue that acculturation is an integral part of the general development of the second generation and therefore less stressful.
Anzeige
Several meta-analyses have examined the association between acculturation and indicators of subjective well-being. Yoon et al. (2013) investigated the association between acculturation and mental health. The measures of mental health comprised further indicators of subjective well-being such as positive and negative affect and life satisfaction. They found that both the orientation to the mainstream culture and to the heritage culture were positively related to mental health. In another meta-analysis, other meta-analyses have investigated the acculturation strategies (Schmitz & Schmitz, 2022) or biculturalism, which correspond with the integration strategy (Berry et al., 2022; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013; Stogianni et al., 2021). In these meta-analyses, integration was positively related to life-satisfaction, self-esteem (Schmitz & Schmitz, 2022) and to psychological adjustment (Berry et al., 2022; Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2013; Stogianni et al., 2021). Thus, both orientations seemed to be positive for subjective well-being.
According to research, the cultural and societal context shapes the acculturation processes of individual immigrants, for instance by prevailing attitudes towards immigrants’ adaptation to the mainstream culture or integration policies (Berry, 2005; Berry et al., 2022). The meta-analysis of Yoon et al. (2013) emphasized that heritage culture orientation plays a different role for mental health and subjective well-being in North America compared to Europe. Only European studies found that higher heritage culture orientation was associated with better mental health. No regional differences were found for the positive relationship between the mainstream culture orientation and mental health. However, the number of European studies in the meta-analysis were too small to draw definite conclusions on the role of the societal context on acculturation. According to Nguyen and Benet-Martinez (2013), in comparison to studies conducted in Europe and other parts of the world (mostly on samples of adolescents), in the US it is the strategy of integration that has a stronger association with adjustment (composite score for psychological and social adaptation). Recent meta-analyses failed to demonstrate that the associations between integration and SWB differed significantly depending on macro-level conditions for immigrants (Berry et al., 2022; Stogianni et al., 2021). In part, this was due to an insufficient number of studies from outside the US. Hence, among immigrants in Europe, the association of both cultural orientations with SWB may differ from results derived from the US. However, more studies from different European countries are needed to draw definite conclusions on these associations.
Since the meta-analysis of Yoon et al. (2013), further studies from Europe have been published on the association between acculturation and subjective well-being among adult individuals with an immigrational background. However, several studies suffer from shortcomings. Many studies have used proxy, single item measures only referring to acculturation into the mainstream culture such as time since immigration (Barbiano di Belgiojoso et al., 2020; Dominguez-Fuentes & Hombrados-Mendieta, 2012; Paloma et al., 2014; Paparusso, 2019; Safi, 2010), the generational status (de Vroome & Hooghe, 2014) or citizenship (Kirmanoglu & Basleven, 2014; Paparusso, 2019) for first-generation immigrants. Moreover, other studies measured acculturation bilinearly, using a variety of single indicators, such as language competencies, contact with peers from both cultures and identification with both cultures (Amit, 2010; Angelini et al., 2015), but these analyses suffer from a lack of direct measures of acculturation (Arends-Toth & Van de Vijver, 2006).
To date, few European studies on adult immigrants have used bilinear, multidimensional composite scales to measure acculturation reliably and validly. Dimitrova et al. (2014) indicated that orientation to mainstream culture in a sample of first and second generation immigrants was positively related to life satisfaction. Conversely, orientation to heritage culture showed no relation to life satisfaction. In a study on first generation immigrants, Polek et al. (2010) found positive associations between orientation toward mainstream culture and psychological health and life satisfaction for first-generation immigrants, while the respective associations with orientation toward heritage culture were negative. In two studies on first generation immigrants by Neto and colleagues (Neto, 2019; Neto et al., 2016), the acculturation strategies of assimilation and separation were included. Assimilation and separation were negatively and positively related to saudade (which covers negative emotions such as sadness, missing someone, feelings of loss, and crying in the Portuguese culture; Neto, 2019) respectively. The correlation between life satisfaction and separation and assimilation was negatively and not significantly correlated, respectively (Neto et al., 2016). In sum, there is evidence for a positive relation between orientation toward mainstream culture and aspects of subjective well-being. However, the few results from European studies on the association between orientation toward heritage culture and subjective well-being are inconclusive. Additionally, we know very little about adult second-generation immigrants, particularly with measures of acculturation and SWB that meet the requirements for reliable and valid assessments (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2006; Diener et al., 2003).
According to Yoon et al. (2013), older immigrants’ mental health had a stronger association with orientation toward the mainstream culture compared to younger immigrants’ mental health. Conversely, orientation toward heritage culture had a stronger association with the mental health of younger immigrants compared to older immigrants. However, the study did not indicate whether younger immigrants were second-generation. Nevertheless, the results indicate that orientation toward heritage culture is especially relevant for the second generation. Being rooted in the heritage culture might promote a higher level of support from members of this culture (Oppedal et al., 2004). Adding to the results by Yoon et al. (2013), we will run an exploratory analysis, whether age moderates the association between orientation toward the heritage and mainstream culture and SWB.
