See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6329301

A longitudinal study of acculturative stress and homesickness: High-school

adolescents immigrating from Russia and Ukraine to Israel without parents

Article  in  Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · July 2007

DOI: 10.1007/s00127-007-0184-1 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

116 1,120

1 author:

Eugene Tartakovsky
Tel Aviv University
65 PUBLICATIONS   993 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eugene Tartakovsky on 29 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol (2007) 42:485–494
ORIGINAL PAPER
Eugene Tartakovsky
A longitudinal study of acculturative stress and homesickness:
high-school adolescents immigrating from Russia and Ukraine to
Israel without parents
Accepted: 7 March 2007 / Published online: 14 May 2007
j Abstract Background Acculturative stress and
homesickness are psychological reactions to cross-
cultural transition. They may cause a decline in social
functioning, increased psychological distress, and, in
severe cases, psychiatric disorders among immi-
grants. Aim This study examined changes in accul-
turative stress and homesickness over the first 3 years
in the host country. It also investigated the role of
pre-migration psychological resources, perceived
discrimination, and perceived social support as pre-
dictors of acculturative stress and homesickness.
Method 211 high-school adolescents who immigrated
from Russia and Ukraine to Israel without parents
participated in the study. They filled out self-report
questionnaires at four times: about half a year before
emigration and during the three consecutive years
after immigration. Results Acculturative stress
strengthened in the second year compared to the first
year and decreased in the third year after immigra-
tion. Homesickness decreased from the first to the
third year after immigration. Pre-migration psycho-
logical resources were negatively correlated with
acculturative stress and homesickness. Perceived
discrimination was positively correlated with accul-
turative stress and homesickness. Perceived social
support from friends and teachers negatively corre-
lated with acculturative stress and homesickness,
while perceived social support from the adolescents’
parents was not correlated with these variables. Con-
clusion Personal psychological resources and social
support buffer acculturative stress and homesickness
in immigrants, while discrimination aggravates their
distress.
Dr. E. Tartakovsky (&)
The Bob Shapell School of Social Work
Tel Aviv University
P.O.B. 39040
Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
E-Mail: etartakov@hotmail.com
DOI 10.1007/s00127-007-0184-1
j Key words acculturative stress – homesickness –
social support – discrimination – adolescent immi-
grants
Introduction
j Literature review
Immigration is widely considered a stressful process
[10, 18, 50, 59]. Two hazards of immigration are most
often mentioned. The first is a massive loss of the
familiar environment, including mother tongue, food,
social networks, geographic environment, architec-
tural environment, and the arts. The second is the
difficulty of adjustment to the host country, including
difficulties in acquiring a new language, mastering
new patterns of behavior, and forming a new social
network, while withstanding the often negative atti-
tude of the local population.
Oberg [39] introduced the term culture shock to
describe the psychological reactions to the difficulties
of adjustment to a new culture, probably based on the
analogy with battle shock. Initially, researchers con-
sidered culture shock to be a disease closely resem-
bling psychosis [e.g., 31]. Modern scholars usually
consider the distress associated with the cross-cul-
tural transition as mild, transitional, and normally not
causing psychiatric illness [9, 10, 59]. Although, the
dispute about the morbidity effect of cross-cultural
transition continues, the term acculturative stress is
used more frequently in the modern literature than
culture shock.
Acculturative stress refers to three groups of
symptoms [53]. The first group relates to the general
psychological distress and decline in the psychologi-
cal and social functioning of immigrants, as expressed
in anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, helplessness,
SPPE 184
irritability, eating disorders, identity confusion,
absenteeism from work or school and reduced pro-
486
ductivity [17, 28, 57, 60]. This group of symptoms is
closely related to adjustment disorder, as defined by
the DSM-IV [2]. The second group of symptoms re-
lates to the specific negative reaction of immigrants
towards the new cultural environment, e.g. disgust
and indignation after becoming aware of cultural
differences, a sense of rejection by the host society,
and a rejection of the host culture [36]. The third
group of symptoms relates to homesickness, i.e. a
sense of profound loss and intense longing for home
[4, 18, 50]. There is empirical evidence that accul-
turative stress and homesickness are precursors of
psychological distress during the cross-cultural tran-
sition [11, 44, 51].
Most studies of immigrants focus on symptoms of
general psychological distress [9, 10, 43, 59]. Only a
few studies examine negative emotional reactions of
immigrants towards the host environment [15, 27, 36,
37, 41, 56, 60–62], and even fewer empirical studies
investigate homesickness among immigrants [8, 17,
51].
Empirical studies on the psychological adjustment
of immigrants may be divided into two groups:
studies that investigate changes in the psychological
distress of immigrants as a function of time spent in
the host country, and studies that investigate the ef-
fect of different variables on the psychological distress
of immigrants. Regarding changes in time, the U-
curve model is the most widely accepted. This model
assumes that immigrants experience euphoria
immediately after immigration; after that they fall into
distress, which ameliorates in the following years [43,
59].
Empirical studies have not confirmed the existence
of an initial euphoric stage. Most studies have dem-
onstrated that psychological distress was strongest
immediately after immigration, and that it diminished
with time in the host country [28, 58, 62]; however,
other studies have demonstrated that over the first
year in the host country, acculturative stress increased
[61]. Some studies did not find any connection be-
tween acculturative stress and the time in the host
country [15, 56]. Studies conducted among college
students found that homesickness diminished with
time [51, 62]. However, a study conducted among
foreign employees demonstrated that homesickness
strengthened with time in the host country [17].
These inconsistencies probably indicate that the
dynamics of change in acculturative stress and
homesickness depend on the specific circumstances of
adjustment in the host country and the psycho-social
characteristics of the immigrants. Most studies found
only a mild acculturative stress and homesickness;
however, some symptoms were found in up to 60% of
immigrants [51, 62].
Numerous personal and social factors were found
related to acculturative stress and homesickness
among immigrants. Low self-esteem and self-compe-
tence, dependency on others, introversion, rigidity,
and negativism were associated with high accultura-
tive stress [8, 51]. Voluntary immigrants suffered less
from acculturative stress than refugees, probably due
to their high motivation for immigration [11].
Knowledge of the language of the host country was
negatively related to acculturative stress, since it im-
proved contact with the local people and, therefore,
ensured greater social support received from them
[56, 61]. In addition, knowledge of the language
positively affected the academic and work perfor-
mance of immigrants, which, in turn, were important
predictors of acculturative stress and homesickness
[29, 61]. One of the most important predictors of
acculturative stress was the mode of acculturation
chosen by immigrants: the integration acculturation
mode was associated with the lowest acculturative
stress, while marginalization was associated with the
highest acculturative stress [9]. ‘‘Hybrid bicultural-
ism’’, when immigrants chose the most adaptive fea-
tures from their homeland culture as well as from the
host culture, may have an especially positive effect on
acculturative stress [13].
The following factors associated with the host
society were found to affect acculturative stress: cul-
tural diversity of the host society, acculturative policy
in the host society, and the majority’s attitude towards
immigrants [11, 28]. Immigrants living in culturally
diverse societies that practice a policy of multicul-
turalism suffered less from acculturative stress com-
pared with immigrants living in assimilationist
countries [9]. Perceived discrimination in the host
country was the strongest single predictor of accul-
turative stress and homesickness [9, 25, 26, 28, 29, 59].
Social support, social connectedness with co-nation-
als, and social interaction with hosts were negatively
related to acculturative stress [15, 41, 61]. Other
variables related to the host country that were
strongly associated with acculturative stress included
problems at work, unpleasant surroundings, bad
food, and bad health conditions [37]. Finally, geo-
graphical distance and perceived cultural distance, i.e.
the sense that the host country’s culture is different
from the culture of the immigrants’ homeland, were
important predictors of acculturative stress [15, 19,
17, 37, 51, 60, 61].
j Key objectives and main hypotheses of the
research
Most studies of acculturation stress and homesickness
focused on adult immigrants or late adolescents (see
reviews in [9, 10, 43]). School-age adolescent immi-
grants and children have been studied very little. This
is unfortunate for at least two reasons: first, some
researchers assume that this category is especially
susceptible to acculturative stress [32, 35]; second, the
number of immigrant children and school-age ado-
lescents is steadily increasing all over the world [5,
30]. The especially vulnerable and quickly growing

