Keywords

Immigration, the act of leaving one’s own country and resettling in another, is a process involving a series of events, taking place over a prolonged period of time (Bhugra, 2004). The literature on immigration, migration, relocation, and other topics that relate to the process of moving from one country to another is especially rich, developed, and comprehensive. Thus, it is impossible to cover all of this literature in one chapter. Yet, the present chapter aims to reach a greater understanding of the adjustment process to immigration by: (a) outlining the wide variety of components that are embedded in the process of transitioning from one country to another (i.e., immigration), (b) highlighting several of the well-accepted notions regarding psychological aspects of immigration, and (c) linking parts of the existing literature on immigrants’ adjustment with a more general model of adjustment to transitions, namely, the Transitional Stress and Adjustment (TSA) model, as presented in Chap. 6 of the present book.

The Immigration Experience

Immigration is neither a new phenomenon nor a unidirectional trend (e.g., east to west) alone; rather, since the early days of human history, people have immigrated from one part of the world to another. Historians date pre-modern migration back to 1.75 million years ago (Bae et al., 2017), with the transition of humans from Africa to Asia, and later on from Asia to other parts of the world. At present, recent statistics on migration (United Nations, 2021) estimate that in 2020, the number of people living outside of their country of origin was 281 million. However, the global number of immigrants in the world is even bigger when people’s subjective feelings are taken into account; namely, the more accurate number of immigrants should include the accumulating number of people who might feel that they are foreigners in their new location, even though many years have passed since their actual departure from their homeland. Hence, another significant number in this context would be the total number of people who were uprooted from their country and relocated to a new country.

However, evaluation of the exact number of immigrants is even more complex, due to several reasons: (1) At the global level, nearly half of all international migrants have been found to still be living in the region of their country of origin, that is, on the same continent where they were born. Practically, Europe has been found to have the largest share of intraregional migration, with 70% of all migrants born in Europe residing in another European country; sub-Saharan Africa has 63% inner-migration, and, in contrast, 78% of the immigrants in Central and Southern Asia are living outside of their region of birth. Although relocation to a neighboring country may lead to the experience of a lack of belonging, the closer the country is to the country of origin in terms of culture, etc., the less likely the “immigrant” is to experience difficulty adjusting (e.g., culture shock). Thus, when discussing people in transition, the accumulating number of people who immigrate, from one country to the other, and the number of people who migrate, relocate in a different state or county within their country, should be taken into account. (2) The term “immigrant” is an umbrella term which includes various, and significantly different, types of populations, the major types being labor migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers, forced labor (e.g., human trafficking), environmental migrants (e.g., due to environmental disasters), and international students (as some of them stay in the new country that they have moved to during their studies). (3) The official definition of a person as an immigrant is sometimes a political issue and sometimes depends on local circumstances. An example is the definition of some immigrants as “skilled immigrants.” The term, skilled immigrants, refers to those migrants who come through a skilled visa and are selected by governments to fill their economic market gaps in need for skilled manpower, while relying on the public’s relative openness to accept skilled people. However, several features of the skilled immigrant population are not well defined—for example, who is the skilled person? What skills are really needed (in the given country)? How should skillfulness be measured and evaluated? How many skilled migrants should be accepted? These and other open questions enable governments and local leaders to make their own (local) decisions and—more importantly—to change them from time to time. This notion is supported by Boucher (2019), who analyzed the skilled immigration policies in five Northern democratic nations and demonstrated that definitions of “skilled” immigrants are dynamic across various nations, as well as within the same nation(s) over time. Moreover, Boucher showed that the definition of a skilled immigrant does not depend on economic needs alone, but also on political realities and needs. Thus, a person could be defined as an immigrant in one nation and as a skilled immigrant in another, a difference in formal definition (e.g., due to different governmental support that is offered in each case). (4) According to the United Nations’ statistics (2017), a distinction should be made between (a) The International Migrant Stock—a measure of the number of persons identified as international migrants at a given point in time—and (b) The International Migration Flow, the number of persons arriving in (inflows) or departing from (outflows) a given country or region over the course of a specified time period, usually during the course of 1 year. It is believed (United Nations, 2017) that only by taking these two measures into account can an accurate picture of the scope of immigration and its trends be achieved. Altogether, these restrictions call for cautious evaluations of the global migration phenomenon and specifically, in relation to the present chapter, in studies that evaluate immigrants’ adjustment.

In any case, the relatively large number of migrants and their different types call for a relatively sophisticated approach in outlining the problem of immigrants’ adjustment and, based on that, the ways to prevent migrants’ maladjustment. Importantly, the need to find ways to prevent immigrants’ maladjustment is not only an issue of human rights and humanity; rather, it is a practical topic that is of growing importance. Due to population aging in many Western countries, international migrants of working age have become an important point of consideration in countries’ economic system (i.e., by easing the pressure on public pension systems). This reality has been acknowledged in the United Nations’ (2015) declaration and adoption of the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” in which support for immigrants’ relocation has been included as one of the world’s future goals (#10), that is, to “reduce inequalities within and among countries.” Specifically, this goal states (#10.7) that countries are expected to “facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.” Thus, accordingly, increasing numbers of countries have started to devote resources to promoting immigrants’ adjustment to the host country.

As history repeats itself, it isn’t surprising that such a positive approach to migration is also not a new phenomenon. In several parts of the world, and especially at certain times, migrants have been welcomed (e.g., in Canada, Australia, Israel, etc.), and accordingly, some experience has accumulated over the years. Efforts to prevent migrants’ maladjustment were especially evident in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, when a large wave of immigrants traveled from Europe to the United States in search of a new life in the new continent (and then found that they missed their city of origin and thus established New York, New Orleans, New Berlin, etc.). Actually, professions such as vocational counseling, vocational guidance, vocational psychology, career counseling, etc. were all established during these periods as an effort to prevent immigrants’ maladjustment by finding the best fit between each immigrant’s desires and personal capital and their place of labor within the new environment. Another preventive act, though unjust and unsuccessful, was the forced placement of immigrants in specific areas (e.g., in the United States or in Canada), sometimes as a result of the (good) intention to settle them in places where the labor market was in a better situation (though it might have been imposed on the immigrants completely against their will).

However, in spite of the many past experiences, supporting migrants’ relocation is still a difficult task today. Obviously, there are a variety of groups of people within the migrant population (as represented by the many terms that are used to label them), who come from different cultures, with different motives to depart from their homeland and different needs accordingly, with varied preferences regarding their preferred place of relocation, which are shaped by different reasons, having different perceptions regarding their family of origin’s expectations of them, different levels of occupational mastery (in any given field), varied levels of knowledge regarding the culture in the country they are relocating to, etc. Nevertheless, they all share several characteristics and needs that should be fulfilled, either by the person him/herself and/or by the community s/he is joining in the new country. These common needs are, firstly, the basic needs that are required for survival, including food, housing, medical care, and a medium for communication with the environment (i.e., personal or assisted mastery of the local language). Accordingly, for example, the German government takes responsibility in helping asylum-seekers find proper housing and all other basic needs (Reinke et al., 2022). In addition, the literature suggests that migrants also share common psychological needs and characteristics that are prominent across the large variance in migrants’ personal, cultural, and environmental circumstances. The following description will focus primarily on the shared psychological characteristics of immigrants who move to a new country.