With respect to gender as an important moderator variable for the analyses of associations between acculturation and SWB, the few results of meta-analyses are inconclusive. In the meta-analysis of Yoon et al. (2013) the orientation to the heritage culture was more important for women’s mental health than for men’s. When women orient more strongly toward their heritage culture, they might conform more with societal gender roles. In many collectivistic cultures, women might gain a sense of pride or value from looking after family and loved ones. Thus, for women’s mental health, enculturation might be more important than for men’s. However, Nguyen and Benet-Martinez (2013) did not find a gender difference in the association between integration and adjustment. Other meta-analyses (Berry et al., 2022; Schmitz & Schmitz, 2022) have not analyzed gender as a moderator. The same is true for European studies (Dimitrova et al., 2014; Neto, 2019; Polek et al., 2010). Even though there is a lack of evidence on the question whether acculturation is differently associated with SWB for women and men, we will investigate the associations between acculturation and SWB separately for women and men.
1.3 Immigrants in Switzerland
The present study refers to acculturation of second-generation immigrants living in Switzerland. Switzerland is one of the European countries with the highest rate of foreigners (2019: 25%; Federal Statistical Office [FSO], 2020b) and with a large population with an immigrational background (38% in 2019; FSO 2020a). Switzerland has a long history of immigration, especially as from the 1950s onwards, the numbers have been continuously growing (FSO, 2020b). Most of the labor immigrants in the 1950s and 1960s immigrated from Italy and Spain. In the late 1980s, a significant number of immigrants came from Portugal and Turkey. In the 1990s, many immigrants arrived from former Yugoslavia due to upheavals in Eastern Europe. A long history of immigration can also be observed from Switzerland’s neighboring countries France and Germany. As a result, most immigrants in Switzerland have a European origin (D’Amato, 2008).
Given the long history of immigration in Switzerland and the fact that many immigrants have settled permanently in Switzerland and started families, a substantial number of the permanent residents in Switzerland are second-generation immigrants (7%; FSO, 2020a). Because of strict naturalization laws in Switzerland, one third of the second-generation individuals are still foreigners. Among those second-generation immigrants who are Swiss citizens, 75% are Swiss citizens by naturalization (FSO, 2020a).
The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), a comprehensive study of European and non-European countries, assessed how much different countries support the integration of immigrants along eight policy fields. According to the MIPEX-data from 2014, Switzerland ranked 21st among 38 MIPEX-countries, with an overall score of 50. This score is slightly under the MIPEX38-average and can be interpreted as a “halfway favorable” integration policy (Solano & Huddleston, 2020). Switzerland was in the lower average range in terms of access to education and the labor market for immigrants. However, Switzerland ranked high with respect to access to health care services. Therefore, on the one hand, Switzerland provides second-generation immigrants a certain security in terms of health. On the other hand, Switzerland does not facilitate societal acculturation.
1.4 The Present Study
The aim of the present study was to add a European perspective to the ongoing debate on the effects of acculturation on immigrants’ subjective well-being. In accordance with established immigration research, acculturation is seen as a bilinear and multidimensional construct. Here, we focus on second-generation immigrant adults, an understudied subpopulation of the immigrant population.
We studied three hypotheses: both the orientation toward heritage and the orientation toward mainstream culture will be positively related to second-generation adult immigrants’ subjective well-being (Hypothesis 1). Consistent with Berry (2005) and Nguyen and Benet-Martinez (2013), we hypothesize that, of the four acculturation strategies, integration (high orientation toward both cultures) will be most strongly associated with subjective well-being (Hypothesis 2). In line with the results of Yoon et al. (2013), we assumed that orientation toward the heritage culture will be more important for the subjective well-being of women than to the subjective well-being of men (Hypothesis 3). We do not expect gender differences in the association between orientation toward mainstream culture and SWB.
2 Method
2.1 Procedure
We conducted a standardized online survey in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. To obtain an ethnically diverse sample of immigrants, we recruited participants through several channels (e.g., a Swiss university of applied sciences, a job center, a non-profit organization for second-generation immigrants in Switzerland, a center for cultural and language integration, a political organization for second generation immigrants, and through social media [i.e., Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp]). We contacted participants through the organizations mentioned above (e.g., by email, newsletters, or posts on social media). They received an invitation with an anonymous link to participate in the online survey. Participants were informed about data protection and anonymity and had to consent to participate in the study.
We only included participants who reported having at least one parent who immigrated to Switzerland and being either born in Switzerland or having moved to Switzerland with their parents before the age of six, so all participants went to school in Switzerland, thus becoming acculturated toward the culture of their parents at home and through relatives and toward the Swiss culture at kindergarten, school, friends, and the media (Sam & Oppedal, 2003).