group of immigrants is school-age adolescents
immigrating without their parents, the so-called
unaccompanied minors [30]. About 33,500 such
adolescents immigrate each year to Canada [28], more
than 63,500 of such immigrants arrive each year to
Europe [24], and about 100,000 unaccompanied
minors immigrate to the USA [5, 30]. The following
factors are often mentioned as the reasons for
immigration of unaccompanied minors: social, polit-
ical, and economic instability in the homeland; better
education system in the host country; and the parents’
intention to follow their children to the host country
[5, 6, 12, 28, 30, 33].
In Israel, about 15,000 school-age adolescents have
immigrated without their parents, and additional
several hundreds continue to arrive each year [23, 38].
These adolescents constitute about 40% of all immi-
grants in the high-school age-group. However, no
empirical study of acculturative stress and home-
sickness in this group of immigrants has been con-
ducted. The present research aims to fill the gap.
Most unaccompanied minors arrive to Israel as
participants of a program called Na’ale, which is the
Hebrew acronym for ‘‘Adolescents immigrating
without their parents’’. Fifteen-year-old adolescents
eligible for immigration to Israel according to the Law
of Return, i.e. having at least one Jewish grandparent,
may participate in this program. The majority of the
participants come from the Former Soviet Union, but
adolescents from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, France,
South Africa, and the United States also participate.
The Na’ale program is selective. Adolescents are tes-
ted in their homeland about half a year before emi-
gration, and only about 50% of those who want to
participate are accepted. The main criteria for
acceptance are academic abilities on a high school
level, high motivation for immigrating to Israel, and a
lack of psychopathology. Adolescents accepted to the
program live in boarding schools in groups with their
fellow immigrants and study in Israeli high schools
for 3 years. In 10th grade, they study together with
other immigrants and learn Hebrew most of the time;
in 11th and 12th grades, they study in regular classes.
The government covers the basic needs of the ado-
lescent immigrants, including housing, food, health
insurance, and pocket money.1 The adolescents arrive
to Israel on a temporary resident visa. At the end of
the program about 95% of them receive Israeli citi-
zenship, while 5% return to their homeland [38].
Previous studies demonstrated that these adolescents
had high motivation for immigration, their attitude
towards Israel was positive, and they were relatively
well informed about Israel [6, 12, 33]. Gradual inte-
gration of the adolescents into Israeli society was
chosen as the mode of their acculturation [7, 38].
1
Adolescents immigrating to Israel with their parents are also
entitled to government subsidies. However, their parents and not
adolescents themselves receive the money.
487
Therefore, adolescents who immigrated to Israel
without parents had sufficient psychological resources
and relatively benign conditions of adjustment in the
host country.
The main hypotheses of this research are based on
the ecological theory of Bronfennbrenner [14], which
argues that the psychological well-being of individuals
depends on their psychological resources and the
surrounding social conditions. It was assumed that
the levels of acculturative stress and homesickness
would be relatively low, because the immigrants had
sufficient psychological resources and their adjust-
ment to the host country took place under relatively
benign social conditions. It was further assumed that
both acculturative stress and homesickness would be
highest at the end of the first year after immigration,
and they would gradually decrease in the following
years, when the adolescent immigrants learned to
cope with the demands of the new social environment.
Finally, it was assumed that the buffering effect of the
psychological resources and benign social conditions
on acculturative stress and homesickness would
continue throughout the entire post-migration period.
Method
j Sampling
Two hundred eleven adolescents participated in this 3-year longi-
tudinal study from beginning to end. These adolescents comprised
a representative sample of Russian and Ukrainian adolescents
studying in the Na’ale program. In the beginning of the research,
the adolescents ranged in age from 141/2 to 151/2 years and studied
in the 9th grade in Russian and Ukrainian schools. By the end of
the study, they had completed high school in Israel (through the
12th grade). The participants of this research came from about 40
cities and towns scattered across Russia and Ukraine. Sixty percent
of the participants were female. One-fourth of the adolescents lived
in single-parent families. About 70% of the adolescents’ parents
had a college degree and more than half of them held professional
or managerial positions. Three-fourths of the adolescents came
from ethnically mixed families, i.e. at least one of their grandpar-
ents was not Jewish. Compared with the adolescents who immi-
grated to Israel with their parents [49], participants in this research
demonstrated higher academic achievements; their parents were
better-educated and held higher professional positions.
j Procedure
In the spring of 1999, during testing in the Former Soviet Union,
646 program candidates (30% of all candidates) completed research
questionnaires. These adolescents were questioned at eight geo-
graphic locations in Russia and Ukraine, which were randomly
chosen out of the 18 locations where testing was conducted that
year. Of those candidates, 211 adolescents were accepted to the
program, and by the spring of 2000 they were located in Israel for
the purposes of this research. The adolescents filled out the re-
search questionnaires at the end of each of the three consecutive
school years, until the end of their study in the program in the
summer of 2002. Therefore, the adolescents who participated in the
entire research filled out the questionnaires four times: a half-year
before emigration from the FSU (Time 0), a half-year after immi-
gration to Israel (Time 1), a year and a half after immigration to
Israel (Time 2), and two and a half years after immigration to Israel
488
(Time 3). All participants signed an individual informed consent
form advising of the voluntary and confidential nature of the study,
and their rights as participants. In addition, signed informed
consent was received by post from the participants’ parents.
Twenty four adolescents dropped out during the second year of
the research, and 32 adolescents discontinued their participation in
the third year of the research. Statistical analyses conducted at the
end of the second year of the research demonstrated that adolescents
who dropped out did not differ significantly from those who partic-
ipated to the end in any variable in the study. Interviews with several
