"Canadian, eh?" An examination of the multidimensional structure and functions of the national identity of immigrants and of those raised in Canada.

Grant, Peter R.

Abstract

Three studies examined the national identity of Canadian immigrants. In Study 1, immigrant leaders were interviewed about their Canadian identity. Content analysis revealed themes that were used to create items for the Immigrants' Canadian Identity Scale (ICIS). Then a large sample of immigrants (Study 2a) and Canadians raised in Canada (Study 2b) completed the ICIS and a variety of other variables. Factor analyses revealed a shared social representation of what it means to be Canadian with five dimensions. Two dimensions, belonging and self-categorization, were generic. The other three dimensions were unique to Canadian identity and show that being Canadian is to live in a multicultural society that supports cultural and civic freedoms. Regression analyses demonstrate that different dimensions served different functions. The value of taking an inductive approach to the study of particular group identities so as to reveal their unique qualities is discussed.

Resume

Trois etudes ont examine l'identite des immigrants canadiens. Dans la premiere etude, les dirigeants immigrants ont ete interroges sur leur identite canadienne. L'analyse du contenu a revele des themes qui ont ete utilises pour creer des points pour l'Echelle Identitaire des Immigrants canadiens (ICIS-EMC). Puis, un grand echantillon d'immigrants (etude 2a) ainsi que les canadiens eleves au Canada (etude 2b) ont complete le ICIS--EIIC et une variete d'autres variables. L'analyse factorielle a revele une representation de ce que signifie etre canadien avec cinq dimensions. Deux dimensions, celles d'appartenance et d'auto-categorisation etaient generiques. Les trois autres dimensions etaient uniques a l'identite canadienne et montrent qu'etre Canadien est de vivre dans une societe multiculturelle qui soutient les libertes civiques et culturelles. L'analyse de regression demontre que differentes dimensions servent differentes fonctions. L'importance d'adopter une approche inductive a l'etude des identites de groupe particuliers est une maniere de reveler que leur qualite unique est examinee.

INTRODUCTION

The 21st century can be characterized as the century in which, more than ever before, people migrate to a new country in search of a new life and better work (Deaux 2006; Li 2003; Simmons 2010). In so doing, traditionally monocultural nations, particularly nations in the developed world which have an aging population and a declining birth rate, are being transformed into multicultural societies through the influx of a large number of workers and their families from developing nations.

Although some of these workers are sojourners who do not intend to stay (Sussman 2000), many more settle permanently and become citizens of their adopted country. These migrants must adjust by learning culturally specific behaviours that allow them to successfully adapt to daily life in an often very different society, behavioural acculturation, as they cope with the stress of adapting to an often drastic change in their social milieu, psychological acculturation (Berry 1997; Ward 1996; Ward, Bochner and Furnam 2001). Recently, a number of psychologists have argued that the study of psychological acculturation should be broadened to include the process through which recent migrants come to identify with their new country rather than just the study of coping with relocating to that country (Amiot and de la Sablonniere 2010; Brown and Zagefka 2011; Grant 2007; Nguyen and Benet-Martinez 2010; Phinney 2003). If taken seriously, this approach to acculturation is compatible with recent calls by prominent social identity researchers to study the specific structure and functions of an important group identity when individuals experience a dramatic change in their social environment (Ashmore, Deaux and McLaughlin-Volpe 2004; Chryssochoou 2000; David and Bar-Tal 2009; Deaux 1996, 2006; Deaux and Ethier 1998). This neglected topic presents researchers with both a methodological challenge and a research opportunity. On the one hand, researchers, particularly researchers in the social identity tradition, have measured identity "strength" generically as a "linking" variable that can explain why an individual acts as a representative of a group (e.g., Cameron 2004; Ellemers, Kortekaas and Ouwerkerk 1999; Leach, van Zomeren, Zebel, Vliek, Pennekamp, Doosje, Ouwerkerk and Spears 2008). The methodological challenge, then, is to develop a measure of a specific group identity. On the other hand, the development of such a measure provides a unique opportunity to study the structure and functions of a person's group identity as revealed by his/her adaptation to change. In this paper, then, I describe three studies designed to meet this methodological challenge and take this opportunity. Specifically, I describe the development of a multidimensional Canadian identity measure specifically designed for immigrants. Then, using this measure, I compare the Canadian identity of a sample of recent immigrants with the Canadian identity of a sample of Canadians who were raised in Canada. This research strategy was used to document the multidimensional structure of this particular national identity for these two very different groups of Canadians. In additional, regression analyses was used to examine whether these identity dimensions differentially predict variables relevant to the acculturation experiences of recent immigrants to Canada. If this occurs, then it suggests that the emergent identity dimensions serve different functions.

Developing group identity measures guided by social identity theory

Arguably, social identity theory (SIT) and self-categorization theory (SCT) are the dominant theories used by social psychologists to study intergroup relations currently (Hogg and Abrams 1988; Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wertherell 1987). In this theoretical tradition, strength of group identification is predominantly used as a key explanatory variable linking the individual with the group level of analysis. Therefore, empirical work designed to test these theories requires the development of identity scales which have three methodological characteristics. First, the scales must measure identity "strength" because, initially at least, the most important predictions derived from these theories concerned the relationship between the degree to which a person identifies with a group and his or her behaviour as a representative of that group: e.g., the relationship between identification and ingroup bias (Lalonde 2002; Mullen, Brown and Smith 1992). Second, the scales are most useful when they are generic and can measure identification with a wide variety of groups, and third, the scales need to be short so that they are suitable for both experimental and survey work. Early psychometric work by Brown and his colleagues (Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade and Williams 1986) exemplifies the successful development of a scale with these characteristics, and variations of this scale have been and continue to be used extensively by researchers in this theoretical tradition (Brown 2000; Jackson and Smith 1999; Leach et al. 2008).

Given that much of the early work on group identity by researchers in the social identity tradition was concerned with testing the relationship between group identity and other variables, most notably ingroup bias, prejudice, and discrimination, the working assumption has been that identity scales should be unidimensional measures (Brown 2000; Hinkle and Brown 1990). Many social identity researchers believe, however, that identity is a multidimensional construct and have used SIT and SCT to postulate the nature of these dimensions. (1) Indeed, soon after Brown's identity scale was published, both his research group and a research group in the United States factor analyzed the items from this scale and showed that it had three correlated dimensions (Brown et al 1986; Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone and Crook 1989). Nevertheless, these authors argued that the scale could be treated as unidimensional because the intercorrelations among the factors were substantial.

Since then a number of studies have used the definition of group identity taken from social identity theory--namely, "that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his (sic) knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership" (Tajfel 1978, 63)--to derive dimensions of identity and then develop scale items designed to measure these dimensions (e.g., Cameron 2004; Ellemers, Kortekaas and Ouwerkerk 1999; Leach et al. 2008). For example, Leach and his colleagues (2008) provided evidence in support of a complex and hierarchical five component/two dimensional model of identity derived from a detailed consideration of both SIT and SCT. The self-definition aspect of group identity includes a self-stereotyping and an ingroup homogeneity component, while the self-investment aspect of identity includes a belonging (called solidarity), an evaluative (called satisfaction), and a centrality component.

Measuring a specific group identity

When using social identity theory and self-categorization theory to develop a measure of group identity, a deductive approach is used in which items are written to capture the various, theoretically derived dimensions of identification with any group. This approach does not allow the development of a multidimensional identity scale which includes items that index the content and structure of a particular group's identity: e.g., items that measure the ideology or prototypical characteristics of a group as specific identity dimensions (Ashmore et al. 2004; David and Bar-Tal 2009). In my view, this is an important limitation because the authors of self-categorization theory (Turner et al. 1987) postulate that a particular group identity will be salient in specific social contexts (fit) and in response to specific motivational forces and goals (accessibility), presumably because of its distinct nature which makes it uniquely relevant.