2.2 Participants
Our sample consisted of N = 496 adult children of immigrants in Switzerland. The detailed sample description is shown in Table 1. The sample included n = 326 self-identified women (66%), n = 166 self-identified men (34%) and four participants (0.8%) that identified themselves as neither female nor male. Due to the small sample size and the gender specific hypothesis, we excluded the four non-binary participants from the analysis, reducing the final sample to N = 492. Participants age ranged from 19 to 69 years (M = 32.39, SD = 10.46). A table showing the distribution of participants across three age groups is presented in Table E1 in the Electronic Supplemental Material (ESM) 1. Because of one inclusion criterion (i.e., being born in Switzerland or having moved here before the age of six), the older adult group is very small (n = 2). Seven participants (1%) reported on having finished obligatory school, n = 287 participants (59%) reported on having finished secondary school (e.g., vocational training) and n = 198 (40%) reported on having a tertiary degree (i.e., high education level). This distribution is slightly higher than official educational statistics for second-generation immigrants in Switzerland (FSO, 2019a). However official Swiss statistics include adolescents under the age of 18, whose highest degree is obligatory school, whereas our sample only included adults (> 18), who already finished school education. The household income in Swiss francs per year and person in our sample was distributed as follows: less than 50,000 (n = 88, 18%), 50,000–80,000 (n = 119, 24%), 80,000–1,20,000 (n = 132, 27%) and more than 1,20,000 (n = 153, 31%). Even though this income seems rather high, it represents the median annual household income per person (approx. 95´000 CHF ~ 100´000 USD) in Switzerland (FSO, 2019b).
Table 1
Sample description including tests for gender differences on described variables
Variable
Number of participants (% in brackets)
χ2 for gender differences
χ2 (df)
p
Gendera
Female
326 (66.3)
Male
166 (33.7)
Educational level
0.72 (2)
0.697
Low
7 (1.4)
Medium
287 (58.3)
High
198 (40.2)
Income in Swiss Francs
6.57 (4)
0.161
Less than 50 k
88 (17.8)
Between 50 and 80 k
119 (24.2)
Between 80 and 120 k
132 (26.8)
More than 120 k
153 (31.1)
Marital Status
1.72 (1)
0.189
Married, registered partnership
135 (27.5)
Single, separated, divorced, widowed
356 (72.5)
Number of Children
2.06 (1)
0.151
None
147 (29.8)
One or more
345 (70.2)
Both parents are immigrants
1.98 (1)
0.159
No
136 (27.6)
Yes
356 (72.4)
Parents from same region of origin
0.63 (1)
0.427
No
191 (38.8)
Yes
301 (61.2)
Participant has Swiss citizenship
6.18 (1)
0.013
No
81 (16.0)
Yes
411 (84.0)
Sample description including χ2-test for gender differences on described variables
Religious denomination
4.68 (5)
0.456
Atheistic or Agnostic
147 (31.3)
Buddhism
10 (2.0)
Hinduism
7 (1.4)
Islam
45 (9.3)
Judaism
1 (0.6)
Christianism
155 (31.5)
No religion reported
117 (23.8)
Ethnic origin
5.72 (3)
0.126
Western-European countries
101 (20.5)
South-Western European countries
127 (25.8)
Eastern European countries
152 (30.9)
Non-European/Non-Western countries
112 (22.8)
aFour participants who self-identified as “other” have been excluded from the analysis. N = 492
About a third of the sample, n = 135 (27%), was married or in a registered partnership, whereas the remaining participants (n = 357, 63%), were not married, separated, divorced, or widowed. Given the mean age of the participants, the high number of unmarried individuals can be explained by the average age at first marriage for females (30.1 years) and males (32.3 years) in Switzerland (FSO, 2020c). About one-third of our participants stated that they have one or more children n = 147 (30%). The characteristics of the sample match official statistics. In Switzerland, the mean maternal age at birth of the first child is 31.0 years, whereas the paternal age is 35.1 years (FSO, 2020d).
Most of our participants grew up with two parents that were born outside of Switzerland (n = 356, 72%), and 61% (n = 301) reported that their parents come from the same region of origin. Finally, 85% (n = 411) of our participants have the Swiss nationality either from a parent or by naturalization.
Our participants belonged to the following groups of religion or faith: n = 154 (31.3%) atheistic or agnostic, n = 10 (2.0%) Buddhism, n = 7 (1.4%) Hinduism, n = 46 (9.3%) Islam, n = 3 (0.6%) Judaism and n = 155 (31.5%) Christianism. The remaining participants n = 117 (23.8%) did not report their religion.