drop-outs revealed that they discontinued their participation either
because they were busy with school exams (each waive of the research
was conducted at the end of the school year), or they simply were tired
of filling out the same questionnaires several times.
j Measurements
All measurements were conducted using self-report 5-point Likert
scales, except the Youth Self-Report, which used a 3-point scale. For
reasons of brevity, internal consistencies of all scales are provided
only for the first measurement; however, they were satisfactory at
all stages of the research. Time consistency was measured in a sub-
sample of immigrants (n = 49) in the first year after immigration
using a 1-month test–retest procedure. Psychological resources of
immigrants were measured half a year before their emigration from
Russia or Ukraine. Acculturative stress, homesickness, and per-
ceived social conditions in the host country were measured at the
end of the first, second, and third school years in Israel.
j Acculturative stress and homesickness
Acculturative stress was measured by the Culture Shock Ques-
tionnaire of Mumford [36]. This 12-item scale reflects interper-
sonal aspects of acculturative stress, i.e. strains resulting from
the interaction with people belonging to the host culture.
Example items: ‘‘I have found things in Israel shocking or dis-
gusting.’’ ‘‘I feel anxious or awkward when meeting local peo-
ple.’’ Cronbach’s a of the culture shock scale was .85; its test–
retest reliability was .80.
Homesickness was measured by the homesickness scale devel-
oped by Archer et al. [4] for college students. Three items were
excluded from this 33-item scale, and the wording of another three
items was slightly changed to make them applicable to the situation
of immigration. Example items: ‘‘I dream about my home.’’ ‘‘I can’t
concentrate on my studies because I am thinking about home.’’
Cronbach a of the homesickness scale was .90; its test–retest reli-
ability was .79.
Psychological resources of immigrants
This research measured psychological resources of immigrants
across six dimensions: general self-esteem, body image, social
competence, school competence, emotional and behavioral prob-
lems, and loneliness. The following considerations guided the
choice of the scales: relevance to adolescents, previous use of the
questionnaires in immigration research, previous use of the ques-
tionnaires in the Russian and Israeli populations, and good psy-
chometric properties of the questionnaires. All scales of
psychological resources moderately or highly correlated with each
other (correlations varied from .29 to .65), which supported the
assumption that they assessed a common construct.
General self-esteem was measured by the Self-liking/Self-worth
scale [52]. This scale consists of 20 positively and negatively for-
mulated items reflecting feelings of social worth and personal
efficacy. The scale demonstrated medium–high internal consistency
(Cronbach a = .79) and high test–retest reliability (.89).
Body image was measured by the body image scale of the Offer
Self-Image Questionnaire [40]. This scale consists of 14 items
measuring physical appearance and physical abilities. The scale
demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach a = .82) and
medium–high test–retest reliability (.78).
Social competence was measured by the short form B of the
Texas Social Behavior Inventory (TSBI) [22]. This 16-item scale
measures feelings of perceived competence and comfort in social
situations. The scale demonstrated medium internal consistency
(Cronbach a = .73) and high test–retest reliability (.82).
School competence was measured using items from the multi-
faceted academic self-concept scale [34]. This scale consists of 10
positively and negatively formulated items related to the subjective
perception of one’s abilities in performing various school tasks.
The scale demonstrated medium internal consistency (Cronbach
a = .73) and high test–retest reliability (.90). School competence
positively correlated with academic achievements, as measured by
the school GPA, both before and after immigration (.38; .42).
Behavioral and emotional problems were measured by the
Youth Self-Report (YSR) questionnaire [1]. The YSR includes 112
items related mostly to normative behaviors and emotions, and less
to psychopathological symptoms. The YSR has been widely used
cross-culturally, including with Russian adolescents [45, 48] and
Jewish immigrants from the FSU in Israel [44, 47]. The total
problems’ score was the only score used in this research. The scale
had high internal consistency (Cronbach a = .93) and high test–
retest reliability (.85).
Loneliness was measured by a Short-Form Measure of Loneli-
ness [21]. This scale measures distress associated with inadequate
social contacts. It consists of eight items, positively and negatively
formulated, from the revised UCLA Loneliness scale. The scale
demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach a = .83) and
high test–retest reliability (.81).
Measures of perceived social conditions in Israel
The immigrants’ perception of social conditions in Israel was as-
sessed in two areas: social support and discrimination.
Perceived social support was measured by a Multidimensional
Scale of Perceived Social Support [63]. This questionnaire consists
of 12 items referring to social support received from parents, peers,
and teachers. Each sub-scale demonstrated high internal consis-
tency (Cronbach a were .79; .84; .87). Due to a technical error, the
scale was not applied in the first year after immigration. For this
reason, time consistency of the scale was not measured.
Perceived discrimination was measured by the Discrimination
Questionnaire [42]. The questionnaire consists of 10 items mea-
suring immigrants’ suffering due to a negative attitude of the host-
country population. The scale had high internal consistency
(Cronbach a = .87) and medium–high test–retest reliability (.80).
Socio-demographic characteristics
Country of origin: 1—Russia; 2—Ukraine.
Gender: 1—male; 2—female.
Family composition: 1—single-parent family; 2—two-parent
family. The category of the two-parent family included families
where the two biological parents lived together with the adolescent,
and families where a biological parent and a step-parent lived with
the adolescent.
Number of rooms in the apartment reflected the family’s
financial situation. This indicator was chosen because interviews
with the adolescents revealed that they had no information about
their parents’ financial situation. In this study, the number of
rooms positively correlated with the professional or managerial
occupation of the father (.17), and with the adolescents’ subjective
appraisal of the economic situation in their family compared with
other families in Russia and Ukraine (.22).
j Data analysis
Changes in acculturative stress and homesickness over the 3-year
post-migration period were tested statistically using repeated
measures MANOVAs. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used