The research presented in this paper investigated the specific Canadian national identity of immigrants to Canada using an inductive approach. The idea was that this investigation would allow an examination of the content and multidimensional structure of this identity and the functions that these dimensions serve in the context of the immigrants' acculturation into Canadian society and, in particular, in relation to their strong cultural identity. Individuals who immigrate as adults are permanently relocating to a new and very different cultural environment and often, in the process, become bicultural as they develop a new national identity while maintaining a strong cultural identity (Amiot and de la Sablonniere 2010; Birman and Trickett 2001; Brown and Zagefka 2011; Deaux 2006; Grant 2007; Nguyen and Benet-Martinez 2010; Phinney 2003; Verkuyten and Martinovic 2012). This is especially true of immigrants to Canada, who largely come from Asia, because the great majority (85%) become Canadian citizens and take up permanent residency in Canada (Chui, Tran and Maheux 2006). That is, their desire is for full social inclusion into Canada's multicultural society where they can maintain their cultural heritage in this democratic, multicultural country. This context is particularly appropriate for studying Canadian identity because, when individuals are undergoing a radical life change, the way they adapt reveals the functions of the different dimensions of their group identity more completely (David and Bar-Tal 2009; Deaux 1996; Stephan and Stephan 2000).

STUDY 1

The first study was a qualitative exploration of the content and structure of the Canadian identity of adult immigrants to Canada. The idea was to develop themes that characterized the different aspects of their Canadian identity and then to use these themes to create a specific multidimensional Canadian identity scale for immigrants in subsequent studies.

Method

Participants and sampling strategy

Staff and board members of three local immigrant-serving organizations identified immigrants who had become leaders in their local cultural communities. The sampling strategy was to interview leaders from a range of different cultural groups so as to gain an appreciation of the situation of immigrants from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. In addition, interviewees were asked to name other immigrants who were known to be cultural group leaders (snowballing). In all, 27 of the 33 people named through this process were contacted and 25 (92.6%) of these agreed to be interviewed.

Procedure

The interviews were conducted by two research assistants (one male and one female) who were graduate students in the Applied Social Psychology graduate program at the University of Saskatchewan. As part of their program of studies these students had training and experience in how to conduct a qualitative interview. They received an additional six hours of training specific to the interviews for this study.

Potential participants were contacted by a research assistant with a request for an interview which usually took place in their home. Upon arrival, the participant signed a consent form in which, after receiving assurances of confidentiality, they agreed that the interview could be tape recorded. Five (20%) of the interviewees did not want the interview to be recorded. Instead, the interviewer took detailed written notes. The interviews averaged a little over an hour in length (range 45 to 90 minutes).

Measures

The interview schedule contained 29 open-ended questions organized into three major sections. The first and largest section explored the meaning of the interviewee's Canadian and cultural identities and the positive and negative feelings and emotions associated with each. In this paper, all the interrelated themes that emerged in response to the questions about Canadian identity are presented and discussed. (2)

Content analysis

The research assistants transcribed the tape-recording of the interviews they had conducted using a word processor (Microsoft Word). These transcriptions were then collated into one large text file and the information in this file was rearranged to create a master file of responses to each question. This master file was returned to the research assistants who independently sorted the responses to each question into themes, referring back to the original tape recordings where necessary. Statements from at least three interviewees had to be categorized together before they could be identified as a theme. Other statements were placed in a miscellaneous category.

After this task had been completed, a third research assistant read through the two sets of themes created by the interviewers and developed a master file that listed her integration of these themes, including a few new themes, and the statements that fell into these themes. Finally, the research assistants and the author modified this master file and came to a consensus on the nature of each theme and the phrases/statements that should be included in them through in-depth discussions in several lengthy meetings. On rare occasions, a disagreement could not be resolved and, in this situation, the judgment of the person who had conducted the interview prevailed.

Results

Sample characteristics

The interviewees had emigrated from a wide variety of countries in Asia: Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong, India, Laos, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, and Taiwan; the Middle East: Iraq and the United Arab Emirates; Africa: Eritrea, Kenya, and Sudan; Central America: El Salvador; and Europe: Bosnia, Germany, and the Netherlands. Consequently, all but one interviewee indicated that their first language was not English. Many interviewees (60%) were Christian, while the remainder were of another faith (20%) or were non-religious (20%). The interviewees ranged widely in age (24 to 57 years old) with an average age of 43 years. All but one had immigrated to Canada as an adult (Mean age on arrival = 30 years, range 18 to 47 years). Fifteen of the interviewees were women (60%). As community leaders, the interviewees were well connected in the community with 43.3% of their friends coming from the local immigrant community. Two-thirds of the interviewees had lived in Canada for 10 years or less (median = 8 years, range 1 to 43 years) and 68% were Canadian citizens. (3)

The meaning of being Canadian

All of the major themes capturing how the interviewees described themselves when thinking of themselves as Canadian are summarized in Table 1. This table gives examples of statements that fell into these themes followed by the interviewee's number in square brackets. A theme was characterized as "major" when it was identified in the responses of at least five interviewees (20% of the sample). Other, smaller themes identified in the statements made by at least three interviewees are also included in the results section so that, overall, the results represent a comprehensive summary of what it means to be Canadian for these immigrant leaders.

Becoming part of Canadian society. Consistent with the main purpose of the interviews, the first set of questions began with the open-ended question, "What does it mean to you to be a Canadian?" Two interrelated themes contained statements or phrases which indicate that, for these immigrant leaders, being Canadian implies becoming a part of the Canadian social fabric. In the first theme, the interviewees talked about how Canada is where I belong. I am part of Canadian society". The second, Citizenship theme, contained statements in which the interviewees express how they had become involved in Canadian society as Canadian citizens, obeying Canadian laws and regulations and following normative Canadian practices (Table 1, panel A).

In theme 3, the interviewees indicated that "Canadians are peaceful and friendly".

Finally, a small theme identified in the responses of four interviewees indicated that, for them being Canadian entitled them to certain Rights and privileges as Canadian citizens such as "you have rights to vote" [18].

The emotional significance and symbolic meaning of a Canadian national identity. The positive attributes associated with being a Canadian emerged as themes in response to the more emotionally charged question, "What things about Canada and the Canadian people make you feel proud to be Canadian?" (see Table 1, panel B). Themes 4 and 5 indicated that the interviewees were proud that Canada is a peaceful and secure country that Protects freedom and civil liberties. As well, the interviewees greatly valued the fact that Canada is culturally diverse (theme 6) so that the cultural background of immigrants who come from many different countries around the world was respected and that Canadians are willing to Help people at home and abroad (theme 7).

A feeling of belonging. A section of the interview was devoted to exploring the positive and negative factors that influenced how much immigrants felt "at home", or integrated into the Canadian way of life (Table 1, panel C). Within this section, interviewees were asked, " What is it about Canada and the Canadian way of life that makes you feel that you belong here?" Here the only major theme identified in the responses of these immigrant leaders was Connection to and acceptance by local people (theme 8).

In sum, the meaning of being Canadian to these immigrant leaders is associated with civic participation, a feeling of belonging, and sense they have a connection to and are accepted by Canadians from the majority group. As well, they feel pride in Canada's international reputation as a country that stresses peace-keeping and peacemaking, concern for individual freedom and civil rights, and respect for people with a diversity of cultural backgrounds. Indeed, for these immigrant leaders, pride in being Canadian is strongly linked to being a citizen of a tolerant multicultural society, "I like the idea that there's so many different cultures living side by side without feeling that we don't belong" [07], Finally, most of the major themes identified in the responses to one question were also identified in the responses to other questions (see Table 1, footnotes b through e). This suggests that these themes were important and, therefore, often emerged several times during the first section of the interview as the interviewees were asked various questions about their Canadian identity.

STUDIES 2A AND 2B

The results of Study 1 showed that this sample of immigrant leaders were able to express the various aspects of their Canadian identity clearly and the interrelated themes which were identified (Table 1) suggest that this identity is multidimensional.

With these themes in mind, two parallel studies were designed to build upon the findings of Study 1 and develop a new, multidimensional Canadian identity scale. (4) Because the results from Study 1 suggest that the goal of many Canadian immigrants is full inclusion into Canadian society, it was expected (hypothesis 1) that the structure of their national identity would be very similar to Canadians who had been raised in Canada. That is, it was expected that these immigrants would discern and internalize the consensually held social representation of what it means to be a Canadian. Hence a factor analysis of the scale's items should yield the same factor structure for a sample of people who had immigrated to Canada as adults (Study 2a) in comparison to a sample of Canadians who had lived most or all of their life in Canada (Study 2b). The functions of the dimensions of this identity for immigrants may not be the same as for those raised in Canada, however. Specifically, in comparison to Canadians raised in Canada, recent immigrants to Canada 1) develop a new Canadian identity as part of their self-concept while retaining a strong identification with their culture of origin, 2) have to adjust to living in a very different cultural milieu, and 3) often face racism and discrimination in their adopted country if they are not Caucasian. (5) It was expected, therefore, that the different dimensions of recent immigrants' Canadian identity would tend to relate to aspects of Canadian life that support or undermine their cultural beliefs and practices. For example, it was expected that some dimensions of their Canadian identity would relate positively to multiculturalism as Berry and his colleagues have demonstrated (Berry and Kalin 1995; Berry, Kalin and Taylor 1977; Cameron and Berry 2008; Kalin and Berry 1995).