The ethnic culture of the participants was defined by the maternal culture of origin, since mothers seem to be more important in ethnic socialization than fathers (Safi, 2010). However, for participants whose mother was Swiss (n = 69, 14%), we chose the fathers’ culture of origin. Most participants had parents, who immigrated from a European country (77%), in line with official statistics (FSO, 2020e). Research suggested that the association between heritage and mainstream culture orientation and subjective well-being might differ, depending on the ethnicity (Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2013). Thus, for the analyses, we grouped participants into four regions with respect to their ethnic culture. Here, we followed other studies on migrants in Switzerland in delineating the groups (e.g., Steinhausen et al., 2009). We distinguished (1) North-Western European countries (e.g., France; n = 101, 21%), (2) South-Western European countries (e.g., Italy; n = 127, 25%), (3) Eastern European countries (e.g., Poland) and former Yugoslavian countries (e.g., Serbia; n = 152, 31%), and due to sample size, (4) non-European/non-Western countries (e.g., Sri Lanka; n = 112, 23%). This distribution is in line with the Swiss distribution across immigrant groups (FSO, 2020e). A detailed table showing, what nations participants in these groups stem from is presented in Table E2 (ESM 1).
2.3 Measures
2.3.1 Acculturation
We used the Vancouver Index of Acculturation (Ryder et al., 2000), a bilinear and multidimensional (e.g., capturing traditions, values, social relations, adhesion to cultural norm) measure for acculturation. It comprises ten items regarding the orientation toward the mainstream culture and ten regarding the orientation toward the heritage culture. The Vancouver Index of Acculturation is according to a meta-analysis by Yoon and colleagues (2020) the most frequently used bilinear and multidimensional acculturation measure that has been development and tested among multi-ethnic samples such as ours. According to two European studies (Celenk & Van de Vijver, 2013; Testa et al., 2019) this instrument has good psychometric properties, covering acculturation orientations and sociocultural outcomes.
We followed the TRAPD guidelines to translate and adapt the questionnaire to the German language and the Swiss context (Mohler et al., 2016). Both authors translated and adapted the questionnaires to German and to the Swiss context independently from each other. Differences between the two versions of each measure were resolved in discussion.
Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. A sample item for the orientation toward the heritage culture is “I often participate in my heritage culture traditions” (M = 3.83, SD = 0.72, α = 0.89) and “I believe in Swiss values” for the mainstream culture orientation (M = 4.10, SD = 0.58, α = 0.83). For the separate analyses regarding the subdimension of acculturation, we grouped the items by their wording into the public and private dimension, following the concept by Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2006). Because two items were neither clearly public nor private acculturation, we dropped them. Each subdimension contained for four items in total. Analyses of the subdimensions of acculturation (e.g., private, and public) were not feasible because of high intercorrelations of these subscales. Therefore, we did not analyze the subdimensions of acculturation in relationship to subjective well-being.
We evaluated the Measurement Invariance (MI) of both subscales of acculturation according to the criteria by Chen (2007) and Cheung and Rensvold (2002). The detailed MI results are presented in Table E3 for the heritage culture orientation and E4 for mainstream culture orientation in ESM 2. The analyses showed partial scalar invariance for both subscales of the acculturation measure.
2.3.2 Subjective Well-Being
Following Diener et al. (2003), the subjective well-being measures comprised life satisfaction and positive and negative affect. The cognitive aspect of subjective well-being was measured with the German version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Schumacher et al., 2003). It consists of five items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is “The conditions of my life are excellent.” (M = 5.26, SD = 1.15, α = 0.87). SWLS has shown to be consistent across cultures (Oishi & Diener, 2001) and measurement invariant across immigrant groups in a large US sample (Schwartz et al., 2013). In our sample, the SWLS proved to be partially scalar invariant across the four ethnic groups. The in-detail MI analysis is presented in Table E5 in ESM 2.
The affective aspect of subjective well-being was measured with the German version of the Positive and Negative Affectivity Schedule (PANAS, Krohne et al., 1996). It consists of two subscales containing ten adjectives on positive and negative emotional states, respectively. Sample items are “excited” for Positive Affect (M = 3.30, SD = 0.65, α = 0.83) and “distressed” for Negative Affect (M = 2.04, SD = 0.69, α = 0.85). Following Tov et al. (in press), who criticized that measurement invariance across cultures of SWB measures has often not been shown, we again tested for measurement invariance of PANAS across the four ethnic groups. Here, we established partial scalar invariance for both the Positive and the Negative Affectivity subscales (see Tables E6 for the Positive Affectivity and E7 for the Negative Affectivity analyses in ESM 2).