Table 1 Acculturative stress and homesickness: means and standard deviations
Variables Time 1 Time 2
a b
Acculturative stress 2.11 (.61) 2.24 (.45)
Homesickness 2.18 (.53)a 2.15 (.54)a
Time 1—half a year after immigration; Time 2—a year and a half after immigration; Time 3—two and a half years after immigration
Tests for significance are multivariate tests for significance for planned comparisons. Means with different superscripts are significantly different at P < .05
in order to explore the effect of socio-demographic variables,
psychological resources, perceived discrimination, and perceived
social support. Finally, hierarchical regression analysis tested the
relative impact of these groups of variables on acculturative stress
and homesickness.
Results
Means and standard deviations of acculturative stress
and homesickness scales measured in the three time-
points in the post-migration period are presented in
Table 1. The immigrants’ scores on the scales mea-
suring acculturative stress and homesickness were
low in absolute figures: On a 5-point scale from
1—‘do not suffer at all’ to 5—‘suffer a lot’, the max-
imum scores were 2.24 for acculturative stress and
2.18 for homesickness. These results confirmed the
hypothesis that immigration caused only a mild psy-
chological distress in the studied population.
Changes in these variables were tested statistically
using repeated measures MANOVAs. Planned com-
parisons tested the differences between the adjacent
levels of the means in each of the two variables sep-
arately.
Multivariate test of significance for planned com-
parisons that tested changes in acculturative stress
throughout the three time-points yielded significant
(Wilks’ k = .85; F(2,139) = 12.62; P < .001). Both re-
peated contrasts estimating differences between the
means in the three adjacent time-points yielded sig-
nificant: one comparing means at Time 2 and Time 1
(t = 2.76; P < .01) and another comparing means at
Time 3 and Time 2 (t = )4.91; P < .001). The contrast
comparing means at Time 3 and Time 1 was not
statistically significant (t = )1.66; ns). Therefore, the
acculturative stress of the adolescent immigrants in-
creased in the second year after immigration and
decreased in the third year after immigration. The
acculturative stress in the third year after immigration
did not significantly differ from the level of this var-
iable in the first year after immigration.
Multivariate test of significance for planned com-
parisons that tested changes in homesickness
throughout the three time-points yielded not signifi-
cant (Wilks’ k = .96; F(2,139) = 2.66; ns). Both re-
peated contrasts estimating differences between the
means in the three adjacent time-points also yielded
not significant: the contrast comparing means at Time
2 and Time 1 (t = ).79; ns) and another comparing
means at Time 3 and Time 2 (t = )1.88; ns). However,
489
Time 3 Tests of significance
c
2.02 (.56) Wilks’ k = .85; F(2,139) = 12.62; P < .001
2.08 (.53)a Wilks’ k = .96; F(2,139) = 2.66; ns
the contrast comparing means at Time 3 and Time 1
was statistically significant (t = )2.15; P < .05).
Therefore, homesickness of the adolescent immi-
grants studied in this research did not change sig-
nificantly from the first to the second and to the third
year after immigration. However, homesickness in the
third year was significantly lower than that in the first
year after immigration.
To test how socio-demographic characteristics, the
psychological resources measured in the pre-migra-
tion period, and perceived social conditions in the
host country predicted acculturative stress and
homesickness in immigrants, we calculated Pearson’s
correlation coefficients between these variables (Ta-
ble 2).
All correlations between the country of origin,
family composition, and the number of rooms in the
family apartment with acculturative stress and
homesickness of immigrant adolescents were not
significant. Males and females did not differ signifi-
cantly on the measures of acculturative stress and
homesickness, except at Time 3, when girls reported
slightly stronger acculturative stress than boys did
(2.11(.49) vs. 1.92(.65); t(146)=2.08; P < .05). There-
fore, socio-demographic characteristics of immigrants
did not predict their acculturative stress and home-
sickness.
Correlations between different scales measuring
the psychological resources of immigrants, their
acculturative stress, and homesickness varied with
time in the host country. All the pre-migration mea-
sures of psychological resources predicted accultura-
tive stress in the first year after immigration: general
self-esteem ().29), body image ().30), social compe-
tence ().29), school competence ().34), emotional
and behavioral problems (.31), and loneliness (.31). In
the second year after immigration, only pre-migration
emotional and behavioral problems (.18) and loneli-
ness (.17) correlated with acculturative stress. In the
third year after immigration, pre-migration social
competence ().21), emotional and behavioral prob-
lems (.31), and loneliness (.20) correlated with
acculturative stress. Three measures of the pre-
migration psychological resources correlated with
homesickness in the first year after immigration:
general self-esteem ().23), school competence ().25),
and emotional and behavioral problems (.31). In the
second year, only pre-migration emotional and
behavioral problems correlated with homesickness
(.21). In the third year after immigration, pre-migra-
490