Adjustment to Immigration

Leaving one’s own country and resettling in another is an episode that involves a series of events, takes place over a prolonged period of time, usually relates to several people (including the immigrant, the family members the immigrant departed from, the immigrant’s extended family, the community that the immigrant comes from, and the new community the immigrant joins), and relates to a large number of disciplines (including psychology, sociology, economy, political science, religious studies, demography, media/communication, linguistics, ethics, ecology, and more; Berry, 2001; Chirkov, 2009; Silbereisen et al., 2016). A case that exemplifies the multiple perspectives through which immigrants and immigration can be considered is presented by Wiggler et al. (2021). In their study, Wiggler et al. analyzed the media coverage of an event that took place in Cologne (Germany). On New Year’s Eve, 2015–2016, there were multiple cases of sexual assault on women and thefts in the area of Cologne Station, mainly carried out by young men of North African origin. Using an advanced analysis of the words that were used by four national news publications while reporting on this event, Wiggler et al. (2021) argue that these reports were misleading, as they actually fostered the public’s association of this event with a “…long history of Orientalist stereotyping.” Namely, instead of framing the event as a terrorist-, crime-, or human- related event, the media supported the public’s perception of the event as a culture-, gender-, and/or religious-related event. Such a shift somehow “humanizes” the event (Gesser-Edelsburg & Israelashvili, 2009) and hence changes it from a relatively unique (i.e., exceptional) event that is almost irrelevant to most people who are not present in the event, into a more real event that is relevant to everyone’s daily living. By doing so, the event became more disturbing and actually threatening for a large portion of German society. Thus, public debates over attitudes toward immigrants in general, and especially regarding the need for labor immigrants and/or the best way to support their adjustment (if at all), intensively emerged, potentially re-shaping the German public’s and government’s attitudes toward outsiders, with reference to human rights, societal problems, the economic situation, German ethics, and so forth.

Another example of the multidisciplinary nature of immigrants’ adjustment comes from a content analysis of studies that explored ways to promote immigrants’ acculturation (Yoon et al., 2011) that indicated a large variety of topics that were addressed in these studies, including help-seeking attitudes (e.g., counselor preference, perceived counselor credibility or competence, willingness to seek counseling), mental health, adjustment, and well-being (e.g., depression, anxiety, psychological distress, self-esteem, satisfaction with life), career/academic development (e.g., career self-efficacy, educational aspirations), the process of acculturation/enculturation (e.g., construct structure, acculturation strategies, levels), health psychology (e.g., diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, HIV), acculturation/enculturation scale development and validation, family conflicts, parenting, problem-solving and coping strategies, body image, and self- and cultural identity. Needless to say, acknowledging the wide spectrum of disciplines that are related to immigration is important for better defining immigrants’ (possible) adjustment problems, as well as for finding appropriate ways to prevent immigrants’ maladjustment. This is why, in spite of the numerous studies carried out to clarify ways of supporting immigrants’ adjustment, much is still unknown.

Nevertheless, there are several aspects of immigrants’ experiences that are repeatedly highlighted in studies on this population. One of the more common topics mentioned in the literature on immigration is the accumulating stress that immigrants face during the transition from their homeland to a new country (e.g., Yeh et al., 2008; Yakushko et al., 2008), especially during the first years after immigration. The sources of such stress are multiple, including the following:

  1. (1)

    Traumatic experiences during the transition process: Immigration can be a traumatic experience (Aizik-Reebs et al., 2021; Berger & Weiss, 2002, 2006; Chavez-Dueñas et al., 2019; Perez-Foster, 2001; Schrauf & Rubin, 2001) and can have adverse effects on people, leading to low self-image (Sam, 1994), depressive symptoms (Bhugra, 2004; Sam, 1994), and psychological and somatic symptoms (Sam, 1994), including psychological distress (Ritsner & Ponizovsky, 1998; Schweitzer et al., 2006; Zilber & Lerner, 1996), anxiety (Bhugra, 2004), and posttraumatic stress disorder (Bhugra, 2004; Perez-Foster, 2001). The experience of trauma during the immigration process has been well documented among war refugees, illegal labor immigrants, and asylum-seekers—who are all, at one stage or another of the journey from their homeland to another country—exposed to traumatic experiences, which cannot be ignored by either the immigrant or the host country. In addition, recent studies on Latinx immigrants (e.g., Jolie et al., 2021) highlight the possible existence of traumatic experiences during the transition process to the new country (usually the United States) among Latinx families. For example, in a study conducted by de Arellano et al. (2018), 131 Hispanic immigrant youth were interviewed about their experiences during the transition process. About 30% of the interviewees described the process as including traumatic episodes and feelings. In another study, Fortuna et al. (2019) interviewed 175 Latinx immigrant women and found that about 30% of them reported experiencing sexual assault and 61% reported exposure to physical assault. Chavez-Duenas et al. (2019) extensively discuss ways to heal, what they refer to as, ethno-racial trauma among Latinx immigrant communities. Obviously, in addition to the impact of individual differences on immigrants’ subjective experiences, immigrants coming from different countries may both be exposed to different experiences during immigration and may also conceptualize and label the same events differently (i.e., some immigrants may label an event as traumatic, whereas others may not perceive it in the same way). However, the subjective experience of trauma is of the essence, and hence, for a significant number of immigrants, all over the world, feelings of trauma are embedded in the transition process to the new country.

Perez-Foster (Perez-Foster, 2001; Perez-Foster & Goldstein 2007) outlines four possible sources of migration trauma, emphasizing that such trauma is not a product of migration alone, but rather of difficult events that accompany the immigration experience. Four components of migration are pinpointed as having the potential for the occurrence of traumatic events: (1) pre-migration: events that occur immediately prior to immigration and are often central reasons for the decision to relocate (e.g., persecution); (2) transit: traumatic events that occur during relocation; (3) asylum-seeking and resettlement: residence in temporary residential areas may occur during the first stages of relocation, characterized by overcrowded conditions and lack of proper provisions; and (4) poor living conditions in the host country due to unemployment, inadequate support, and minority persecution. Perez-Foster (2001) also suggests that trauma experienced during immigration is most likely caused by multiple and cumulative stressors.

  1. (2)

    Accumulation of minor daily hassles: Frequently, the migrant’s motivation to depart from the well-known homeland and move to a new country is initiated by the migrant’s belief that “it will be better there.” However, in reality, even if immigration will lead to a better future eventually, meanwhile the migrant is likely to encounter various unknown situations, events, people, and (formal and informal) ceremonies that are accompanied with feelings of social isolation, socioeconomic problems, lack of fluency in the language, redefinition of values and gender roles, occupational downgrading (Perez-Foster, 2001), and perceived discrimination (Tartakovsky, 2007).