2.4 Analytical Plan
We prepared and analyzed our data with R Studio (Version 4). We made the data and analysis script available (Pfammatter & Schwarz, 2024) a via the Open Sciences Framework (OSF). We investigated all three hypotheses by estimating structural equation models (SEM) using lavaan for R (Rosseel, 2012) and ggplot2 for visualization (Wickham, 2016). For all SEM analyses, we chose the robust maximum-likelihood estimator (MLR), which was shown to perform well for non-normally distributed data and estimate parameters and standard errors in unequal sample sizes (Brown, 2015). Each ethnic group in our sample meets the minimal sample size requirements according to a SEM simulation study (n > 100; Wolf et al., 2013). We evaluated the SEM model fit with the standard cut off values: χ2 /df < 3 (Bollen, 1989); Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI > 0.95); Incremental-Fit-Index (IFI > 0.95), root-mean-square-error-of approximation (RMSEA < 0.06); and standardized-root-mean-residual (SRMR < 0.08) following Hu and Bentler’s (1999) recommendations. For Hypothesis 2 (integration strategy and SWB), we decided to model integration as an interaction between the two cultural orientations (Abu-Rayya & Sam, 2017), which allows us to model all four acculturation strategies in the same analysis. We built the interaction by multiplying the centered mean of the orientation toward each culture with each other, and included this product term as an observed variable in the SEM following the original idea by Aiken and West (1991). This approach was already used in some studies investigating acculturation of migrants (Abu-Rayya & Sam, 2017; Birman, 1998; Yu et al., 2016). To plot the interaction, we used three groups of orientation toward the mainstream culture based on the mean and standard deviation of orientation toward the mainstream culture (i.e., M-SD, M, and M + SD). For the exploratory analysis regarding the moderating role of age on the association between heritage and mainstream culture orientation and SWB, we built three age groups: Emerging adults (18–24 years), young adults (25–39 years), middle adults (40–64 years) and older adults (65 + years). For hypothesis 3 (gender differences in the associations between acculturation and subjective well-being), we ran a multi-group SEM, with gender as the grouping variable.
3 Results
3.1 Preliminary Analyses
First, we analyzed the four ethnic groups on socio-demographic variables, acculturation and subjective well-being as depicted in Table 2. The results showed no systematic differences regarding the socio-demographic and the orientation to the heritage and mainstream culture. No differences were found regarding subjective well-being. Hence, we decided to analyze the four ethnic groups together in the SEM analyses. In Table 3, we present the correlation table among socio-demographic variables, acculturation, and subjective well-being. Heritage and mainstream orientation correlated positively with subjective well-being (r = 0.14, p = 0.002 and r = 0.22, p < 0.001 respectively), in line with Hypothesis 1.
Table 2
Differences in socio-demographics, acculturation and subjective well-being by participant’s ethnic culture
Variable
North-West-EU (n = 101)
Southern-EU (n = 127)
Eastern-EU and Former Yugoslavian (n = 152)
Non-European/Non-Western (n = 112)
F
Post Hoc
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Gender (0 = female)
0.44
0.50
0.31
0.47
0.32
0.47
0.29
0.46
01.92
Participant age
33.80
11.57
38.00
11.89
30.38
7.91
27.46
7.04
26.69***
S > NW > EFY, N
Educational level
2.52
0.50
2.34
0.52
2.41
0.51
2.29
0.51
4.12**
NW > S, N
Income (low to high)
3.65
1.31
3.65
1.14
3.77
1.24
3.36
1.34
2.41
Both parents immigrants (0 = no)
0.66
0.47
0.76
0.43
0.84
0.37
0.59
0.49
7.65***
EFY, S > N
Heritage culture orientation
4.05
0.49
3.91
0.71
3.70
0.76
3.70
0.79
6.87***
NW > EFY, N
Mainstream culture orientation
4.17
0.56
4.21
0.59
4.04
0.57
4.00
0.57
3.70*
S > N
Subjective well-being
3.22
0.46
3.19
0.55
3.16
0.59
3.18
0.52
0.22
N = 492. NW = north-western EU, S = southern-EU, EFY = East-European and Former Yugoslavian countries, N = non-European countries. > in Post Hoc Analysis indicates a difference at p < 0.05
Table 3
Correlation among socio-demographic variables, subscales of acculturation and subjective well-being
Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1. Gender (0 = female)
0.34
0.47
2. Age
32.39
10.46
0.04
3. Education (low to high)
2.39
0.52
0.02
0.20**
4. Income (low to high)