Other dimensions might be related negatively to perceived discrimination and cultural identity threat. Whether these relationships would be found for Canadians raised in Canada was an open question, however. Indeed, it was impossible to make precise predictions because an inductive approach to the study of identity was used; namely, the research was designed so as to allow the specific multidimensional structure of recent immigrants' Canadian identity to emerge, and to explore how it is similar to and different from the multidimensional structure of the Canadian identity of Canadians raised in Canada. Using regression analysis, this exploration focused on whether the different identity dimensions that emerge serve similar or different functions for these two very different groups of Canadians.

Method

Participants in Study 2a

Four hundred and three immigrants (57.5% women) took part in this study. The average age of the respondents was 36.6 years (SD = 11.6 years, range 17 to 74 years). The median number of years the respondents had lived in Canada was seven (range 0 to 46 years) and 57% were Canadian citizens. Almost all the respondents (93.0%) were still able to speak their first language which was not English.

The majority of the respondents were from Asia (54.4%, n = 203) and Africa (34.9%, n = 130). The most common countries of origin were China (16.1%, n = 65), Nigeria (13.2%, n = 52), the Philippines (8.7%, n = 35), Vietnam (7.7%, n = 31), Pakistan (6.5%, n = 26), and Kenya (5.5%, n = 22). Most respondents were Christian (39.7%, n = 157), Muslim (27.8%, n = 110), or said they had no religion (20.0%, n = 79).

In this study, the respondents were asked to name their cultural group. Of the 331 respondents who provided this information, only 17.5% named an ethnic group (e.g., Yoruba), while 64.0% named a national group (e.g., Japanese), 10.0% named a pan-national group (e.g., African), and 8.5% named a religious group (e.g., Muslim).

Procedure for Study 2a

Four female research assistants, who were all immigrants from Asia or Africa, recruited a roughly equal number of respondents (n = 91 to 112). Usually, envelopes containing the questionnaire and a consent form were given to the respondents during a gathering or a meeting of a local cultural organization. The research assistants' job was to ensure that potential respondents understood the nature of the study before signing the consent form. Then, the respondents could take the questionnaire home to complete, or they could complete it with the research assistant present at a mutually convenient time.

The questionnaire was divided into two booklets so that respondents who found it difficult to complete could stop after the first booklet if they wished. Most respondents (90.1%) completed both booklets in 50 minutes (the median). Forty respondents were only able to complete the first booklet and so some of the analyses, because they include measures in the second booklet, were based upon a sample of 363 respondents.

Participants in Study 2b

Five hundred and twenty one respondents completed this internet survey. The analyses presented in this paper were based upon 465 of these respondents (89.3%) who were Canadian citizens and who had lived all or most of their lives in Canada. Three quarters of these respondents were women (75.5%). Of the 117 respondents who were not born in Canada, 109 (93.2%) were under 5 years of age when they arrived and the average length of time they had lived in Canada was 19.8 years (SD = 3.89 years, range 9 to 38 years). Indeed, 92 (78.6%) of these respondents came to Canada before their first birthday. (6)

Most of the respondents (91.8%) were 25 years of age or younger (M = 20.75, SD = 3.68 years, median = 19 years, range 17 to 41 years) and described themselves as Christian (63.4%), or as not religious (32.7%). The respondents all learned English as a child and all but 2 (0.4%) were educated in English. Indeed, 95.5% spoke English as their first language, 73% spoke English exclusively, and 21.6% spoke English and another language. A large majority of the respondents categorized themselves as "White" (87.4%), with 3.9% describing themselves as "first nations, Metis, or Inuit", and 8.7% describing themselves as "a member of a visible minority". (7)

Procedure for Study 2b

This internet study was posted on the website of a Western Canadian university and was advertised through an electronic bulletin board for current students during the winter term. In addition, students in a first year psychology course were allowed to complete the survey for credit during that term. The latter accessed the survey through a link posted on the Psychology Department's participant pool website. About half (47.5%) of the respondents were from the participant pool while the remainder were from the general university population. The "Canadian Identity and Immigration Study" was advertised as a parallel study to Study 2a and another study of skilled immigrants (Grant and Nadin 2007). Potential respondents were told that the survey asked some of the same questions as the ones asked in these earlier studies so as to "compare how Canadian students view these matters in comparison to recent immigrants". When a potential respondent opened the survey, they were told that the first eight sections were for everyone, followed by four more sections for Canadians who felt attached to their cultural heritage. Only 110 of the 465 students (23.7%) answered questions in the latter four sections. The others were unable to answer these questions because they did not feel any attachment to their cultural roots. The last, short section of the questionnaire was for those respondents who were born in another country.

Measures

The focus of this paper is on the results from the common measures used in both studies so that the two samples can be compared directly. Details on the items in these measures and the evidence for their reliability and validity are presented elsewhere (Grant 2007). Unless noted otherwise, respondents indicated their agreement or disagreement with each item using a 5-point Likert format which ranged from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree".

Immigrants' Canadian Identity Scale (ICIS). The themes that emerged from the qualitative interviews of immigrant leaders in Study 1 (Table 1) were used to write items which were used in Studies 2a and 2b to measure the nature of the respondents' Canadian identity. In both studies the respondents were told, "Being Canadian means different things to different people. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following sentences. This will show what you mean when you say, 'I am a Canadian"' This paper presents the results of analyses which resulted in the development of a 16 item version of the Immigrants' Canadian Identity Scale (ICIS).

The established scales. The questionnaires for both Study 2a and 2b consisted of a number of well-established scales developed primarily by the author and by other researchers in the social identity theory (SIT) tradition. This allowed an exploration of the function of the different dimensions of the ICIS scale both for the immigrant sample in Study 2a and for the largely Canadian-born sample in Study 2b.

Because these studies focussed on the development of a national identity scale specific to Canada, it was important to have an independent and valid measure of the respondents' strength of identification with Canada and with their cultural group. Six items adapted from the scale developed by Brown and his colleagues (1986) were used (see Grant 2007). Using a 7-point response format, the respondents used the scale twice: once to rate their strength of identification with Canada (Study 2a: [alpha] = .88; Study 2b: [alpha] = .84) and a second time to rate their strength of identification with their cultural group (Study 2a: [alpha] = .90; Study 2b: [alpha] = .86). This is a well validated identity scale which has been used extensively by researchers in the social identity tradition (see Jackson and Smith 1999). A sample item is, "To what extent do you feel ties with other Canadians (with your cultural group)?"

Ryder's Acculturation Scales (Ryder et al. 2000) were used as measures of behavioural acculturation. These scales measured the extent to which respondents are involved in mainstream Canadian activities (Study 2a: [alpha] = .81; Study 2b: [alpha] = .86) and in their cultural group's activities (Study 2a: [alpha] = .87; Study 2b: [alpha] = .87). A sample item is "I often participate in mainstream Canadian cultural traditions (my heritage cultural traditions)".

Respondents used a single item 11-point attitude "thermometer" from "0" labelled "very unfavourable" to "100" labelled "very favourable" to rate "Canadians-in-general" and "members of my cultural group-in-general". A measure of cultural group bias was created by subtracting the respondents' attitude toward Canadians from their attitude toward members of their cultural group and dividing by 10 (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson and Armstrong 2001).