Studies have indicated that the immigration experience includes small chronic daily hassles directly related to immigration, such as issues with employment, language, and housing difficulties, which accumulate over time, contributing to stress (Yakhnich, 2008). In a study by Titzmann et al. (2011) among immigrant adolescents from the former Soviet Union (FSU), who immigrated to Germany (N = 1437) or to Israel (N = 1420), they found a three-factor solution in an analysis of reports regarding exposure to daily hassles. The three factors, representing the types of daily hassles that the immigrants experienced, were: (1) language hassles, for example, “I had problems in class … [or: I felt alienated in Germany...] because my German was not good enough”; (2) discrimination hassles, for example, “I was teased by others… [or: …swore at work…] because I am not an ethnic German”; and (3) familial hassles, for example, “my parents did not want me to orientate too much towards… [or: …dress like…] local adolescents”. Slonim-Nevo et al. (2009) examined stress over time in immigrants from the FSU to Israel and Germany and found that the number of stressful events experienced by the immigrants increased from the second to the fourth year in the country. Tartakovsky (2007) found that acculturative stress increased during the second year but decreased by the third year.

  1. (3)

    The necessity to reconsider personal and cultural identity: Of special interest is the stress stemming from an actual change that the migrant experiences and/or from the feeling that the environment expects the immigrant to re-address his/her cultural identity (Bhugra & Becker, 2005). Cultural identity is defined as “the sense of belonging, understanding, centrality, positive feelings, and meaning that individuals perceive in regards to their membership in a racial or ethnic group” (Neblett & Roberts, 2013). According to Umana-Taylor et al.’s (2004) Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS), a person who has a stable cultural identity will express it both behaviorally (“I have participated in activities that have taught me about my ethnicity”), emotionally (“I feel negatively about my ethnicity”), and cognitively (“I am still trying to understand how I feel about my ethnicity”). The development of cultural/ethnic identity partially relates to general models of identity development (e.g., Tajfel’s (1981) Social Identity Theory, Erikson’s (2008) Theory of Global Identity Development, and Marcia’s (1987) differentiation between levels of identity development), as well as to individual characteristics, including the person’s strategies for coping with discrimination (Phinney & Chavira, 1995) and parental ethnic-racial socialization (Wang et al., 2020).

Sussman (2000; Forster et al., 2017) describes the changes in cultural identity, which occur during immigration. The transition to a new culture leads to salience and reaffirmation of the immigrant’s cultural identity as a result of the gap experienced between the immigrant’s culture and the host culture. The immigrant seeks person-environment fit and thus engages in sociocultural adaptation, namely, adaptation of behaviors, cognitions, and cultural identity to reduce the cultural gap and increase fit with the environment. The extent to which immigrants adapt their behavior to fit the new culture is dependent on various factors, including their level of motivation to do so (e.g., incentives to succeed at various tasks, such as employment opportunities) and the centrality of their cultural identity (lower centrality is associated with a greater tendency to adapt behaviors). Naturally, the greater the extent to which they felt committed to their previous culture, the harder it will be for them to find a fit between their past and present cultural identities. Accordingly, unless the motives to immigrate were definitely and absolutely clear, the process of finding such fit is frequently associated with feelings of sorrow and loss. In recognition of the loss—including the loss of one’s previous cultural identity—involved in migration (Al-Issa, 1997; Frater-Mathieson, 2004; Henry et al., 2005), the process of adjustment to immigration has been conceptualized by many as a mourning process, involving bereavement and grief similar to that experienced after the death of a loved one (Ainslie, 2005; Bhugra & Becker, 2005; Gonzalez, 2005). This has led to the application of mourning and grief models to describe the process of immigration. For example, a stage model proposed by Neimeyer (1998, in Frater-Mathieson, 2004) has been applied to the adjustment of immigrant children and includes three central stages: (1) avoidance: the immigrant feels confusion, shock, and numbness and is unable to understand or face the loss; (2) assimilation: the immigrant comprehends the full impact of the loss and feels sad, lonely, and depressed; and (3) accommodation: the symptoms of grief reduce, and the immigrant is able to begin to reconstruct his life by rebuilding his social network.

Referring back to the search for fit between immigrants' past and present cultural identities, a leading theory on the role of cultural identity in immigrants’ adjustment is Berry and colleagues’ model of acculturation, identity, and development (Berry, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2017, 2019). Berry discusses immigration in terms of acculturation, which is “the dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members” (Berry, 2005; p. 698). Berry and colleagues use the term psychological acculturation to describe the cultural change, which occurs to an individual when coming into contact with a new group. While this change occurs in both groups, it is greater in the nondominant group, namely, immigrant groups and minorities. Acculturative stress (Berry et al., 1987) is stress that is a product of acculturation and is related to lower mental health, which is often expressed in the form of confusion, anxiety, and depression.

Berry’s model suggests that members of acculturating groups—that is, both the new immigrants as well as members of the host society—differ in the degree to which (1) they prefer to maintain their culture of origin and identity and (2) they desire contact with the other group. These two dimensions—referred to as acculturation attitudes—shape the results of the acculturation process and create various types of acculturation attitudes that Berry suggests as a typology of possible results of the psychological acculturation process. Practically speaking, at the individual level, the immigrants’ acculturation attitudes (i.e., the attitudes that they have toward intercultural contact and cultural maintenance; Berry, 2001; Berry et al., 2006) may lead to four types of acculturation attitudes: (1) assimilation: when new immigrants have no wish to hold on to their culture of origin and seek daily interaction with other cultures, (2) separation: when new immigrants wish to preserve their culture of origin and avoid interaction with other cultures; (3) integration: when new immigrants prefers to maintain their cultural heritage while interacting daily with other cultures and seeking to participate in the larger society; and (4) marginalization: when new immigrants have both a lack of desire to hold on to their culture of origin and no wish to engage with other cultures (Berry, 2001). Based on empirical studies, Berry (2007) highlights integration—rather than assimilation, separation, or marginalization—as both the most common behavior, as well as the most adaptive one, both psychologically and socioculturally. Notably, Berry’s model is not a stage model, and thus, individuals do not necessarily change their acculturation attitudes, nor does change necessarily follow a particular direction.

Support for the distinction between the four types of psychological acculturation can be found in Berry et al.’s (2006) study of immigrant youth. This study, conducted by an international team of scholars, explored the lives and feelings of 7000 immigrant adolescents (ages 13–18), living in 13 nations, and especially their feelings of adjustment in relation to their relocation, in terms of their personal well-being and their school and community adjustment. This large-scale study examined several dimensions in the adolescents’ lives, such as acculturation attitudes, ethnic identity, national identity, language use, ethnic and national peer contacts, family relationships, perceived discrimination, life satisfaction, self-esteem, school adjustment, and behavior problems. These variables were measured and used to assess, what Berry and colleagues refer to as, the adolescents’ current psychological adaptation (i.e., good mental health and self-esteem) and sociocultural adaptation (i.e., positive school life and few problems in the community). The study results highlighted the existence of four distinct types of adolescent acculturation: (1) an integration pattern that is parallel to the integration attitude (see above), in which youth orient themselves to, and identify with, both cultures; (2) an ethnic pattern that is parallel to the separation attitude, in which youth are oriented mainly toward their own group; (3) a national pattern, parallel to the assimilation attitude, in which youth look primarily to the national society; and (4) a diffuse pattern that is parallel to the marginalization attitude, in which youth are uncertain and confused about how to live in their new host culture, while keeping up with the culture of origin.