Table 2 Correlations between the predicting variables, acculturative stress, and homesickness

Acculturative stress Acculturative stress Acculturative stress Homesickness Homesickness Homesickness

Predicting variables Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Country of origin ).08 ).06 ).07 ).02 ).01 ).06

Gender ).04 ).06 .17* .10 .12 .13
Family composition ).12 ).02 ).08 ).08 ).06 ).05
Number of rooms ).10 ).08 ).01 .00 ).03 .00
General self-esteem ).29* ).09 ).12 ).23* ).08 ).10
Body image ).30* ).10 ).14 ).13 .00 ).09
Social competence ).29* ).13 ).21* ).09 ).04 ).12
School competence ).34* ).09 ).02 ).25* ).15 ).08
Emotional and behavioral problems .31* .18* .31* .31* .21* .36*
Loneliness .31* .17* .20* .13 .05 .18*
Perceived discrimination .65* .49* .58* .39* .30* .50*
Perceived social support from parents Not measured .03 ).06 Not measured .15 ).04
Perceived social support from peers Not measured ).25* ).28* Not measured ).17* ).35*
Perceived social support from teachers Not measured ).21* ).24* Not measured ).10 ).23*

* P < .05

Table 3 Hierarchical regression analyses of post-migration acculturative stress and homesickness

Acculturative stress Acculturative stress Acculturative stress Homesickness Homesickness Homesickness

Steps of the analysis Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Step 1, R2 .03, ns .02, ns .04, ns .02, ns .02, ns .02, ns

Step 2, R2 .21* .06, ns .15* .15* .07, ns .15*
Step 3, R2 .49* .31* .45* .25* .21* .40*

Step 1 includes four socio-demographic variables: country of origin, gender, family composition, and number of rooms
Step 2 includes the socio-demographic variables and the six measures of the pre-migration psychological resources: general self-esteem, body image, social
competence, school competence, emotional and behavioral problems, and loneliness
Step 3 includes the socio-demographic variables, the measures of the pre-migration psychological resources, and the four measures of perceived social conditions in
the host country: perceived discrimination and social support from parents, peers, and teachers
* P < .05

tion emotional and behavioral problems and loneli-
ness correlated with homesickness (.36; .18).
Perceived discrimination in the host country pos-
itively correlated with both acculturative stress (.65;
.49; .58) and homesickness (.39; .30; .50) at all three
time-points in the post-migration period. Perceived
social support from parents did not correlate with
either acculturative stress or homesickness. Perceived
social support from peers negatively correlated with
both acculturative stress ().25; ).28) and homesick-
ness ().17; ).35) at Time 2 and Time 3. Perceived
social support from teachers negatively correlated
with acculturative stress at Time 2 ().21) and Time 3
().24), and with homesickness at Time 3 ().23).
In order to explore the relative impact of the three
groups of variables (socio-demographic characteris-
tics, the psychological resources of immigrants mea-
sured in the pre-migration stage, and post-migration
perceived social conditions in the host country), we
conducted hierarchical regression analyses. Accultur-
ative stress and homesickness at each of the three post-
migration time-points were included in the analyses as
dependent variables. Each analysis had three steps. At
the first step, we included the four socio-demographic
characteristics of immigrants as predicting variables.
At the second step, we added the six scales measuring
pre-migration psychological resources. Finally, at the
third step, we added the four measures of perceived
social conditions in the host country (perceived dis-
crimination, perceived social support from parents,
peers, and teachers). The results of the hierarchical
regression analyses are presented in Table 3.
Socio-demographic characteristics of immigrants
did not predict acculturative stress or homesickness
at any of the three post-migration time-points. The
addition of the psychological resources significantly
improved the prediction. Pre-migration psychological
resources, together with socio-demographic variables,
explained 21% of variance in acculturative stress at
Time 1 and 15% at Time 3. The prediction of accul-
turative stress at Time 2 was not significant (it ex-
plained 6% of variance). Psychological resources,
together with socio-demographic variables, explained
15% of the variance in homesickness at Time 1 and
15% at Time 3. The prediction of homesickness at
Time 2 was not significant (it explained 7% of vari-
ance). At step 3, the addition of the variables mea-
suring social conditions in the host country
significantly improved the prediction. All variables
together explained 49% of the variance in accultura-
tive stress at Time 1, 31% at Time 2, and 45% at Time
3. All the variables together explained 25% of the
variance in homesickness at Time 1, 21% at Time 2,
and 40% at Time 3. Therefore, the results of the