Several other measures were included that were developed and validated as part of a research program on psychological acculturation (Grant 2007), the problems faced by skilled immigrants as they try to enter the Canadian labour force (Grant, Garay, Robertson and Nadin 2014; Grant and Nadin 2007), and the political actions taken by skilled immigrants to improve their access to the Canadian labour market (Grant 2008; Grant, Abrams, Robertson and Garay 2015). Specifically, respondents in both studies answered three other scales. The first was a six item version of a perceived discrimination against immigrants scale (Study 2a: [alpha] = .76; Study 2b: [alpha] = .74). A sample item is, "In Canada immigrants face discrimination when they seek employment". The second was a ten item Attitudes toward Multiculturalism in Canada Scale (Study 2a: [alpha] = .89; Study 2b: [alpha] = .86, see Grant and Robertson 2014). A sample item is, "multiculturalism encourages cultural diversity". The third was a six item measure of threat to cultural identity (Study 2a: [alpha] = .77; Study 2b: [alpha] = .83). A sample item is, "I feel that my culture's values and beliefs are under attack in mainstream Canadian society".

Results

The structure of Canadian identity

One major purpose of this program of research was to measure the specific structure of the Canadian identity of recent immigrants. Hence, the largest section of the interview schedule used in Study 1 was designed to explore the meaning of being Canadian with immigrants who had been identified as leaders of their local cultural group. The themes that emerged (Table 1) were, therefore, judged to be important shared elements of the Canadian identity of the interviewees. Using these themes and the context provided by the interview transcripts, 26 statements were created to capture the essence of these themes. The immigrant respondents in Study 2a then indicated the extent of their agreement or disagreement that these statements describe aspects of their Canadian identity (what they mean when they say "I am a Canadian") using a 5-point Likert scale. A factor analysis using an oblique (oblimin) rotation identified 20 items that loaded on five correlated factors which accounted for 54.5% of the total variance. The criteria for inclusion of an item on a factor was that it had a factor loading equal to or greater than .32 (sharing at least 10% of its variance with the factor) and that it loaded on one and only one factor.

In Study 2b, these 20 items, along with 8 newly written items (see the Appendix), were administered to the respondents in the internet survey. (8) A factor analysis using an oblique rotation again identified five correlated factors which accounted for 43.5% of the variance. Using the same inclusion criteria, the majority of the original items (16 of 20) loaded on the same factors as before indicating that both samples held very similar social representations of what it means to be a Canadian (Table 2). (9) These items formed a 16-item, multidimensional "Immigrants' Canadian Identity Scale" (ICIS) which was used to examine and compare the Canadian identity of recent immigrants (Study 2a) with the Canadian identity of students raised in Canada (Study 2b). The ICIS scale has good reliability (Study 2a: [alpha] = .89; Study 2b: [alpha] = .82) and the average score across all of the items indicates the overall strength of the respondents' Canadian identity.

Consider the structure of Canadian identity as represented by the five factors which measure the correlated dimensions of the ICIS (Table 2). The items loading on these factors were used to create subscales which measure the different dimensions of the respondents' Canadian identity. Subscale scores were calculated by averaging the scores on the appropriate items. Even though the subscales only have a few items, their reliability is generally good also, particularly for the immigrant sample where there was more response variability.

The first two dimensions are generic in the sense that they are similar to two of the dimensions measured by a number of different identity scales; namely, belonging and self-categorization (Jackson and Smith 1999; Leach et al. 2008; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy and Eidelson 2008). The Belonging subscale consists of three items (Study 2a: [alpha] = .83; Study 2b: [alpha] = .82) which suggest that, for the respondents in these two studies, being Canadian means having a general sense of belonging to and pride in Canada as their new home; a meaning that is also captured in many strength of identity scales. The Citizenship subscale is a three item self-categorization dimension which indicates that being a citizen, holding a passport, and being able to vote are the criteria that respondents in both samples use to categorize a person as a Canadian (Study 2a: [alpha] = .88; Study 2b: [alpha] = .46).

The remaining three subscales measure other, more specific, meanings that are part of the Canadian national identity, but not necessarily part of other national identities. The five item, Civic Freedom subscale indicates that being Canadian means that the respondents feel entitled to civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of travel, and protection under the law (Study 2a: [alpha] = .82; Study 2b: [alpha] = .74). The three item, Cultural Diversity subscale indicates that being Canadian means to the respondents that they are a part of a multicultural "country of immigrants" (Study 2a: [alpha] = .75; Study 2b: [alpha] = .55). Finally, the two item, Cultural Freedoms subscale indicates that being Canadian means that the respondents believe that they are encouraged to maintain and sustain a connection with their culture of origin (Study 2a: [alpha] = .79; Study 2b: [alpha] = .74).

Differences between the samples in Studies 2a and 2b

The results of the factor analyses demonstrate that the multidimensional structure of the Canadian identity of the respondents in these two samples is substantially the same. This allowed an exploration of the differences between the respondents from the two samples in the way they responded to the ICIS as well as to the other measures used in both studies. Because the two samples were different in age, t-tests were conducted with and without age as a covariate. This covariate, although significant, did not alter the results that were obtained and, therefore, we report the t-tests for the unadjusted means in Table 3.

As expected, the respondents who were raised in Canada had a significantly stronger Canadian identity, as measured by ICIS and by Brown's scale, than respondents who had immigrated to Canada as adults. Looking at the subscales scores, it can be seen that this difference was significant for four of the five subscales (see Table 3). The exception was the Cultural Diversity subscale where no significant difference was found. Immigrants agreed as strongly as Canadians raised in Canada that to be Canadian means that they live in a culturally diverse society. It is important to note, however, that almost all of the respondents in both studies agreed that the ICIS scale and its subscales were descriptive of themselves as Canadians ([ICIS.sub.total] = 98.8%, [ICIS.sub.belong] = 92.9%, [ICIS.sub.cit] = 93.1%, [ICIS.sub.civic freedom] = 97.0%, [ICIS.sub.cult diversity] = 98.0%, [ICIS.sub.cult freedom] = 94.0%). That is, the results show that there is a consensus regarding the social representation of what is means to be Canadian which is shared by these two very different samples of Canadians.

Paralleling the results just described, the respondents raised in Canada were involved significantly more in Canadian society (were more behaviourally acculturated) and had significantly more positive attitudes toward Canadians in general than the immigrant respondents. Respondents from both samples, however, had equally strong and positive attitudes toward multiculturalism.

The bottom half of Table 3 shows a different pattern of results. The immigrant respondents (Study 2a) felt significantly more strongly than the respondents raised in Canada (Study 2b) that immigrants are discriminated against in Canadian society. Further they felt that their cultural group's identity was significantly more threatened than those who were raised in Canada and who identified with their cultural heritage (N = 110). This is in spite of the fact that this subsample of respondents who were raised in Canada, were as strongly identified with their cultural group, participated as much in their cultural group's cultural activities, and held equally positive attitudes toward their cultural group as the sample of immigrant respondents.

Finally, as expected, the immigrant respondents in Study 2a showed significantly more bias in favour of their cultural group than the respondents in Study 2b who were raised in Canada and who identified with their heritage culture. Indeed, the latter did not show any cultural group bias presumably because their allegiance to Canada was of equal or more importance than their allegiance to their heritage cultural group.

The functions of the dimensions of Canadian identity

So far, the evidence suggests that ICIS is a multidimensional scale which measures Canadian identity along two generic dimensions--belonging and self-categorization--and three specific dimensions--civic freedom, cultural diversity, and cultural freedom--which make this particular national identity a unique part of a Canadian's collective self-concept regardless of whether s/he is an immigrant or someone raised in Canada. Nevertheless, it is possible that, in such a large and diverse country, the dimensions of this national identity can serve somewhat different functions for members of a cultural minority (in this case, individuals who immigrated to Canada as adults) in comparison to members of the cultural majority. To examine this question empirically, a multiple regression strategy was used in which both the two generic and the three specific dimensions of Canadian identity as measured by ICIS were entered into a series of regression equations as predictors of various social psychological variables. The rationale for this analysis strategy is that, if the identity dimensions predict these variables in the same (different) way, then the results suggest that they are serving the same (different) function within these two, very different samples of Canadians. This analysis strategy is one that has been used by other researchers who have developed generic, multidimensional identity scales (Cameron 2004; Leach et al. 2008).

Initially, a dummy variable denoting the type of respondents in each study (Study 2a, immigrants "1"; Study 2b, those raised in Canada, "0") was entered into the regression equation along with the centred scores on the five ICIS subscales (Aiken and West 1991). Then, the interactions of each identity dimension with the dummy variable were entered at the second step by multiplying the dummy variable by these centred scores. If the percentage of variance accounted for at the second step was significant and if at least one of the interaction terms was significant, then this would provide evidence that the dimensions of Canadian identity were being used in a qualitatively different way by the immigrant respondents (Study 2a) in comparison to the student respondents who were all raised in Canada (Study 2b). None of these interaction terms were significant, however. The results described below and summarized in Table 4 are, therefore, the results of regression analyses in which the dimensions of Canadian identity as measured by the ICIS subscale scores were used to predict the dependent variables. The dummy variable was also entered into these analyses if there was a significant difference between types of respondent on a particular dependent variable (Table 3).