However, as mentioned, Berry’s model also addresses the host culture’s strategies, in terms of the society’s acculturation attitudes, that is, the common attitudes that society has toward immigrants and toward intercultural contact. Similar to the immigrants’ attitudes toward acculturation, a society’s acculturation attitudes can be categorized into four types: (a) Melting pot: when the society perceives variance as a problem and attempts to eliminate all differences between the newcomer and the other group members. Naturally, as immigrants are the minority group, the society’s expectation is that the newcomers completely identify with society’s values and norms and ignore their past cultural and societal values and norms; (b) segregation: when the society is not welcoming toward the newcomers’ behaviors and norms and prefers to maintain separation from them. However, the society interacts openly with the newcomers, without rejecting the immigrants completely, and is ready to accept them if the newcomers exhibit the values and behaviors that are typical to the society; (c) multiculturalism: when the host and governing society perceives cultural variance as an enriching and contributing feature, and the new immigrants’ presence as a contribution to society; and (d) exclusion: sometimes the society perceives the newcomers as a threat and prefers to separate itself from them and not to have any contact with immigrants whatsoever. Moreover, if the newcomers exhibit values, norms, and behaviors that are typical to the host society, they are mistrusted and ignored.

Hence, progress in the acculturation process and the immigrants’ emerging cultural identity are the result of an interaction between the immigrants’ attitudes and expectations (i.e., the strength of their sense of ethnic identity), the host society’s response (i.e., acceptance vs. rejection of the culture of origin), the immigrant group’s specific circumstances in the host country (Phinney et al., 2001), as well as the culture gap between the immigrant’s culture and the host culture (Sam & Berry, 2010).

According to Berry’s model, the product of psychological acculturation is adaptation, referring to an individual’s psychological well-being and acquisition of the appropriate sociocultural skills to function well in the new society (Sam & Berry, 2010). Studies have indicated that cultural integration is positively related to psychological and sociocultural adjustment, including self-esteem, self-worth, and peer acceptance (Berry, 1997, 2005; Berry et al., 2010; Eyou et al., 2000; Kovacev & Shute, 2004; Phinney et al., 2001; Sam & Berry, 2010). Marginalization, in contrast, has been negatively related to adjustment (Berry, 1997, 2005; Kovacev & Shute, 2004; Phinney et al., 2001; Sam & Berry, 2010). Assimilation and separation have been related to moderate levels of adjustment (Berry, 1997, 2005). Some studies have indicated that identification with the host culture, whether in the form of integration or assimilation, is related to positive psychosocial adjustment (Berry & Hou, 2016; Ryder et al., 2000). Similarly, according to Bhugra and Becker (2005), whereas separation can lead to segregation and marginalization can lead to ethnocide, integration and assimilation can reduce feelings of loss and grief with the new sense of belonging to the host country. The effects of separation are demonstrated in a study (Chiswick & Miller, 2002), which examined the phenomenon of enclaves (high concentrations of immigrants living in a specific area) among immigrants, and found that a high concentration of non-English speaking immigrants living together in the United States is associated with poorer English language proficiency and immigrants earning a lower salary. These findings emphasize the negative outcomes that separation can have for immigrants.

An example of the impact that society’s acculturation attitudes can have on immigrants’ success in relocation is found in Schachner et al.’s study (2017). This study explored the effect of acculturation attitudes on school adjustment among youth in six European countries, differing from each other in the multicultural policies. Findings indicated that in countries that were high in multicultural policies, both mainstream orientation (adopting the host culture) and ethnic orientation (maintenance of one’s culture of origin) were associated with a sense of school belonging, whereas in countries that were low in multicultural policies, only mainstream orientation was associated with school belonging. These findings emphasize the importance of factors related to the host society, in determining adjustment to immigration.

Comments on the Acculturation Process

In his comments on Berry’s (1997) paper on immigration, acculturation, and adaptation, Richard Lazarus (1997)—a prominent scholar in the field of stress and coping—highlighted the importance of addressing the process of acculturation, which Lazarus preferred to refer to as dislocation and relocation (p. 41), and several of the advantages of Berry’s approach to this topic. However, alongside the advantages of Berry’s approach, Lazarus also mentioned several restrictions that he recognized in Berry’s model; these early comments deserve some (limited) elaboration, as follows. Lazarus made four general comments about Berry’s model:

  • The acculturation process includes several different processes that should be further explored. In Lazarus’s words: “The fact that there are so many terms for what we are talking about—uprooting, dislocation, relocation, immigration, and acculturation—suggests that many different phenomena and processes are involved, many more than can be comfortably encompassed by Professor Berry’s impressive Fig. 2” (p. 39).

  • More attention should be given to individual differences: Lazarus comments on the major differences that exist among immigrants (e.g., due to their different motivations for dislocation) and between cultures (e.g., the cultural values regarding strangers) and calls for an elaboration of the fit process between the incoming immigrant and the host society. Lazarus says that “Stress and coping are above all relational concepts. The way they work in practice depends on the fit between characteristics of individuals and the environmental circumstances being faced, and how these change from transaction to transaction, and over time.”

  • A need for a more dynamic model of the immigration process, rather than a static model. In Lazarus’s words: “Professor Berry’s analysis seems relational, but most of it also seems structural and static to me, rather than process-centered, which I believe it must be” (p. 40).

  • Attention should be given to the emotions that the immigrant experiences during the acculturation process: In line with Lazarus’s greater attention to emotive, rather than only cognitive, components of the coping process, he also recommended paying more homage to the role that emotions play in the acculturation process: “It would be useful to give more attention to the particular emotions that arise from adaptational struggles rather than focusing only on psychological stress” (p. 41).

  • Berry’s 1997 version of the acculturation model is too general and relatively abstract: Lazarus concluded by saying that “I also believe that his level of analysis is so broad and abstract that the details, such as individual differences in goals, beliefs, and coping skills and styles, which would put flesh and bones on the process of relocating, must be added if we are to achieve its full theoretical potential” (p. 43).

Notably, later studies on acculturation processes did partially address the topics that Lazarus mentioned as restriction of Berry’s model. For example:

With regard to Lazarus’s comment on the need for more dynamic models, the existing literature supplies evidence that acculturation attitudes are associated with immigrants’ adjustment levels. Yet, the direction and type of association is not clear-cut and seems to be dependent on a variety of factors (Balidemaj & Small, 2019). Meanwhile efforts toward a process model of immigrants’ adjustment have been made, such as Farh et al.’s (2010) model on how expatriates—that is, labor immigrants who relocate abroad to a different culture—form support ties to facilitate adjustment. Their model is composed of the following five stages:

  1. (a)

    Experiencing uncertainty: Experiencing informational and social uncertainty and/or a dispositional orientation toward learning and social interaction influence expatriates’ motivation to seek support.

  2. (b)

    Help-seeking: The perception of possible sources of support as relevant, available, and adequate, leads immigrants to seek support from local potential support providers, preferably from those perceived as able and culturally similar.

  3. (c)

    Being helped: Valuable, adjustment-facilitating support is provided by an individual who seems to be both willing and able to help.