3.62
1.26
0.09*
0.25**
0.13**
5. Both parents immigrants (0 = no)
0.72
0.45
− 0.07
0.13**
− 0.06
.09*
6. Heritage culture orientation
3.83
0.72
0.03
− 0.08
0.00
0.08
− 0.05
7. Heritage orientation (private)
3.71
0.80
0.05
− 0.08
0.02
0.06
− 0.05
0.91**
8. Heritage orientation (public)
3.82
0.72
0.05
− 0.07
0.02
0.09
− 0.10*
0.89**
0.79**
9. Mainstream culture orientation
4.10
0.58
0.04
0.14**
0.02
0.09*
0.12**
0.03
0.04
0.03
10. Mainstream orientation (private)
4.23
0.61
0.03
0.18**
− 0.02
0.12**
0.17**
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.85**
11. Mainstream orientation (public)
4.19
0.63
− 0.00
0.11*
0.04
0.10*
0.15**
0.01
− 0.01
0.03
0.88**
0.70**
12. Subjective well-being
3.52
0.54
0.02
0.20**
− 0.00
0.16**
0.03
0.14**
0.11*
0.15**
0.22**
0.16**
0.21**
N = 492 *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01
3.2 The Association Between Acculturation and Subjective Well-Being
The SEM for the interaction of orientations with subjective well-being (Hypothesis 2) are presented in Fig. 1. The fit indices showed a very good model fit, χ2 = 36.06, df = 14, χ2/df = 2.58, p = 0.001, CFI = 0.929, IFI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.057, 90% CI [0.035, 0.079], p = 0.283, and SRMR = 0.033. Both the orientation toward the heritage and the mainstream culture were associated with higher subjective well-being (β = 0.17, p = 0.002 and β = 0.24, p < 0.001 respectively), confirming Hypothesis 1. The interaction term was significant (β = − 0.19, p = 0.002). The interaction plot (Fig. 2) shows the following: if mainstream culture orientation is high, the degree of heritage culture orientation is not related to subjective well-being (β = 0.08, p = 0.403). When mainstream culture orientation is low, heritage culture orientation is positively associated with SWB (β = 0.33, p = 0.048). With respect to the acculturation strategy of integration, the results did not support Hypothesis 2. Instead, Fig. 2 shows that those who were neither oriented to the mainstream culture nor to the heritage culture (acculturation strategy marginalization) reported the lowest subjective well-being. In the ESM 3, we present in-detail analyses of the associations between heritage and mainstream culture orientation and subjective well-being, separately for ethnic groups, and among three age groups (ethnic groups: Table E8; age groups: Table E9 and E10 and Figure F1 and F2).
Fig. 1
SEM of the association of orientation toward the heritage culture and well-being, moderated by the orientation toward the host culture. Note standardized coefficients. N = 492. 1 low to high, 2 low to high; χ2 = 36.06, df = 14, χ2/df = 2.58, p = 0.001, CFI = 0.929, IFI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.057 [0.035, 0.079]. p = 0.283, SRMR = 0.033; Estimator = MLR. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.01
Fig. 2
Moderation graphic of the interaction effect of the heritage and mainstream culture orientation on subjective well-being
×
×
3.3 The Association Between Acculturation and Subjective Well-Being Separated by Gender
We further tested whether the associations between acculturation and subjective well-being differed for women and men (Hypothesis 3). The respective results are presented in Fig. 3 (the corresponding correlations are presented in Table 4). The fit indices indicated a very good model fit, χ2 = 44.43, df = 24, χ2/df = 1.85, p = 0.007, CFI = 0.933, IFI = 0.942, RMSEA = 0.059, 90% CI [0.030, 0.086], p = 0.273), and SRMR = 0.033. The orientation toward the heritage culture was positively related to higher subjective well-being among women (β = 0.17, p = 0.014), but not men (β = 0.07, p = 0.412), however, the difference between the two groups was not significant (χ2 = 0.24, df = 1, p = 0.619). The bivariate correlations presented in Table 4 show, that the orientation toward the heritage culture was positively associated with subjective well-being among men (r = 0.17, p = 0.033), which contradicts the corresponding SEM result. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Furthermore, a stronger orientation toward the mainstream culture was associated with a higher subjective well-being among women (β = 0.33, p < 0.001), but not among men (β = 0.07, p = 0.413), and again the difference between the estimates for men and women was not significant (χ2 = 2.21, df = 1, p = 0.137). In Table E11 in ESM 3, we present differences on socio-demographic variables, acculturation and subjective well-being between women and men.