Given the wealth of information demonstrating the validity of the generic identity scale developed by Brown and his colleagues (Brown et al 1986; Hinkle et al. 1989; Jackson and Smith 1999; Leach et al. 2008), it is important to demonstrate that, together, the dimensions of identity as measured by the ICIS predict a substantial percentage of its variance. The first line of Table 4 shows that this was the case (59.5%) with the most important predictor being the Belonging subscale ([beta] = .58). Further, separate factor analyses which include the items from both the ICIS scale and Brown's scale, show that the latter set of items all load on the belonging factor. (10)

The Citizenship subscale, which can be conceptualized as a self-categorization dimension, also was a small but significant predictor ([beta] = .13) of Canadian identity as measured by Brown's scale. Two of the three ICIS subscales which measure the specific nature of the Canadian national identity, Cultural Diversity and Cultural Freedom, were not significant predictors of Canadian identity as measured by Brown's scale, however, and did not correlate as strongly with it as the other subscales. The other subscale, Civic Freedom, was a small but significant predictor ([beta] = .13). Taken together this evidence suggests that ICIS measures Canadian identity in the same way as the well-established, generic identity measure developed by Brown and his colleagues (1986), but also measures other aspects of Canadian identity including three unique dimensions of Canadian national identity which have not been measured before.

The ICIS subscales also predict a substantial percentage of the variance in the Canadian acculturation measure (51.9%) and in the attitudes toward Canadians measure (25.3%). Clearly, some of this variance is accounted for by strong sample differences, but both the Belonging ([beta] = .37; [beta] = .28 respectively) and the Civic Freedom ([beta] = .11; [beta] = .12 respectively) subscales are also significant predictors of these variables (Table 4). Those who felt more at home in Canada (a sense of belonging) and who believed more strongly that being Canadian means that they have important civic freedoms tended to be those who were more integrated into mainstream Canadian society (more behaviourally acculturated) and those who held positive attitudes toward Canadians-in-general. It is worth noting that the Cultural Freedom subscale also correlates with acculturation (r = .36) and with attitudes toward Canadians (r = .26), but is not a significant predictor. This is presumably because the Cultural Freedom subscale shares variance with both the belonging and the civic freedom subscales and it is this shared variance that predicts these dependent variables.

A very different pattern of results was obtained when the dimensions of Canadian identity were used to predict attitudes toward multiculturalism, attitudes that were equally positive in both samples. Here the Cultural Freedom, the Cultural Diversity, and the Civic Freedom subscales were all significant predictors of these attitudes, accounting for 23.0% of the variance ([beta] = .25; [beta] = .21; [beta] = . 15 respectively, Table 4). These results suggest that it is these unique aspects of Canadian identity, aspects which are part of every Canadian's self-concept, that may be one reason why there is such strong support for multiculturalism within Canada.

Respondents were asked if they felt that immigrants in general are discriminated against in Canada. The ICIS subscales only predicted a modest amount of the variance in this measure ([R.sup.2] = 10.0%) and the Cultural Diversity subscale had to be removed from the regression equation as it was acting as a suppressor. Apart from the clear sample difference, the results from this regression analysis showed that the Cultural Freedom subscale was a significant negative predictor ([beta] = -.13, Table 4). Perceiving less discrimination against immigrants in Canada was predicted by the respondents' belief that being Canadian meant freedom to maintain and celebrate their cultural group's cultural practices.

The last two rows of Table 4 include variables that could only be answered by roughly a quarter of the respondents in Study 2b who were raised in Canada as most did not feel any identification with a cultural heritage. First consider cultural identity threat. The five dimensions of Canadian identity together with the dummy variable accounted for approximately a quarter (25.4%) of the variance in this dependent variable. Apart from sample differences, only belonging predicted cultural identity threat ([beta] = -.22): Those respondents who did not feel that they belonged in Canada tended to be those who felt that their cultural identity was under threat.

Finally, Table 4 shows that the dimensions of Canadian identity account for a small but significant percentage (6.8%) of the variance in cultural identity. The Cultural Freedom subscale of ICIS is the strongest predictor of cultural identity ([beta] = .19) with the Cultural Diversity subscale also accounting for a significant proportion of the variance (P = .11). Note that cultural identity correlated positively with Canadian identity overall (ICIS: r = .19***; Brown's scale: r = .23***) indicating that the two identities tend to be compatible with one another.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The dimensions of Canadian national identity

The results from these studies illustrate the value of studying a particular identity, the Canadian national identity, using an inductive approach. As the factor analysis results from studies 2a and 2b show, the themes identified through interviews with immigrant leaders in Study 1, fall along five correlated dimensions. Two of these dimensions are generic in the sense that they are commonly found in many multidimensional identity scales derived from social identity theory and self-categorization theory (e.g., Cameron 2004; Leach et al. 2008); whereas the other dimensions are unique to the Canadian identity and express a shared national ideology: for Canadians, being Canadian means a belief in cultural diversity, and cultural and civic freedoms. This structure of Canadian identity is consistent with the seminal work by Berry and his colleagues which shows that, outside of Quebec, Canadian identity is 1) a civic national identity which is 2) compatible with ethnic identity and which is 3) positively associated with multiculturalism and support for cultural diversity (Cameron and Berry 2008; Berry and Kalin 1995; Berry, Kalin and Taylor 1977; Kalin and Berry 1995). Short identity scales that measure attachment and commitment to Canada or patriotism were used in these studies. Going beyond this earlier work, the present research shows that the belief in cultural diversity and the belief in cultural freedoms are not just associated with, but are part of the national identity of Canadians living in Western Canada. That is, they are dimensions of ICIS, a new and more nuanced measure of Canadian identity.

As expected, the factor analyses revealed that one of the generic dimensions of Canadian identity is a belonging or emotional commitment dimension. This is the main component of the identity scale developed by Brown and his colleagues (1986) and is a core component of many other, more recently developed generic multidimensional identity scales (Jackson and Smith 1999; Leach et al. 2008; Roccas et al. 2008). The second is a self-categorization dimension that gives the criteria that defines someone who is truly Canadian (a member of the national ingroup) and this too is often a dimension of such scales.

Other generic dimensions of group identity did not emerge from these studies, however. Many multidimensional identity scales, for example, have an ingroup affect dimension which measures the (usually) positive feelings, pride and satisfaction associated with group membership (Leach et al. 2008; Roccas et al. 2008). In contrast, the factor analysis results from Studies 2a and 2b seem to make this an affective element of the various dimensions that measure the unique content and meaning of the respondents' Canadian identity. Specifically, the themes that emerged from Study 1 reveal that the respondents, as Canadians, feel pride in their country because it supports cultural diversity, and civic and cultural freedoms. This is consistent with and extends the work by Cameron and Berry (2008) who, in a secondary analysis of data from a national random sample of 2000 Canadians, found that one element of Canadian patriotism was pride in policies and institutions which include multiculturalism, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the belief that Canada lacks racial/ethnic strife.

The centrality or importance of Canadian identity to the respondents also did not emerge as a separate dimension. Again this dimension is often found in generic, multidimensional identity scales (e.g., Cameron 2004; Leach et al. 2008). It may be that this was because the immigrant leaders in Study 1 were not explicitly asked questions about the group's importance to themselves personally. Without these questions, the respondents may have assumed that the interviewer knew the importance of their new nationality to them and, therefore, may have not mentioned this fact because it was self-evident. Alternatively, the respondents may have expressed their national identity's importance through other dimensions. For example, by saying that being Canadian meant that they felt at home in Canada, or that they could vote in a free election, the respondents may have been stating, implicitly, the importance of their Canadian nationality. This is because feeling at home and being able to vote are very important to many people from around the world. Nevertheless, this may represent a limitation in the present research which should be addressed in future work.