hierarchical regression analyses confirmed the
hypothesis that psychological resources formed in the
pre-migration period and perceived social conditions
in the host country predicted acculturative stress and
homesickness of immigrants in the first three years
after immigration.
Discussion
This research examined acculturative stress and
homesickness in high-school adolescents immigrating
to Israel from Russia and Ukraine without parents.
These variables were measured longitudinally over the
3-year post-migration period. In addition, the effects
of socio-demographic characteristics, pre-migration
psychological resources of immigrants, perceived
discrimination and social support on acculturative
stress and homesickness were explored.
The participants of this research scored low on the
scales measuring acculturative stress and homesick-
ness, which indicated that immigration caused only
mild psychological distress in this population. These
results corroborate previous studies, which found that
acculturative stress was low in international students
[46, 62], as well as in school-age adolescents immi-
grating without parents [28]. Therefore, this research
supports the modern approach to immigration, which
argues that, under certain conditions, immigration
may be a mildly stressful and non-traumatic process
[3, 9, 10].
Two factors might account for the low level of
acculturative stress and homesickness in the adoles-
cents immigrating to Israel without parents. First,
their pre-migration psychological resources were
sufficient, and they included high motivation for
immigration, a positive attitude towards the host
country, and awareness about the conditions in Israel
[12, 33, 54]. Second, the social environment in which
the adolescents lived in Israel was organized in a way
that buffered acculturative stress and homesickness.
Integration was chosen as the mode of acculturation:
adolescents lived in groups with their compatriots,
they were encouraged to preserve their culture (cele-
brating holidays, using their native language in daily
conversations, watching TV and reading newspapers
in their native language), and they were encouraged to
be in contact (through telephone and internet) with
their parents and friends at home. At the same time, a
special program for developing their Israeli identity
was implemented, which included trips around the
country, meetings with Israelis from various socio-
cultural groups, and learning on the Israeli holidays.
Russian-speaking counselors helped the adolescents
integrate into Israeli society. The adolescents studied
for a year in immigrant classes, and only after that
were transferred to regular Israeli classes. Finally,
teachers and counselors who were in contact with the
immigrant adolescents received on-the-job training
491
and continuing guidance [6, 7]. At the same time,
negative aspects of the adolescents’ behavior associ-
ated with their homeland culture (e.g., alcohol abuse,
verbal and physical aggression) were strictly forbid-
den in the program [55].
Both acculturative stress and homesickness chan-
ged with time in the host country; however, the
dynamics of these changes varied. Homesickness was
the strongest at the end of the first year in the host
country, and it slowly decreased in the following
years. Acculturative stress increased in the second
year compared with the first and decreased in the
third year after immigration. This discrepancy de-
monstrates that the emotional reactions of immi-
grants towards the host country and the homeland are
not symmetrical, that is, changes in one variable do
not lead to similar changes in the other. This indicates
that two relatively independent processes take place
after immigration: adjustment to loss of the homeland
environment and adjustment in dealing with the host
society. Adjustment to loss seems to be a gradual
linear process, probably related to the processes of
mourning and forgetting [18]. Adjustment to the host
country seems to be curvilinear and depends on the
specific circumstances of the encounter with the host
society. For the studied population, it is probable that
the transition from the immigrants’ classes to the
regular classes caused the increase in acculturative
stress in the second year after immigration. In more
general terms, each situation that strains immigrants’
resources is felt as a threat and, therefore, may in-
crease acculturative stress.
Among the variables reflecting psychological re-
sources of immigrants, the pre-migration emotional
and behavioral problems were the most consistent
predictor of both acculturative stress and homesick-
ness during the first 3 years after immigration. In
addition, pre-migration loneliness was consistently
associated with acculturative stress in the first 3 years
after immigration. Other variables reflecting the psy-
chological resources of immigrants in the pre-
migration period (general self-esteem, body image,
and school competence) predicted acculturative stress
only in the first year after immigration. Social com-
petence predicted acculturative stress in the first and
third years after immigration. General self-esteem and
school competence predicted homesickness in the
first year after immigration, and loneliness predicted
homesickness in the third year after immigration.
These results indicate that immigrants who had
less psychological resources in the pre-migration
period (e.g., had low self-esteem, did not feel com-
petent in dealing with the demands of their social
environment, and formed less adaptive emotional and
behavioral patterns) might perceive a new social
environment as more threatening. Furthermore,
immigrants who had less psychological resources
might react on the perceived threat by detaching from
the host society and longing for the conventional, and,
492
therefore, less threatening, environment of their
homeland. Thus, people who had less adaptive pat-
terns of cognition, emotion, and behavior before
immigration experience stronger acculturative stress
and more suffer from homesickness in the host
country.
Another factor associated with acculturative stress
and homesickness was perceived social conditions in
the host country. Perceived discrimination strongly
and consistently correlated with both acculturative
stress and homesickness. Perceived social support
from peers and teachers negatively correlated with
both acculturative stress and homesickness. Perceived
social support from parents was not correlated with
these variables, which probably indicated the diffi-
culty in providing social support when parents and
their children live in different countries. It is probable
that benign conditions in the host country facilitate
contacts with local people, reduce anxiety, heighten
the sense of competence, and help immigrants to
create a positive image of the host country. Thus,
benign conditions of adjustment in the host country
buffer acculturative stress and homesickness.
Perceived social conditions in the host country
explained a greater percent of the variance in accul-
turative stress and homesickness than the psycho-
logical resources of immigrants did. At first glance, we
may conclude that the social circumstances of
adjustment in the host country have a stronger impact
on acculturative stress and homesickness in immi-
grants than their psychological resources. However, it
is important to remember that different people react
differently to the same social circumstances. For in-
stance, people with less adaptive emotional and
behavioral patterns may sense stronger discrimina-
tion and weaker social support because they have
more trouble establishing contacts with their social
environment. Therefore, the effect of psychological
resources on acculturative stress and homesickness
may be two-fold: they may affect these variables di-
rectly, and they may affect these variables in a
roundabout way, affecting immigrants’ perception of
social conditions in the host country.
Limitations of the study and directions for further
research
The main limitation of this study is due to its specific
target population—adolescents immigrating without
parents, selected for participation in a specific immi-
gration program. These adolescents had higher psy-
chological resources and better conditions for
adjustment than the adolescents immigrating with
their parents; however, their loss of family ties was
more profound. In other immigrant populations, the
dynamics of change and the severity of acculturative
stress and homesickness may be different. For instance,
adolescents who have less motivation for immigration
may experience stronger acculturative stress and
homesickness. As well as, we would expect stronger
acculturative stress and homesickness in adolescents
who suffer from discrimination in the host country or
whose social support is insufficient. However, we ex-
pect that the pattern of correlations between the psy-
chological resources of immigrants, perceived social
conditions in the host country, acculturative stress and
homesickness found in this research will be replicated
in other populations of immigrants.
The second limitation is the limited number of
predicting variables included in this study. Numerous
variables that might have also had an effect on
acculturative stress and homesickness were not in-
cluded in this research, mainly because the time
necessary to fill out the questionnaires was limited.
Intercultural competences of immigrants, the struc-
ture of their motivation for immigration, relation-
ships with parents, coping strategies, and chosen
acculturation modes seem to be the most promising
variables for further research. It might also be inter-
esting to explore the effect of the real discrimination
experience and received social support on accultura-
tive stress and homesickness.
More longitudinal studies of adolescent immi-
grants are needed. Further studies may combine
quantitative and qualitative approaches. They also
may compare various categories of immigrants: ado-
lescents coming with their families versus those who
come alone, adolescents who were well adapted in
their homeland versus those who suffered from psy-
chological distress, as well as adolescents who study
in educational institutions with different acculturative
approaches.
Conclusion
The most important result of this study is the empirical
confirmation that acculturative stress and homesick-
ness in adolescents immigrating without parents may
be mild and their immigration may be non-traumatic.
This finding contradicts the expectations of some
researchers [5, 24, 30, 32] and may have important
implications for immigration policy. This study con-
firmed that the following factors are important for the
successful adjustment of immigrants: psychological
resources formed in the pre-migration period, low
perceived discrimination, and high perceived social
support in the host country. This finding corroborates
the ecological theory as applied to the situation of
immigration [14].
The results obtained in this research indicate that
it is important to strengthen the self-esteem and self-
competence of young immigrants and to teach them
socially acceptable and adaptive patterns of behavior
even before their emigration from the homeland [35].
In addition, immigrants’ parents need to be educated
about the nature of their children’s acculturative