Fig. 3
Association of acculturation and well-being, for women and men separately. Note standardized coefficients for women (left) and men (right). Arrow above the parameter estimates indicate a significant difference between parameter estimates for women and men at p < 0.05. 1 low to high, 2 low to high; n(woman) = 326, n(male) = 166; χ2 = 44.43, df = 24, χ2/df = 1.85, p = 0.007, CFI = 0.933, IFI = 0.942, RMSEA = 0.059 [0.030, 0.089], p = 0.273, SRMR = 0.033; Estimator = MLR. +p < 0.10. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01
Table 4
Correlation table among sociodemographic variables, acculturation and subjective well-being, for women and men separately
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. Age
0.15*
0.25**
0.29*
− 0.01
0.19*
0.17*
0.07
− 0.18*
0.14
2. Education (low to high)
0.22**
0.19*
− 0.06
0.01
0.05
0.02
− 0.07
0.15
− 0.12
3. Income (low to high)
0.25**
0.10
0.14
0.13
0.17*
0.41**
0.09
− 0.12
0.12
4. Both parents immigrants (0 = no)
0.03
− 0.06
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.19*
0.09
− 0.21**
0.16*
5. Heritage culture orientation
− 0.12*
− 0.00
0.06
− 0.09
0.18*
0.09
0.18*
− 0.06
0.17*
6. Mainstream culture orientation
0.11*
0.01
0.05
0.17**
− 0.04
0.13
0.07
− 0.07
0.09
7. Satisfaction with Life
0.18**
0.11
0.24**
− 0.10
0.06
0.15**
0.35**
− 0.32**
0.42**
8. Positive Affectivity
0.19**
0.08
0.13*
− 0.08
0.08
0.27**
0.38**
− .24**
0.90**
9. Negative Affectivity
− 0.20**
0.02
− 00.18**
− 0.07
− 0.15**
− 0.14**
− 0.31**
− 0.27**
− 0.64**
10. Subjective well-being
0.23**
0.06
0.18**
− 0.03
0.12*
0.28**
0.43**
0.92**
− 0.63**
n(female) = 326, n(male) = 166. Values below diagonal are for women, values above the diagonal are for men. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01
×
4 Discussion
In this study, we aimed to shed light on the association of acculturation and subjective well-being by taking the bilinearity of acculturation (orientation toward the heritage and mainstream culture), and its multidimensional character into account. We did this whilst focusing on second-generation immigrants from diverse ethnic backgrounds in Switzerland. We further studied the role of gender on the association between cultural orientations and subjective well-being. Both cultural orientations were positively related to second-generation immigrants’ subjective well-being. The results did not confirm that the acculturation strategy of integration was the most favorable one among immigrants in Switzerland. Furthermore, we found no strong evidence that the heritage culture was more important among second-generation women compared to men.
In line with our first hypothesis, orientation toward both cultures was positively associated with immigrants’ subjective well-being. The result is consistent with Yoon et al.'s (2013) finding that in the few European studies, both types of orientation toward mainstream and heritage culture were related to immigrants’ subjective well-being. In line with Sam and Oppedal (2003), both orientations, toward heritage and toward mainstream culture, are a valuable resource for second-generation immigrants. However, a study conducted in Europe (i.e., the Netherlands and Bulgaria), using a bilinear and comprehensive measure of acculturation, suggested a positive association only between mainstream culture orientation and subjective well-being (Dimitrova et al., 2014). In this study, subjective well-being was assessed as life satisfaction. In our analysis (presented in Figures F3–F5 in ESM 4) with life satisfaction as the dependent variable, the results were consistent with Dimitrova et al.’s (2014) findings. Our data showed no association between heritage culture orientation and life satisfaction but found a small positive association between mainstream culture orientation and life satisfaction. Thus, the mainstream culture seems to be more important for life satisfaction. This could be because life satisfaction is the cognitive evaluation of the own life (Oishi et al., 2021). A high orientation toward the mainstream culture might equip immigrants with the competencies (e.g., language skills, knowledge about the culture) to be successful in the host country. For affectivity, both cultural orientations seem to be similarly important. Since acculturation is a broad concept, which is relevant in many aspects of life (e.g., social relations), it might be, that both cultural orients have similar benefits for immigrants’ affective well-being.
Furthermore, the interaction effect between orientation toward heritage and mainstream culture did not support our hypothesis that being high in both orientations is most beneficial for subjective well-being. Instead, our data indicated that a high orientation toward either culture was sufficient for high subjective well-being. This is partially in accordance with a recent meta-analysis by Schmitz and Schmitz (2022), who found that integration and assimilation are associated with higher life satisfaction. Different from this, Yoon et al. (2013) found that integration and separation were both positively associated with subjective well-being. Our results are, however, not in line with Berry’s theory (2021) or the results of other meta-analyses (Berry et al., 2022; Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2013; Yoon et al., 2013). However, these meta-analyses only calculated the effect of integration without considering the effects of the other three acculturation strategies. Thus, it is still an unresolved question whether integration is the best strategy for SWB. Additionally, most studies in the meta-analyses were from the USA. In a comparison of US- and non-US (most European)-studies, Nguyen & Benet-Martinez (2013) found a significant smaller association between integration and SWB in the non-US-studies. Therefore, a weaker effect of integration on subjective well-being in a European sample is consistent with the literature. Our finding that being low in both cultural orientations, consistent with the acculturation strategy of marginalization, was associated with low subjective well-being is in line with other studies and Berry’s theory (Berry, 2021; Schmitz & Schmitz, 2022; Yoon et al., 2013).
Berry (2005) underlined that the host society influences immigrants’ acculturation process. Since the 1950s, Switzerland has not defined itself as an immigrant society. Even nowadays, naturalization laws are among the strictest in Europe, which support the public opinion that immigrants are foreigners (Solano & Huddleston, 2020). Furthermore, right wing parties have successfully been spreading the notion that high numbers of immigrants menace the Swiss identity and culture (Riaño & Wastl-Walter, 2006). Consequently, popular initiatives regarding specific cultural traditions (i.e., minarets and veiling of Muslim women) and against mass immigration still receive a majority of votes (Bundeskanzlei, 2009, 2014, 2021). Thus, Switzerland still has an ambivalent relationship with its immigrant groups.