  4. (d)

    Help facilitates better adjustment: The support provided is translated into enhanced adjustment.

  5. (e)

    Establishment of mutual support: A decision is made to add the support provider to the immigrant’s support network and to contact the individual.

This model could possibly expand Berry’s model and make it more dynamic, as it addresses the nature of the preliminary exchange of acculturation attitudes between the newcomer and the host society. An additional step toward a more dynamic model can be found in studies that have indicated how acculturation may lead to different outcomes in terms of adjustment when examined in relation to different life domains or dimensions (Juang & Syed, 2019). For example, Birman et al. (2014) found that cultural maintenance in close relationships leads to greater psychological well-being, whereas in the context of school/work, it is beneficial to adopt the host culture, which is associated with greater psychological well-being. Finally, recent studies on immigrant youth in Europe (e.g., Erentaitė et al., 2018) advocate another notion that could contribute to a more dynamic model of immigrant acculturation, related to the immigrants’ cultural identity. Based on their study findings, Erentaitė et al. (2018) suggest that in addition to the four cultural identities suggested by Berry, a fifth type may emerge in a global society. This additional option is the “hybrid identity,” in which an individual can blend his/her identity to create a new and multiple identity that is only partially related to his/her original ethnicity and current place. The hybrid identity is reflective of the changing global world and hence allows the individual to claim desired images, positions, and self-understandings in a variety of contexts.

Another example of addressing a point raised by Lazarus, namely, the need to address the role of emotions in the acculturation process, is De Leersnyder et al.’s (2020) recent demonstration of the possible role that emotions play in the acculturation process. Specifically, De Leersnyder et al. examined a process that they referred to as emotional acculturation, in which immigrants change their patterns of emotional experiences in response to the new cultural circumstances they’re facing. In two studies—conducted among (a) Korean immigrants in the United States and (b) Turkish immigrants in Belgium—they explored the antecedents and consequences of changes in minorities’ fit with the new culture. The study findings showed that the immigrants’ interactions with the sociocultural context led to a change in the immigrants’ emotional patterns. Thus, generally speaking, it can be suggested that presumably immigrants’ exposure to a new culture(s) can lead to major changes in both the immigrants’ ethnic identity, as suggested by Berry (Berry, 1997; Berry et al. 2006), as well as in their—perceived and or experienced—internal emotional patterns. This conclusion supports Lazarus’s claim regarding the importance of incorporating references to the emotions that immigrants experience, as well as supporting Berry’s general conceptual distinction between the four types of “solutions” that immigrants reach—that is, sticking to either the previous or current culture, trying to integrate the cultures together, or ignoring them both—to bridge the gaps that immigrants experience in various domains of their entity (e.g., ethnic identity, emotional patterns, and possibly more).

Finally, Lazarus’s comment regarding the need for a more complex presentation of the acculturation process is prominent and has also been made by other researchers. In Yoon et al.’s (2011) words, based on a review of the existing scientific literature, “Although acculturation/enculturation is an evolving process through interactions between individuals and multiple layers of surrounding systems rather than a static status or an inherent trait, few studies have captured the dynamic, interactive, and developing nature of acculturation/enculturation. Instead, most studies measured acculturation/enculturation levels at a given point and examined their relationship with other variables discounting contextual factors” (p. 91). Nevertheless, greater attention has been paid to this need, and it is partially addressed in recent models, such as Suarez-Orozco et al.’s (2018) Integrative Risk and Resilience Model (IRRM).

The Integrative Risk and Resilience Model is a comprehensive model explaining the adaptation of children and youth from immigrants’ families to the host country. According to the model, adaptation is determined by factors at different levels in the ecosystem, including global forces (e.g., the global conditions leading to immigration, nationalism, xenophobia), political and social contexts of reception in the host country (e.g., immigration policies, programs for immigrants, attitudes toward immigrants), microsystems (e.g., economic opportunities, segregation, crime, school characteristics and resources, family cohesion, familial intergenerational conflicts), and factors at the individual level (e.g., biological, cognitive, social, and emotional resources, temperament, personality, experiencing stressful events related to immigration). As such, positive adaptation is determined by a wide range of factors operating at different levels and interacting with one another in a complex process. Furthermore, the model refers to adaptation as a complex term, referring not only to success in acculturative tasks (e.g., acquiring skills needed to function well in the host society, developing a sense of belonging to the host society) but also to psychological adjustment (e.g., well-being, self-esteem) and developmental adjustment, referring to an individual’s capacity to meet developmental goals (e.g., for youth: self-regulation, identity development, academic competence, development of social relationships within the family and with peers).

An example of the application of the IRR Model is based on a cultural neurobiological approach, which stresses the processes through which cultural factors may be associated with adjustment through the moderation of stress biology (i.e., an individual’s physiological reactivity to stress; Haft et al., 2020). According to this approach, stress biology (at the individual level of the IRR Model) can influence adjustment independently or interact with cultural factors in the microsystem (e.g., cultural family values) and the individual level (e.g., cultural identity) to influence adjustment. Stress biology can constitute a vulnerability to stressful events and experiences and can explain why different people respond differently to the experiences embedded in immigration. Indeed, Haft et al. (2020) proposed a model derived from the IRR Model, in which the global cultural context and the political and social cultural context influence the microsystem’s cultural context and the individual cultural context, which are, in turn, associated with the stressors that an individual is exposed to and the resources available to them. The balance of stressors and resources influence or are moderated by stress biology, which is associated with an individual’s coping mechanisms, leading to various psychological, social, academic, and occupational outcomes.

Additional Factors Associated with Adjustment Among Immigrants

Aside from Berry’s model of acculturation, other studies have explored various additional aspects of immigrants’ adjustment. Yet, notably, the accumulating knowledge on this topic is still partial, and many questions remain unresolved. For example, a recent literature review (Dahlan et al., 2019) indicated that proficiency in the host language, longer length of residency in the host country, and younger age at the time of immigration are associated with better oral health, whereas limited language proficiency was associated with lower utilization of dental health services. This is in line with previous studies indicating that host language proficiency is particularly important, influencing, among other things, the immigrant’s salary (Chiswick & Miller, 2002).

In contrast, a study (Zlotnick et al., 2020) among Anglo-Saxon immigrants in Israel indicated that the only acculturation variable that was associated with immigrant’s life satisfaction was the retrospective perception that prior to immigrating the immigrant had realistic expectations about what life after immigration would be like (socially, economically, in terms of employment and one’s ability to adjust). Acquisition of the host language and self-identification with the host country, however, were not significantly associated with life satisfaction. These findings may indicate that preparation prior to immigration, and in particular gathering authentic information on life in the host country for immigrants, can help immigrants adjust following the transition, possibly reducing the experience of culture shock. Furthermore, these findings emphasize the importance of person-environment fit and its impact on immigrants’ adjustment.

The importance of person-environment fit was also emphasized in a study that examined the acculturation experiences and psychological well-being of Latinx immigrants in the United States (Buckingham & Suarez-Pedraza, 2018). Findings indicated that the more closely aligned their ideal forms of cultural change and maintenance were with the real forms of cultural change and maintenance that they experienced, the higher their well-being. Furthermore, acculturative stress partially mediated the association between cultural change discrepancy and well-being.