stress and daily strains as lone sojourners, their
children’s developmental and emotional needs, and
the ways in which they can provide necessary support
for their children [28].
When considering intervention with immigrants,
counselors and other professionals in the host coun-
try should collect full and truthful information about
the immigrants’ psychological well-being and func-
tioning in the pre-migration period. In addition,
helping professionals should collect information on
the discriminatory experience of the immigrants and
possible lack of social support in the host country.
Together, these pieces of information have a strong
prognostic value and can provide a solid basis for
planning professional intervention with immigrants,
if necessary [20].
This study highlights the positive effect of contact
with fellow immigrants in the post-migration period:
social support from peers, most of which were
immigrants, buffered acculturative stress and home-
sickness in immigrant adolescents. Therefore, pro-
fessionals responsible for adjustment of adolescent
immigrants should create special programs for
working with groups of immigrants in order to
strengthen social support that these groups may
provide to their members. Another important dis-
covery of this research concerns the role of teachers in
dealing with acculturative stress and homesickness in
immigrant adolescents. Teachers should receive spe-
cial training and ongoing supervision aimed to help
them better understand immigrant adolescents and to
develop special methods of working with them. Since
immigrant adolescents may be ambivalent in asking
for teachers’ help, teachers should encourage immi-
grant adolescents to turn to them for tangible and
emotional support [32].
This study found that acculturative stress was
lower in the first year after immigration when immi-
grant adolescents studied in separate classes than in
the second year after immigration when they studied
in regular classes. This finding indicates that immer-
sion in regular classes is a stressful process, and
immigrant adolescents need a prolonged period of
adjustment to school. Immigrants’ classes place less
social demands on immigrant adolescents; therefore,
they reduce anxiety and provide them with more
benign conditions for studying a new language, cre-
ating supportive social networks, and learning new
social skills [16]. The social environment in the host
country should permit a gradual integration of
immigrant adolescents. This approach buffers accul-
turation stress and homesickness.
References
1. Achenbach TM (1991) Manual for the youth self-report and
profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont,
Burlington, VT
493
2. American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and sta-
tistical manual of mental disorders DSM-IV-TR, 4th edn. (Text
Revision). APA Press, Washington, DC
3. Anderson LE (1994) A new look at an old construct: cross-
cultural adaptation. Int J Intercult Relat 18(3):293–328
4. Archer J, Ireland J, Amos S-L, Broad H, Currid L (1998) Deri-
vation of a homesickness scale. Br J Psychol 89:205–221
5. Barnett D (December 2004) No child left behind: new rules for
unaccompanied minor illegal aliens. Center for Immigration
Studies. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1304.html
6. Bendas-Jacob O (2001) One Russian ‘‘Chevrat Noar’’ group in
the kibbutz: an assessment of the Na’ale program. Child Youth
Serv 22(1–2):93–112
7. Bendas-Jacob O, Fridman Y (2000) Na’ale: adolescents immi-
grating without their parents. Henrietta Sold Research Institute
of Social Science, Jerusalem, (In Hebrew)
8. Benn L, Harvey JE, Gilbert P, Irons C (2005) Social rank,
interpersonal trust and recall of parental rearing in relation to
homesickness. Pers Indiv Diff 38:1813–1822
9. Berry JW, Phinney JS, Sam DL, Vedder P (2006) Immigrant youth
in cultural transition: acculturation, identity, and adaptation
across national contexts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
10. Berry JW, Sam DL (1997) Acculturation and adaptation. In
Berry JW, Segall MH, Kagitcibasi C (eds) (1987) Handbook of
cross-cultural psychology, vol. 3, Social behavior and applica-
tions, 2nd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
11. Berry JW, Kim U, Minde Y, Mok D (1987) Comparative studies
of acculturation stress. Int Migr Rev 21:249–511
12. Bertok N, Masterov B (2006) The ‘‘sent away’’ children: a
psychological analysis of adaptation of adolescents participat-
ing in educational programs in Israel. In Tartakovsky E, Sobkin
V (eds) Community psychology: national experience in the
global perspective, GraFix, Moscow, pp 53–62 (In Russian)
13. Birman D (1994) Acculturation and human diversity in a
multicultural society. In Trickett EJ, Watts RJ, Birman D (eds)
Human diversity: perspectives on people in context, Jossey-
Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp 261–281
14. Bronfennbrenner U (1989) Ecological systems theory. In Vasta
R (ed) Six theories of child development, vol. 6. JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp 187–250
15. Chapdelaine RF, Alexitch LR (2004) Social skills difficulty:
model of acculturative stress for international graduate stu-
dents. J Coll Stud Develop 45(2):167–184
16. Eisikovits R (1995) ‘‘I’ll tell you what school should do for us’’:
how immigrant youths from the former USSR view their high
school experience in Israel. Youth Soc 27(2):230–255
17. Eurelings-Bontekoe EHM, Brouwers EPM, Verschuur MJ (2000)
Homesickness among foreign employees of a multinational
high-tech company in the Netherlands. Environ Behav
32(3):443–456
18. Garza-Guerrero AC (1974) Acculturative stress: its mourning
and the vicissitudes of identity. J Am Psychoanal Assoc
22(2):408–429
19. Greenland K, Brown R (2005) Acculturation and contact in
Japanese students studying in the United Kingdom. J Soc
Psychol 145(4):373–389
20. Halberstadt-Komar A (2006) Assessment of émigré families
from the Former Soviet Union. In Tartakovsky E, Sobkin V
(eds) Community psychology: national experience in the global
perspective. GraFix, Moscow
21. Hays RD, DiMatteo MR (1987) A short-form measure of lone-
liness. J Pers Assess 51:69–81
22. Helmreich R, Stapp J (1974) Short forms of the Texas Social
Behavior Inventory (TSBI), an objective measure of self-esteem.
Bull Psychonom Soc 4(5A):473–475
23. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (2005) Statistical abstract of
Israel. www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton
24. Jahnsen MH (2005) Children without protection in Europe: pre-
study concerning the possibility of establishing a Lifeline (a
help-line including telephone and mail) for separated children