The results from Study 2a show that recent immigrants have a strong Canadian identity and an even stronger cultural identity which are compatible in the sense that they are positively associated. These results are consistent with the acculturation literature which shows that immigrants in many countries from around the world prefer an integration strategy (Berry 1997; Brown and Zagefka 2011; Deaux 2006; Nguyen and Benet-Martinez 2010). It is hardly surprising, therefore, that, for them, being Canadian means that they live in a culturally diverse country which champions cultural freedoms. Of equal importance to many immigrants are the civic freedoms associated with living in a prosperous, peaceful, and democratic country and the other specific ideological dimension reflects the centrality of civic freedoms to their Canadian identity. Nevertheless, the respondents in Study 2a were from many countries from around the world and the specific content and structure of their cultural identities was not measured. In particular, cultural identity in this study was measured using a short, generic identity measure developed by Brown and his colleagues (1986). This means that the full extent of the compatibility between the respondents' Canadian and cultural identities is not known. Further research is needed to examine the cultural and national identity of a sample of immigrants from one culture so as to address this question more adequately.

In contrast to the respondents in Study 2a who were all immigrants, the respondents in Study 2b were raised in Canada, and almost three quarters of them did not feel any affiliation with their cultural heritage. Further, the mean differences between the respondents in the two studies (Table 3), show that those raised in Canada were more culturally embedded into mainstream Canadian culture and felt that immigrants were not as discriminated against or culturally threatened. It is, therefore, very interesting that hypothesis 1 is supported because what it means to be Canadian for the respondents in Study 2b is very similar to the immigrant respondents in Study 2a. The concordance between the factor structure for these two, very diverse samples (Table 2) not only suggests that a sense of belonging and agreement on the definition of what it means to be a Canadian (self-categorization) are part of the Canadian national identity, but that a belief in cultural diversity, cultural freedom, and civic freedom are also. For the respondents in Study 2b who were raised in Canada, this is remarkable, especially because approximately 75% of them indicated that they had no attachment to their heritage culture. It illustrates that a specific, consensually-held ideology distinguishes Canadians from the citizens of other countries and is part of the social representation which characterizes Canadians (Deaux and Philogene 2001; Deaux and Wiley 2007; Moscovici 1984, 2001) and which has been incorporated into their self-concept (Breakwell 1993, 2001). Nevertheless, it is unlikely that this ideology completely describes the social representation of those born and raised in Canada as they would also have key elements of Canadian history and folklore incorporated into their social representation of what it means to be Canadian (Ashmore et al. 2004; David and Bar-Tal 2009). It is probable that most recent immigrants are only partly aware of this history and folklore and, therefore, these elements are not included as dimensions of ICIS. Clearly this is a limitation of the research reported here and is a direction for future work.

The functions of the dimensions of Canadian identity

Given the very different life experiences of the respondents in studies 2a and 2b, the results of the regression analyses are surprising because they suggest that the dimensions of Canadian identity as indexed by ICIS's subscales serve similar functions for both immigrants and native-born Canadians. Further, this evidence suggests that the subscales have discriminant validity because they predict different dependent variables. A sense of belonging to Canada, for example, is an important dimensions of identity because it predicts involvement in mainstream Canadian life, positive attitudes toward other Canadians, and a feeling that cultural identity is secure (less threatened). In contrast, the cultural freedom and cultural diversity dimensions of Canadian identity are important because they predict a positive attitude toward multiculturalism and a strong cultural identity. Indeed, one might conjecture that it is the social representation of Canadians as supporters of cultural freedom and cultural diversity which makes migrating to Canada particularly attractive to adults living in Asia and Africa who wish to maintain their cultural heritage and traditions. As well, the cultural freedom dimension is a negative predictor of the belief that immigrants are discriminated against in Canadian society. Together these results illustrate the value of measuring these different dimensions of Canadian identity and the discriminant validity of the Belonging, Cultural Diversity, and Cultural Freedoms subscales.

For the respondents in these two samples, part of the subjective meaning of being Canadian is that they live in a country which values and maintains civic freedoms and this is related to both their sense of belonging to and participation in Canadian society, and to the extent to which their attitudes toward multiculturalism are positive. These findings suggest, therefore, that the civic freedom dimension of Canadian identity links the generic sense of belonging to and participating in Canadian society with a concern for cultural diversity and freedoms.

Finally the Citizenship Subscale of ICIS just predicts the strength of Canadian identity as measured by Brown's generic scale (Brown et al. 1986) which primarily measures a sense of belonging. Clearly, it is only when a person meets the criteria which defines him/her as a member of a group that he/she can develop a sense of belonging and emotional commitment to that group. Therefore, it makes sense that this generic dimension is a part of the respondents' Canadian identity. However, it seems that it is other dimensions, those which define the essential nature of Canadian identity, which are more predictive of the social psychological variables that were measured in studies 2a and 2b. Further achieving full Canadian citizenship along with the ability to vote and obtain a Canadian passport is an important goal for recent immigrants, but is a taken-for-granted aspect of a native-born Canadian's life. Indeed, the low reliability of this subscale for Canadians raised in Canada (Study 2b) was probably because almost all of the respondents in this study strongly agreed with this item and, therefore, the response variability for this subscale was very restricted ([SD.sub.2b] = 0.30 versus [SD.sub.2a] = 0.97). (11)

The cultural freedom dimension of Canadian identity negatively predicted the perception that there are systemic discriminatory barriers encountered by Canadian immigrants in the labour market and in society at large. And perceived discrimination is positively associated with perceived threat to cultural identity (r = .42, p < .001, Study 2a; r = . 18, p < .05, Study 2b). Of course this is correlational evidence, so that it may be that the perception of discrimination against immigrants and the perception that their cultural identity is under threat weakens this aspect of identification with Canada, or that those who do not identify strongly with Canada in this way are more likely to hold such perceptions. Indeed, it seems plausible that the causal links between these variables is reciprocal. Nevertheless, these associations are echoed in the results of two recent studies of skilled migrants from Asia and Africa living in Western Canada (Grant and Nadin 2007; Grant, Garay, Robertson and Nadin 2014). These results showed that the respondents were surprised and upset that it was so hard for them to fully access the Canadian labour market and many found it much harder than they had expected to find a job commensurate with their training and experience. Further, an objective classification of their current Canadian job showed that often they were underemployed. These findings suggest that skilled immigrants do not come to Canada expecting to face discrimination, but rather the reverse: they expect to be welcomed because of their skills and work experience. This suggests that actual negative, possibly discriminatory, experiences weaken immigrants' new Canadian identity and specifically the sense that being Canadian means supporting cultural freedoms.

Limitations and concluding remarks

The research presented in this paper demonstrates the value of developing a specific identity measure using an inductive approach. The fact that two very diverse samples of Canadians have a very similar shared, multi-dimensional social representation of what it means to be Canadian was genuinely surprising given that the opposite could easily be imagined. Further, the fact that the dimensions of this identity seem to have similar functions for respondents in both samples was also an important and surprising result.

Nevertheless, the studies described in this paper are only a first step, albeit an important one, toward the development of a comprehensive measure of Canadian national identity. That is, it would be wrong to suggest that the 16 item version of ICIS developed and used in studies 2a and 2b is such a measure, although the results of these studies show that it has good overall reliability and that the subscales have discriminant validity. This is because the subscales, particularly the subscale measuring cultural diversity, need more items. The appendix gives two new items that loaded on the cultural diversity factor and four new items that loaded on the cultural freedom factor. These items were written after Study 2a was completed and were included in Study 2b. Further work on diverse samples of Canadians should include these items as well as yet-to-be-written others so as to develop a more extended version of ICIS that more adequately measures the five dimensions and to establish their validity more thoroughly. Further, the dimensions of the national identity of Canadians who have lived most of their lives in Canada and which are relevant to Canadian history and folklore also need to be uncovered. This future research direction should result in a more textured and nuanced understanding of what it means to be Canadian. Once this is achieved then the full extent to which this specific national identity is interrelated and compatible with other important identities, especially cultural identities, can be studied.

The research presented in this paper also illustrates the gains in clarity and precision that can result from designing quantitative studies based upon the results of earlier qualitative work. This research strategy was particularly fruitful in this instance and allowed the measurement of the ideological content and meaning of a particular (Canadian) national identity, something that is needed because, "when trying to link aspects of identification to predictions of subsequent action, a concern with group specific ideological content may be essential" (Ashmore et al. 2004, 96). I recommend, therefore, that researchers consider using this approach when studying the specific structure of important group identities so that the unique dimensions of these identities and their functions are revealed and can be examined.