However, although several answers and clarifications regarding the components and dynamic of immigrants’ processes of relocation emerge from these studies, a comprehensive understanding of this topic seems to still be out of reach. The current debate on “the immigrant paradox” is a good example of how much is still unclear. The term “immigrant paradox” (Caplan, 2007; Cote & Yuen, 2013; Crosnoe & Fuligni, 2012; Speciale & Regidor, 2011) refers to the phenomenon according to which the first generation of immigrants (i.e., those who were born abroad and arrived in the host countries as children and adolescents) have less health problems than the second generation (i.e., those who were born in the host country). This paradox has been demonstrated through data on school achievements (May & Witherspoon, 2019), sexual behavior (Schwartz et al., 2011), aggression (Wright & Benson, 2010), alcohol consumption (Greene & Maggs, 2018), substance use (Bacio et al., 2013), depression, nerve problems, obesity (Oh et al., 2021), suicidal behavior (Kene et al., 2017; Vazsonyi et al., 2017), and mental health problems (Katsiaficas et al., 2013); with regard to all of these topics, children and adolescents who were born to immigrant adults after their arrival in the new country exhibited higher rates of problem behaviors in comparison to their familial relatives (e.g., siblings), who were born before arrival in the host country. However, researchers are still debating whether the paradox is a universal phenomenon, occurring across types of immigrants and host countries, or whether it is unique to certain groups of immigrants. While preliminary explorations have suggested that the paradox only exists among Latinx youth (e.g., Reynaga-Abiko, 2012), other studies have also demonstrated its existence among non-Latinx immigrants (e.g., Alamilla et al., 2019) and immigrants in countries other than the United States, such as among immigrants in the Netherlands (Van Geel & Vedder, 2010), Canada (Urquia et al., 2012), and Spain (Speciale & Regidor, 2011). An additional complexity in the debate on the prominence of the immigrant paradox has recently emerged from Dimitrova et al.’s (2016) study of immigrant children and youth in Europe. In their meta-analysis of 51 studies conducted among 224,197 immigrant school students, the researchers change the focus of comparison from a comparison of first-generation and second-generation immigrants to a comparison between immigrant students and their native peers. Based on this comparison, the researchers identified greater support for the existence of migration morbidity—that is, immigrant students had lower levels of adjustment compared to native students—rather than the existence of the immigrant paradox, that is, immigrant students displaying more favorable outcomes in comparison to native-born students. However, they differentiate between students of different ages, different problem behaviors, and different countries’ locations and socioeconomic status (SES) and suggest that migration morbidity explains internalizing outcomes among preadolescents, especially those living in Western Europe, externalizing outcomes among adolescents, especially in Northern Europe, and academic outcomes among boys of low SES.

As to the sources of the immigrant paradox, preliminary explanations of the paradox’s existence attribute it to the gap in social support that each generation experiences (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009; van Geel & Vedder, 2010; Wright & Benson, 2010). Namely, a sense of cohesion and social support is higher among the new (youth) immigrants and lower among the next generation in comparison—leading to an increase in problem behaviors (i.e., as a result of having less social support). Another, and related, explanation links the emergence of the paradox to a possible reduction in either or both self- and cultural-identity clarity (Conger et al., 2016; Fuligni & Tsai, 2015; Israelashvili & Mengstu, 2020). Be it this explanation or another, the lack of clarity regarding the possible existence of the immigrant paradox is still extensive and calls for further comprehensive and longitudinal studies on the topic (see Dimitrova et al., 2016; Rolland et al., 2017; Tilley et al., 2021).

The debate regarding the immigrant paradox—that is, the state of mental health and problem behaviors among second-generation immigrants (SGI)—is not the only or major unresolved issue in relation to this population; rather, there are other reservations regarding the existing literature on SGIs’ development and well-being. Repeatedly, models relating to SGIs’ (most of them referring to immigrants in the United States) development fail to gain empirical support. For example, in a study of SGIs in metropolitan New York, Waters et al. (2010) compared the predictive power of two major theories in the field: (1) The Straight-Line Assimilation Model (Park & Burgess, 1925; Warner & Srole, 1945), according to which assimilation processes enable each succeeding generation to be more integrated in American mainstream society, to show less ethnic distinctiveness in language use, residential concentration, and intermarriage patterns, and to show upward social mobility in education and occupation, and (2) The Segmented Assimilation Model (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001), according to which SGIs can advance in one of the following three directions, depending on the child-parent-community relations. Namely, the SGIs’ progress can lead to either (a) upward assimilation, in which the child and the parents adopt the host community’s language and values; (b) downward assimilation, in which the child adopts the host community’s values, whereas their parents maintain the values and behaviors from the country of origin. In this case, the development might be downward if the children encounter ethnic discrimination without having active psychological support from their family; or (c) upward mobility combined with persistent biculturalism, in which the child and the parents slowly and partially accept the values and norms of the host community while not giving up, immediately and definitely, those of the country of origin. This model suggests that the level and types of assimilation depend on parental human capital (e.g., parents’ education), the community’s attitudes toward assimilation (e.g., eligibility for welfare), family structure (e.g., single vs. married), and the level of communication with other immigrant groups. Waters et al.’s (2010) findings did not yield support for either of the two models and indicated that neither the type of acculturation nor the level of ethnic embeddedness can account for the variation in mobility patterns both across and within SGI groups [see also McCann et al.’s (2021) findings on immigrant youth crime].

In sum, the vast number of studies on immigrants, migrants, and other types of relocation to a new country provide important knowledge on variables that shape immigrants’ adjustment. Several significant variables have gained recognition as having a significant role as major determinants of the success of the relocation process (e.g., language, social support, host country values, etc.). In addition, the crucial impact of the immigrant’s struggle to integrate the old and new cultures and their personal identities is widely acknowledged. Thus, Berry’s (e.g., 2001, 2019) typology of the four types of cultural identity has become a cornerstone in understanding the immigrant’s level of success in achieving positive adjustment to the new country. Nevertheless, major questions still remain unresolved. In particular, referring to Berry’s typology of the four states of personal cultural identity (as discussed above), it is still unclear what process, for example, might lead four members of the same family to have different types of cultural self-identity—with one immigrant in a state of assimilation, another in a state of integration, the third in a state of separation, and the fourth immigrant feeling marginalized. Specifically, which domain(s) have they perceived or experienced differently? Or perhaps they have experienced different acculturation processes?

Moreover, the accumulated data on immigrants’ acculturation suggest that the emergence of cultural (acculturation) identity is a result of a relatively dynamic process. This notion refers to several findings, including findings regarding slightly different patterns of acculturation orientation categories than those suggested in Berry’s model (e.g., Jubran et al., 2020; Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008; Ward, 2008), the evidence indicating the diverse paths in which cultural identity formation may develop in various cultures (e.g., Joseph et al. 2020; Lene Arnett, 2003), and the call for more substantial information about the aspects of the asylum-seeking process that increase the risk for mental health problems (e.g., Oppedal et al., 2020)—all of these notions call for an additional effort to expand and supply more detailed models of the internal and external processes that immigrants undergo upon the transition from their homeland to a new country.