without documents in Europe. Save the Children. Sweden.
www.savethechildrensweden.org
494
25. Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Liebkind K (2001) Perceived discrimination
and psychological adjustment among Russian-speaking immi-
grant adolescents in Finland. Int J Psychol 36(3):174–185
26. Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Liebkind K, Horenczyk G, Schmitz P (2003)
The interactive nature of acculturation: perceived discrimina-
tion, acculturation attitudes and stress among young ethnic
repatriates in Finland, Israel, and Germany. Int J Intercult Relat
27:79–97
27. Kim BSK, Omizo MM (2006) Behavioral acculturation and
enculturation and psychological functioning among Asian
American college students. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol
12(2):245–258
28. Kuo BCH, Roysircar G (2006) An exploratory study of cross-
cultural adaptation of adolescent Taiwanese unaccompanied
sojourners in Canada. Int J Intercult Relat 30:159–183
29. Leung C (2001) The sociocultural and psychological adaptation
of Chinese migrant adolescents in Australia and Canada. Int J
Psychol 36:8–19
30. Littlefield L (11 August 2005). Unaccompanied immigrants and
refugee minors. National Conference of State Legislatures.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/immig/unaccompaniedminors-
factsheet.htm
31. Lysgaard S (1955) Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian
Fulbright grantees visiting the United States. Int Soc Sci Bull
7:45–51
32. Mahoney AM (2002) Newly arrived West Indian adolescents: a
call for a cohesive social welfare response to their adjustment
needs. J Immigr Refug Serv 1(1):33–48
33. Markowitz F (1996) Shopping for the future: culture change,
border crossing, and identity options of Jewish teenagers from
the CIS. Ethos 24(2):350–373
34. Marsh HW, Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ (1988) A multifaceted
academic self-concept: its hierarchical structure and its
relation to academic achievement. J Educ Psychol 80(3):366–
380
35. Mirsky J (2004) Preparing adolescents for immigration – a
group intervention. Child Adolesc Serv Rev 21(5):13–20
36. Mumford DB (1998) The measurement of culture shock. Soc
Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 33: 149–154
37. Mumford DB (2000) Culture shock young British volunteers
working abroad: predictors, risk factors and outcome. Trans-
cult Psychiatry 37(1):73–87
38. Na’ale Program (2005) www.Naale.org.il
39. Oberg K (1960) Acculturative stress: adjustment to new cultural
environments. Prac Anthropol 7:177–182
40. Offer D, Ostrov E, Howard KI (1982) The Offer self-image
questionnaire for adolescents: a manual, 3rd edn. Michael Re-
ese Hospital and Medical Center, Chicago
41. Pantelidou S, Craig TKJ (2006) Culture shock and social sup-
port: a survey in Greek migrant students. Soc Psychiatry Psy-
chiatr Epidemiol 41:777–781
42. Phinney JS, Madden T, Santos LJ (1998) Psychological variables
as predictors of perceived ethnic discrimination among
minority and immigrant adolescents. J Appl Soc Psychol
28(11):937–953
43. Phinney J, Horenczyk G, Liebkind K, Vedder P (2001) Ethnic
identity, immigration, and well-being: an interactional per-
spective. J Soc Issues 57:493–510
44. Ponizovsky A, Ritsner M, Modai I (1999) Suicidal ideation and
suicide attempts among immigrant adolescents from the For-
mer Soviet Union in Israel. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry
38(11):1433–1441
View publication stats
45. Ruchkin VV, Eisemann M, Hagglof B, Cloninger CR (1998)
Interrelations between temperament, character, and parental
rearing in male delinquent adolescents in Northern Russia.
Compr Psychiatry 39(4):225–230
46. Ryan ME, Twibell RS (2000) Concerns, values, stress, coping,
health and educational outcomes of college students who
studied abroad. Int J Intercult Relat 24:409–435
47. Safro S, Ponizovsky A (1996) The relationship between self-
ratings and mothers’ ratings of behavioral problems among
recent adolescent immigrants to Israel. Child Family Behav
Therapy 18(4):41–48
48. Slobodskaya HR (1999) Competence, emotional and behavioral
problems in Russian adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry
8:173–180
49. Slonim-Nevo V, Shraga Y (2000) Psychological and social
adjustment of Russian-born and Israeli-born Jewish adoles-
cents. Child Soc Work J 17(6):455–475
50. Stein HF (1985) Culture change, symbolic object loss, and re-
stitutional process. Psychoanal Contemp Thoughts 8(3):301–332
51. Stroebe M, van Vliet T, Hewstone M, Willis H (2002) Home-
sickness among students in two cultures: antecedents and
consequences. Br J Psychol 93:147–168
52. Tafarodi RW, Swann WB (1995) Self-liking and self-compe-
tence as dimensions of global self-esteem: initial validation of a
measure. J Pers Assess 65(2):322–342
53. Taft R (1977) Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In Warren N
(ed) Studies in cross-cultural psychology, vol. 1. Academic
Press, London, pp 121–153
54. Tartakovsky E (2002) Acculturation attitudes of potential
emigrants: Jewish youths in Russia. J Appl Soc Psychol
9(32):1845–1862
55. Tartakovsky E, Mirsky J (2001) Bullying gangs among immi-
grant adolescents from the former Soviet Union in Israel: a
psycho-culturally determined group defense. J Interpers Vio-
lence 16(3):247–265
56. Tsytsarev S, Krichmar L (2000) Relationship of perceived
acculturative stress, length of stay in the United States,
depression, and self-esteem in elderly Russian-speaking
immigrants. J Soc Distress Homel 9(1):35–49
57. Van Oudenhoven JP, Ward C, Masgoret A-M (2006) Patterns of
relations between immigrants and host societies. Int J Intercult
Relat 30:637–651
58. Ward C, Okura Y, Kennedy A, Kojima T (1998) The U-curve on
trial: a longitudinal study of psychological and socio-cultural
adjustment during cross-cultural transition. Int J Intercult Relat
22(3):277–291
59. Ward C, Bochner S, Furnham A (2001) The psychology of
culture shock, 2nd edn. Routledge, London
60. Ye J (2006) An examination of acculturative stress, interper-
sonal social support, and use of online ethnic social support
groups among Chinese international students. Howard J
Commun 17:1–20
61. Yeh JC, Inose M (2003) International students’ reported
English fluency, social support satisfaction, and social con-
nectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Couns Psy-
chol Q 16(1):15–28
62. Ying Y-W (2005) Variation in acculturative stressors over time:
a study of Taiwanese students in the United States. Int J In-
tercult Relat 29:59–71
63. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK (1988) The
multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers As-
sess 52(1):30–41