As a result, the acculturation strategy of separation (i.e., high orientation toward the heritage culture and a low orientation toward the mainstream culture) might protect some immigrants from rejection. In the last decades, Switzerland has endeavored to assimilate immigrants (D’Amato, 2008). Therefore, some immigrants also benefit from the acculturation strategy of assimilation (i.e., high orientation toward the mainstream culture, low orientation toward the heritage culture), because it fits the declared goal of their host society. Future studies should investigate further which acculturation strategy is beneficial for which immigrant group in different European societies.
Notably, our results showed no significant gender differences regarding the association of heritage culture with subjective well-being. However, in the SEM only women’s associations between both cultural orientations and SWB were significant, in line with Yoon et al. (2013). The authors pointed out that women from immigrant families often take the role of cultural keepers. Fulfilling this task seems to have a positive effect on subjective well-being. Additionally, our data suggest that women’s subjective well-being was higher the more they were oriented toward the mainstream culture. If women were to be considered the cultural keepers in the family, for second-generation immigrants this might also include the culture of the host country. However, since the SEM results and the bivariate correlations showed a different picture, the results regarding the gender differences were inconclusive and should be interpreted with caution.
5 Limitations
To interpret the results of this study, several limitations should be kept in mind. First, the cross-sectional design of our data does not allow causal interpretations. Subjective well-being may also promote higher acculturation and therefore the association between acculturation and subjective well-being may be a feedback relation or may even be directed from subjective well-being to acculturation.
Second, a simulation study (Wolf et al., 2013) indicated that our sample is large enough for the conducted analyses. Nevertheless, reliable results and power in SEM depend among other factors on the model complexity and the sample size (Wolf et al., 2013). Thus, it might be that our model was too complex for the smaller male sample in our study.
Third, one strength of our study is the cultural diversity in our sample, which represents the characteristics of immigrants in Switzerland well. However, we cannot dismiss the possibility that the associations between acculturation and immigrants’ subjective well-being we found might not apply to all immigrant groups. The size of the ethnic subgroups (e.g., Spanish, or Portuguese) were too small for separate analyses for each immigrant group. Very similar limitations can be discussed for other aspects of diversity in immigrant groups, such as the comparison of findings between (a) those who came to Switzerland before the age of six and those who were born in Switzerland and (b) second-generation immigrants with and without a Swiss passport.
Fourth, although other studies used interaction terms to assess the four acculturation strategies (Abu-Rayya & Sam, 2017; Birman, 1998; Yu et al., 2016), this approach has its shortcomings, particularly because of reliability problems (Schmitz & Schmitz, 2022). However, all other approaches to assess the four acculturation strategies also have been criticized. The direct measures of acculturation strategies were criticized for psychometric problems and a lack of independence of the measures (Rudmin, 2003). Difference scores again suffer from low reliability (Schmitz & Schmitz, 2022). The commonly used approach of dividing orientation to heritage and mainstream culture into low and high, respectively and then classifying individuals into the four strategies has been criticized for creating equal numbers of participants in the groups artificially and for the unclear validity of all four categories (Rudmin, 2003). Therefore, we decided to use a method that allows for testing the effects of both cultural dimensions and the interaction of them simultaneously and that does not reduce the variance of our measures (Aiken & West, 1991). However, the comparability with findings of other studies is limited.
Finally, for most participants, we chose the maternal ethnic background as the ethnic culture of the second-generation, due to the central socialization role of mothers. Future studies should be more precise and choose the ethnic background of the main agent of socialization. As a more general note, further studies are needed to understand the influence of the maternal and paternal ethnic backgrounds on children’s ethnic socialization and acculturation. However, this was beyond the scope of the present study.
6 Conclusion
This study provides evidence for the positive association of both heritage and mainstream culture orientation and subjective well-being among adult second-generation immigrants. In public discourse in European societies, the adoption of mainstream culture by immigrants is often claimed as a sign of integration (Arends- Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006). Given that well-being is a prerequisite for a person's integration, the present study emphasizes that orientation to heritage culture is equally important. It is one of a few European studies to investigate this association with a bilinear and multidimensional measure of acculturation, and multidimensional measure for subjective well-being. Further European studies are needed to shed light on the interplay between heritage and mainstream culture orientation with subjective well-being in different host societies. Future studies on subjective well-being among the same immigrant groups across different countries would allow the disentanglement of the role of immigrants’ ethnic culture with the role of different host societies.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant awarded to the first author by the Zurich University of Applied Sciences within the call of Societal Integration. We thank the participants who voluntarily supported our study. Both authors have contributed equally.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.