Thus, while paying homage to the past intensive efforts and findings and to the already existing models on immigrants’ adjustment, it seems worth trying to pursue a more elaborate model that will describe the process of immigrants’ adjustment by also exploring the utility of the TSA model’s conceptualization (see Chap. 6). At first glance, it seems that several aspects of the TSA model are in line with current knowledge on immigrants’ adjustment, such as the equal importance that is attributed to the relocated person and to the host environment, acknowledgment of the important role that the immigrant’s preliminary expectations have, the importance attributed to feelings of commitment to either past or present societies and cultures, etc. Hence, it is logical to suggest that several additional aspects of the TSA model may further contribute to a better understanding of the process of immigrants’ adjustment. For example, it seems worthwhile to conduct an exploration of the possible contribution of the TSA model to promoting immigrants’ adjustment and acculturation. Below is a description of such a TSA-based preventive intervention.

The Case for Supporting Immigrant Students’ School Maladjustment

Ideally, the prevention of immigrants’ maladjustment should start as soon as an individual begins to explore the possibility of (im)migration. In practice, some people do start the transition process with collecting information about the location they are planning to migrate to and only then make the final decision about whether to initiate the (im)migration process. This preliminary information, when accurate, can enable appropriate decision-making, for example, to immigrate or not? How to immigrate? What actions could be made in order to better adjust? (e.g., Tabor et al., 2015). Thus, in this case, the collection of preliminary information could be considered a preventive act, as the later decision to immigrate would be more likely to be based on accurate knowledge. Obviously, when the information collected is partial, biased, or poorly processed, it might lead to the wrong decision. In order to prevent such a problem, support in making the appropriate decision, as applied to the specific individual, is needed. Actually, this is similar to the case of other decision-making processes regarding transitions, such as the case of counseling a person in the process of making a vocational or career decision.

However, for many immigrants, the decision to depart isn’t well-planned in advance, nor is it based on a solid process of decision-making. Rather, the decision to depart frequently emerges in the context of a chain of events that at a certain point, which is not always well defined, leads the person to feel that it is time to relocate (Hillmann et al., 2018). Thus, when a person has a great desire to immigrate—or even when the need to immigrate is imposed on a person due to immediate danger to his/her survival (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2020)—the decision tends to be spontaneous, and preliminary preparation for immigration is not applicable.

Another opportunity for implementing preliminary preventive interventions among immigrants is during the course of the transition to the new country, such as those that were conducted in Mória Refugee Camp. Mória Reception and Identification Centre was located on the island of Lesbos, Greece. Following the implementation of the EU-Turkey deal (on March 2016), Mória Refugee camp was built to accommodate people until their asylum application to EU countries was adjudicated. Originally, the plan was to host up to 3000 refugees and asylum-seekers at the camp; however, gradually, it expanded and, in the summer of 2020, was accommodating almost 20,000 people coming from 70 countries, the majority of whom were from Afghanistan (70%). Due to its overcrowded population, the services were extremely poor, leading some organizations to describe it as “the worst refugee camp on earth” (Spathopoulou et al., 2020). In late 2020, a fire broke out, leading to the camp’s destruction, leaving thousands of refugees homeless on the street. With proper incorporation of the organizations and volunteers that offered their help (see Kitching et al., 2016), the time during which the refugees were staying at the camp could have been used for preventive interventions that would promote their ability to adjust to their next destination. Such interventions could have helped them acquire preliminary language skills, provided occupational counseling, and/or supported their rehabilitation needs (e.g., Graham, 2020). However, in practice, the refugees reported a lack of health support, exposure to insecurity and violence, sexual harassment, and other negative experiences, leading to depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms (Hermans et al., 2017). Moreover, later studies showed that not only did the refugees not receive any significant intervention to support their future adjustment in the EU community, but, rather, the adverse conditions in Moria camp led to a deterioration in the mental health of its inhabitants and significantly increased the odds ratio of a later mental health crisis as a result of residence in the camp (van de Wiel et al., 2021). Thus, the case of Camp Moria is an example of a missed opportunity to intervene and conduct preventive activities that could possibly have enhanced some of the immigrants’ future adjustment.

However, in any case, it seems both more feasible and no less important to also conduct preventive interventions upon the immigrants’ arrival at their port of destination, that is, in their new country of permanent residence. Over the years, numerous reports have been published discussing efforts that have been made, and those that should be made, by governments and NGOs, to support immigrants’, refugees’, and asylum-seekers’ relocation (e.g., Di Maggio et al., 2022; Reinke et al., 2022). Among the various suggestions and recommendations that have been raised, of special importance are those related to the educational system(s), that is, discussions on why and how to improve immigrant children’s school adjustment, both for the sake of the children, as well as for the sake of their families.

Schools have a major role in supporting immigrant families’ adjustment to their new location. This is due to the schools’ impact on the immigrant students’ school adjustment, which in turn shapes the whole immigrant family’s adjustment. Namely, when a school supports its new immigrant students’ school adjustment, consequentially these students’ families will also be benefitted from their children’s stronger connectedness to their school and school achievements, as well as from their children’s expanding social relationships with local friends (e.g. Bennouna et al., 2019; Schachner et al., 2017). This is why, recently, policymakers and NGOs have begun to devote special efforts to promoting immigrant students’ school adjustment, academically, as well as socially and emotionally (Bennouna et al., 2019).

The close relationship between children’s school adjustment and their acculturation to the new country has been demonstrated by Schachner and colleagues (2018a, b) in their studies of immigrant school students in Germany. Schachner et al. demonstrated the general connection between school adjustment and acculturation to the new society in a study that they performed on a dataset of participants in the 2012 PISA (European Programme for International Student Assessment). The study sample was composed of 5334 students with an immigrant background in six European countries. The study question explored the relationship between acculturation orientations, school belonging, and school adjustment. The study findings indicated differences between the six countries’ mainstream orientation toward inclusion; however, regardless of these differences in orientation, they found a general and significant link between the students’ acculturation orientation and sense of school belonging, which demonstrates that school adjustment determines long-term adjustment in society. In another study among 860 immigrant students from 71 countries (50% male; Mage = 11.59 years), Schanchner et al. (2018a) found that the immigrant students’ feelings of support and inclusion in school were positively associated with their school adjustment (e.g., as measured by school grades) and general attitude toward both the culture of origin and the host culture, that is, a positive state of integration, as suggested by Berry’s acculturation model (1997). In another study on the determinants of immigrant students’ school adjustment and its implications on their acculturation, Schachner et al. (2018b) found that individual differences in students’ sense of school belonging, and its’ consequences in terms of acculturation, emerge from the students’ unique experience of immigration and relocation, as shaped by the following determinants: (a) teachers, peers, and social interactions in the classroom (including teachers’ beliefs and expectations, perceived discrimination from teachers and peers, students’ relationships with teachers and peers, and culturally responsive teaching); (b) classroom and school characteristics (including ethnic composition and school or classroom culture and climate); and (c) educational and school policies (including diversity policies and streaming or school tracking). These findings support Schachner and colleagues’ (2018a) general argument that the promotion of immigrant students’ sense of school belonging could be a powerful way to support and advance both these students’ adjustment, as well as their families’ acculturation to the new host country.