Notes

(1.) More generally, researchers from a variety of theoretical traditions have postulated that group identity is a multidimensional construct (see Roccas et al. 2008).

(2.) The second major section of the interview explored the ways in which the interviewees had become accustomed to and integrated into the Canadian way of life. This section also identified perceived barriers to full acceptance of immigrants as Canadians. The third major section of the interview examined the interviewee's views on multiculturalism and Canada's multicultural policies (see Grant and Robertson 2014).

(3.) Those respondents who were not Canadian citizens desired to become citizens and felt that they were Canadian to some extent as they had relocated to Canada permanently. An immigrant must live in Canada for at least three years before they can apply for citizenship.

(4.) Originally, a large data set was collected to examine the acculturation of Canadian immigrants from Asia and Africa broadly conceived (Grant 2007). In this paper, I report new analyses of variables in this data set relevant to the Canadian identity of the immigrant respondents that have not been published before (Study 2a) in comparison to the same variables in a data set collected from a sample of Canadians raised in Canada (Study 2b).

(5.) Directly relevant to point 3, the interviewees in Study 1 were very much aware of discriminatory barriers to their full acceptance into Canadian society. Later in the interview, in a separate section on the ways in which immigrants become accustomed to the Canadian way-of-life, the interviewees were asked, "What factors prevent immigrants from becoming integrated into the Canadian way of life?" the most common theme was Language and Accent Barriers (n =15). Three very interrelated themes, however, indicated that many respondents felt that an important barrier was Discrimination in the Canadian Labour Market with the main theme being specific to the issue of (foreign) Qualifications Not Being Recognized (n = 9). Then, the interviewees were asked, "Please explain the ways, if any, in which immigrants from (respondent's home country) are discriminated against in Canada". Two main themes emerged. The first was that that respondents felt discriminated against because of language barriers (n = 8). For example, "But I know my husband ... He is working very hard, they think he has problem with English, they think, because he don't... we understand more than we talk ... and they think he's stupid" [03]. The second was that respondents felt discriminated against because they are a member of a visible minority in Canada (n = 6). For example, "Even though if I stay here for ten years and say I am a Canadian, seeing me, people won't say that I'm a Canadian. They can say that she does not belong to Canadian. Just looking my face ..." [06].

(6.) Only 41 (8.8%) of the respondents had parents who were both born in a country other than Canada. These parents came mostly from South East Asia (17 of 41 or 41.5%) or South Asia (7 of 41 or 17.1%).

(7.) In Canada the term "visible minority" refers to members of non-Caucasian ethnic minority groups and they are protected by human rights legislation.

(8.) These newly written items were not included in the 16-item ICIS scale described in this paper because they were not used in Study 2a. In future work, they will be used to develop an ICIS scale with more items so that the subscales have better reliability. The items are given in the appendix so that researchers wishing to use the ICIS scale can consider including them.

(9.) A confirmatory factor analysis was also conducted so as to examine whether the factor analysis solutions shown in Table 2 were invariant across the two samples using EQS (Bentler and Wu 2002). First, we examined the goodness-off-it of a model which specifies that five, interrelated factors underlie responses to the items in this measure of Canadian identity within each sample as Byrne (1994) recommends. We used robust statistics as a number of the variables were not normally distributed. The results showed that this model was a good fit; Study 2a: sRMS = .062, [RMSEA.sub.robust] = .059, [CFI.sub.robust] = .93, [[chi square].sub.S-B] (94, N = 371) = 213.69, p < .001; Study 2b: sRMS = .049, [RMSEA.sub.robust] = .040, [CFI.sub.robust] = .95, [[chi square].sub.S-B](94, N = 425) = 157.96, p < .001. However, when a constraint that the factor loadings had to be equal in the two samples was imposed, the goodness-of-fit was poor; sRMS = .335, RMSEA = .105, CFI = .81, [chi square] (204, [N.sub.2a] = 371, [N.sub.2b] = 425) = 1096.05, p < .001. The factor solution is invariant across samples, therefore, in that the 16 items that comprise ICIS load on the same five factors. Nevertheless, the size of the factor loadings for each item varies across the samples. This finding is not surprising given the many differences between these two groups of Canadians. I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this analysis strategy.

(10.) Contact the author for details of these analyses.

(11.) I thank an anonymous reviewer for his/her insightful comments in this regard.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., and S. G. West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amiot, C. E., and R. de la Sablonniere. 2010. Facilitating the Development and Integration of Multiple Social Identities: The Case of Immigrants in Quebec. In The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity, ed. R. J. Crisp, 34-61. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ashmore, R. D., K. Deaux, and T. McLaughlin-Volpe. 2004. An Organizing Framework for Collective Identity: Articulation and Significance of Multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin 130: 80-114.

Bentler, P. M., and E. J. C. Wu. 2002. EQS 6 for Windows: User's Guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Berry, J. W. 1997. Immigration, Acculturation, Adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review 46: 5-34.

Berry, J. W., and R. Kalin. 1995. Multicultural and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada: An Overview of the 1991 National Survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 27: 301-320.

Berry, J. W., R. Kalin, and D. M. Taylor. 1977. Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.

Birman, D., and E. J. Trickett. 2001. Cultural Transitions in First-Generation Immigrants: Acculturation of Soviet Jewish Adolescents and Parents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32: 456-477.

Breakwell, G. M. 1993. Social Representations and Social Identity. Papers on Social Representations 2.3: 1-20.

--.2001. Social Representational Constraints upon Identity. In Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions, eds. K. Deaux and G. Philogene, 271-284. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Brown, R. 2000. Social Identity Theory: Past Achievements, Current Problems and Future Challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology 30: 745-778.

Brown, R., S. Condor, S., A. Mathews, G. Wade, and J. Williams. 1986. Explaining Intergroup Differentiation in an Industrial Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 59: 273-286.

Brown, R., and H. Zagefka. 2011. The Dynamics of Acculturation: An Intergroup Perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 44: 129-184.

Byrne, B. M. 1994. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cameron, J. E. 2004. A Three-Factor Model of Social Identity. Self and Identity 3: 239-262.

Cameron, J. E., and J.W. Berry. 2008. True Patriot Love: Structure and Predictors of Canadian Pride. Canadian Ethnic Studies 40: 17-41.

Chui, T., K.Tran, and M. Maheux. 2006. Immigration in Canada: A Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population, Census 2006. Ottawa: Statistics Canada (Catalogue Number: 97-557-XIE).

Chryssochoou, X. 2000. Multicultural Societies: Making Sense of New Environments and Identities. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 10: 343-354.

David, O., and D. Bar-Tal. 2009. A Sociopsychological Conception of Collective Identity: The Case of National Identity as an Example. Personality and Social Psychology Review 13: 354-379.

Deaux, K. 1996. Social Identification. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, eds. E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski, 777-798. New York: Guildford Press.

--. 2006. To be an Immigrant. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Deaux, K., and K. A. Ethier. 1998. Negotiating Social Identity. In Prejudice: The Target's Perspective, eds. J. K. Swim and C. Stangor, 301-323. New York: Academic Press.

Deaux, K., and G. Philogene, eds. 2001. Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Deaux, K., and S. Wiley. 2007. Moving People and Shifting Representations. In Social representations and identity: Content, process, and power, eds. G. Moloney and I. Walker, 9-30. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ellemers, N., P. Kortekaas, and J. W. Ouwerkerk. 1999. Self-Categorization, Commitment to the Group and Group Self-Esteem as Related but Distinct Aspects of Social Identity. European Journal of Social Psychology 29: 371-389.

Esses, V. M., J. F. Dovidio, L. M. Jackson, and T. L. Armstrong. 2001. The Immigration Dilemma: The Role of Perceived Group Competition, Ethnic Prejudice, and National Identity. Journal of Social Issues 57: 389-412.

Grant, P. R. 2007. Sustaining a Strong Cultural and National Identity: The Acculturation of Immigrants and Second-Generation Canadians of Asian and African Descent. Journal of International Migration and Integration 8: 89-116.

--. 2008. The Protest Intentions of Skilled Immigrants with Credentialing Problems: A Test of a Model Integrating Relative Deprivation Theory with Social Identity Theory. British Journal of Social Psychology 47: 687-705.