A similar opinion was expressed by Bennouna et al. (2019), based on their review of the published literature programs aimed at improving the mental health and psychosocial wellbeing of immigrant adolescents. This extensive review analyzed the results of 20 school-based interventions to enhance immigrant children’s school and acculturation adjustment, including the following:

  1. 1.

    The International KidSuccess Program for refugee and immigrant adolescents (aged 14–19) in the United States.

  2. 2.

    Project “Supporting the Health of Immigrant Families and Adolescents” (SHIFA) for Somali youth in the United States.

  3. 3.

    A school-based mental health intervention for refugee children implemented among refugee school children (aged 5–18) in the United Kingdom.

  4. 4.

    The Haven UK Refugee Children and Adolescents Cultural Adjustment and Trauma Services (CATS) for first- and second-generation immigrant (K-8) children (aged 5–16) in the United States.

  5. 5.

    The Dynamo Programme for migrant, refugee and, asylum-seeking adolescents and young adults (aged 15–25) in Austria.

  6. 6.

    Terra D’Asilo for refugee children and adolescents (ages 6 and older) in Italy, particularly those from single-parent households or outside of family care.

  7. 7.

    Finestre-Storie di rifugiati for refugee adolescents (aged 13–19) in Italy.

  8. 8.

    Barn I vantan (BIV) & Barn I start (BIS) for refugee and asylum-seeking children and adolescents (aged 7–18) in Sweden.

  9. 9.

    Marine Drive Secondary School for refugee students in the United Kingdom.

  10. 10.

    The Song Room for adolescent refugees and asylum seekers (aged 10–18) in Australia.

  11. 11.

    The Home of Expressive Arts in Learning (HEAL) Program for refugees attending high school in Australia.

  12. 12.

    Caring Across Communities (CAC) for refugees and newly arrived immigrants in Chicago, USA.

  13. 13.

    Pluriel for refugees and recently arrived immigrants (aged 12–18) in Canada.

  14. 14.

    School-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Group in the United Kingdom.

  15. 15.

    The Plurilingual Drama Workshop Programme for refugees and immigrant adolescent students (aged 12–18) in Canada.

  16. 16.

    Caring Across Communities (CAC) in Minneapolis, USA.

  17. 17.

    Pharos Asylum Seekers and Refugees for asylum seekers and refugees in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

  18. 18.

    N/A UK Refugee children (aged 3–17).

  19. 19.

    FRIENDS for Non-English-speaking refugees and migrant youth (aged 12–17) in Australia.

Bennouna et al. (2019) indicate several common components that are included in these various program, as follows:

  • Orientation interviews with the newly arrived adolescents, sometimes together with cultural and linguistic mediators, during which the project’s opportunities, facilities, and personnel were presented to the immigrants. In addition, a preliminary assessment of the adolescents and individual tailoring of the interventions were performed.

  • Educational and career support, alongside individual counseling, for those in-need.

  • Promotion of the emergence of peer support.

  • Social and emotional instruction and group psychoeducation to build social and emotional skills and to communicate issues that are related to mental health and psychosocial wellbeing (e.g., group reflections on shared experiences, developing an awareness of the individuals’ own emotions, and building self-esteem).

  • English as a second language (ESL) classes, as an opportunity to address psychosocial stressors.

  • Creative expression and nonspecialized therapy.

  • Specialized therapy.

  • Family-focused program activities.

  • Educator-focused program activities.

Bennouna et al. (2019) highlight the promising utility of such programs for the promotion of immigrant adolescents’ school adjustment, as well as their entire family’s acculturation, but they also emphasize the challenges that such programs frequently encounter, including intercultural exchange, gaining access to communities, promoting care-seeking, school capacity limitations, and sustainability. They suggest that these and other challenges can be overcome by activities, such as adapting services to individuals and their contexts, taking a multilayered approach that addresses multiple levels of young people’s social ecologies, and building trusting, collaborative partnerships with schools, communities, and students.

In sum, enhancement of immigrant students’ school adjustment seems to be one of the more promising actions that governments and local authorities can take in order to support the cultural and social adjustment of the child and his/her family to the new host country. To exemplify how such a preventive intervention would look, below is a description of a TSA-based (see Chap. 6) program that has been developed to support immigrant students from the former Soviet Union who entered a junior-high school in Israel. Description of the program’s components is followed by details of the preliminary evaluation of the program’s contribution to the participants and its results.

A TSA-Based Intervention to Promote Immigrants’ School Adjustment

While the roots of Israeli society—Jewish and non-Jewish—can be traced back centuries ago, contemporary Israel society is a mosaic of people coming from literally all countries in the world (e.g., Halamish, 2018; Leshem et al., 1998). Among the waves of immigrants to Israel in the recent years, one of the largest and most influential groups to arrive were residents from the former Soviet Union during the early 1990s. Within a few years, about one million immigrants arrived in Israel, leading to an increase of about 20% in the Israeli population. Hence, due to their number, alongside their linguistic, cultural, and individual characteristics, they became “an unavoidable” group of citizens. That is to say, most Israelis couldn’t ignore these immigrants and frequently expressed their opinions about them; unsurprisingly, many Israelis had a negative opinion concerning immigrants from the former Soviet Union to Israel. Moreover, even those who didn’t have a clear opinion about these immigrants gradually became more opposing when they realized the financial and housing resources that the Israeli government was investing in supporting these immigrants’ positive inclusion. Based on a comparative study conducted in Israel and Spain, Stephan et al. (1998) found that Israelis’ negative attitudes toward immigrants from the former Soviet Union was a result of three general threats: realistic threats to the power, resources, and well-being of the in-group; anxiety concerning social interactions with out-group members; and feelings of threat arising from negative stereotypes associated with the out-group. Feelings of threat and exclusive tendencies were also evident among Israeli adolescents, leading to strain between them and the immigrant students (Tartakovsky & Mirsky, 2001), followed by repeated events of mutual disrespect and conflicts (Mirsky, 1997; Shamai & Ilatov, 2001 Rotenberg et al., 2000).

In order to support immigrant students’ school adjustment, several interventions have been implemented such as preparation of the educational staff (Eisikovits, 1995) and/or reduced academic expectations from the students and a general encouragement to hold an integrative, rather than separated, cultural self-identity, as discussed above (Bendes-Yaacob & Friedman, 1996). These interventions are in line with the abovementioned recommendations to foster immigrant students’ school adjustment and cultural integration (Bennouna et al., 2019). However, most of the interventions among immigrant students were directed either at immigrant students with special needs or at those who had already exhibited problem behaviors (e.g., association with gangs; Tartakovsky & Mirsky, 2001). Such disregard for “regular” immigrant students is unjustifiable, as all of them—and their families, as discussed above—are in-need of such support.

To address these normative immigrant school students, another path to support immigrant adolescents’ school adjustment was suggested and explored based on the TSA model in a study by Waxman and Israelashvili (2002). This program and the results of an evaluation study are presented in Chap. 7 of this book.