Grant, P. R., D. Abrams, D. W. Robertson, and J. Garay. 2015. Predicting Protests by Disadvantaged Skilled Immigrants: A Test of an Integrated Social Identity, Relative Deprivation, Collective Efficacy (SIRDE) Model. Social Justice Research 28: 76-101.

Grant, P. R., J. Garay, D.W. Robertson, and S. Nadin. November, 2014. The Credentialing Problems of Skilled, Foreign-Trained Immigrants Living in Western Canada: Comparing Community Samples from 2005 And 2010. A paper presented at the International Metropolis Conference, Milan, Italy.

Grant, P. R., and S. Nadin. 2007,The Credentialing Problems of Foreign Trained Personnel from Asia and Africa Intending to Make their Home in Canada: A Social Psychological Perspective. Journal of International Migration and Integration 8: 141-162.

Grant, P. R., and D. W. Robertson. 2014. Predicting Immigrants' Attitudes toward Multiculturalism using a Measure of its Perceived Benefits. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 36: 209-220.

Hinkle, S., and R. Brown. 1990. Intergroup Comparisons and Social Identity: Some Links and Lacunae. In Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances, eds. D. Abrams and M. A. Hogg, 48-70. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hinkle, S., L. A. Taylor, D. L. Fox-Cardamone, and K. F. Crook. 1989. Intragroup Identification and Intergroup Differentiation: A Multicomponent Approach. British Journal of Social Psychology 28: SOSSI?.

Hogg, M.A., and D. Abrams. 1988. Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.

Jackson, J. W., and E. R. Smith. 1999. Conceptualizing Social Identity: A New Framework and Evidence for the Impact of Different Dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25: 120-135.

Kalin, R., and J. W. Berry. 1995. Ethnic and Civic Self-Identity in Canada: Analyses of 1974 and 1991 National Surveys. Canadian Ethnic Studies 27: 1-15.

Lalonde, R. N. 2002. Testing the Social Identity--Intergroup Differentiation Hypothesis: "We're Not Americans, Eh!" British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 611-630.

Leach, C. W., M. van Zomeren, S. Zebel, M. L. W. Vliek, S. F. Pennekamp, B. Doosje, J. W. Ouwerkerk, and R. Spears. 2008. Group-Level Self-Definition and Self-Investment: A Hierarchical (Multicomponent) Model of In-Group Identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95: 144-165.

Li, P. 2003. Destination Canada: Immigration Debates and Issues. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Moscovici, S. 1984. The Phenomenon of Social Representations. In Social Representations, eds. R. M. Farr and S. Moscovici, 3-69. Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press/Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.

--. 2001. Why a Theory of Social Representations? In Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions, eds. K. Deaux and G. Philogene, 8-35. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Mullen B., R. Brown, and C. Smith. 1992. Ingroup Bias as a Function of Salience, Relevance, and Status: An Integration. European Journal of Social Psychology 22: 103-122.

Nguyen, A-M. D., and V. Benet-Martinez. 2010. Multicultural Identity: What It Is and Why It Matters. In The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity, ed. R. J. Crisp, 87-114. Oxford: Blackwell.

Phinney, J. S. 2003. Ethnic Identity and Acculturation. In Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement, and Applied Research, eds. K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, and G. Marin, 63-81. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Roccas, S., L. Sagiv, S. Schwartz, N. Halevy, and R. Eidelson. 2008. Toward a Unifying Model of Identification with Groups: Integrating Theoretical Perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12: 280-306.

Ryder, A. G., L. E. Alden, and D. L. Paulhus. 2000. Is Acculturation Unidimensional or Bidimensional? A Head-To-Head Comparison in the Prediction of Personality, Self-Identity, and Adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 49-65.

Stephan, C. W., and W. G. Stephan. 2000. What are the Functions of Ethnic Identity? In We Are the People: Narrative and Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Identity, eds. P. Spickard and W. J. Burroughs, 229241. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Simmons, A. B. 2010. Immigration and Canada: Global and Transnational Perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc.

Sussman, N. M. 2000. The Dynamic Nature of Cultural Identity throughout Cultural Transitions: Why Home is not so Sweet. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4: 355-373.

Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between Social Groups. London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H.; and J. C. Turner. 1986. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour. In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds. S. Worchel and W. G. Austin, 7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Turner, J. C., M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, and M. S. Wetherell. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Verkuyten, M., and B. Martinovic. 2012. Immigrants' National Identification: Meanings, Determinants, and Consequences. Social Issues and Policy Review 6: 82-112.

Ward, C. 1996. Acculturation. In Handbook of Intercultural Training, 2nd ed., eds. D. Landis and R. S. Bhagat, 124-147. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ward, C, S. Bochner, and A. Furnham. 2001. The Psychology of Culture Shock, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Routledge.

APPENDIX

New items written for Study 2b which load on the Cultural Diversity ICIS subscale or on the Cultural Freedom ICIS subscale

Cultural Diversity Subscale

1. I live in a country that is racially diverse, (factor loading = .63)

2. I live in a country where my countrywomen and countrymen follow many different religions, (factor loading = .60)

Cultural Freedom Subscale

1. I can practice my religion, following its traditions and ceremonies without interference, (factor loading = .68)

2. With my family, I am able to help organize and celebrate important cultural ceremonies, (factor loading = .54)

3. I know that my religious beliefs will be respected by my fellow Canadians, (factor loading = .46)

4. Canadians from different cultural backgrounds are free to celebrate and enjoy each other's cultural traditions, (factor loading = .46)

Note. Two other items were included in the factor analysis for Study 2b, but they did not load on any of the five factors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Study 1 and Study 2a were funded by a grant from the Prairie Metropolis Centre for Research on Immigration and Integration which was disbanded in 2012.1 acknowledge the support of the Metropolis Project, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and other Federal Government departments, especially Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

PETER R. GRANT is Professor of Psychology at the University of Saskatchewan and core faculty member in the Applied Social Psychology graduate program. His research is in the field of intergroup relations. His recent work has used Social Identity theory and Relative Deprivation theory to study 1) the credentialing problems of recent skilled immigrants as they try to enter the Canadian labour force, 2) how recent immigrants from Asia and Africa acculturate to Canada and develop a strong Canadian identity often in the face of discrimination, and 3) nationalism and involvement in collective action for social change.

TABLE 1. Themes identified by at least five immigrant leaders of
local cultural communities with an example of a statement from each
theme (Study 1)

                                               Representative        n
Main Question         Interrelated Themes        Statements         (a)

A. What does it       1. Canada is where    "We are part of this     6
   mean to you to        I belong. I am     society, we are
   be a Canadian?        part of Canadian   inside this society,
                         society (b)        we work in this
                                            society" [03]

                      2. Citizenship        "citizens must           6
                                            follow rules and
                                            regulations, work to
                                            help the country, do
                                            my duty as any other
                                            Canadian" [04]

                      3. Canadians are      "Here it is              6
                         peaceful and       peaceful. Canadians
                         friendly           are kind,
                                            warmhearted, and
                                            supportive" [24]

B. What things        4. A peaceful and     "A place where          10
   about Canada and      secure             people with freedom
   the Canadian          country (c)        and religion are
   people make you                          secure" [14]
   feel proud to be
   a Canadian?        5. Protect freedoms   "Independence            7
                         and civil          mostly. You are free
                         liberties (d)      to talk ... you have
                                            freedom of
                                            speech ..." [17]

                      6. Canada is          "We come from            7
                         culturally         different countries
                         diverse (e)        with different
                                            experiences, and we
                                            can practice here or
                                            help ... To develop
                                            its own better
                                            society" [03]

                      7. Canadians help     "They are known for      5
                         people at home     the good things they
                         and abroad         do for their people
                                            and the good things
                                            they do abroad" [12]

C. What is it about   8. Connection to      "we belong in            7
   Canada and the        and acceptance     Canada ... in this
   Canadian way of       by Canadian        society, with white
   life that makes       people             people, but still we
   you feel that                            feel we are in this
   you belong here?                         society and we feel
                                            accepted by
                                            everyone" [08]

(a) The number of respondents who made one or more statements that
were judged by all coders to fit into the theme.

(b) Also a theme for four respondents in section C.

(c) Also a theme for four respondents in section C.

(d) Also a theme for three respondents in section C.

(e) Also a theme for five respondents in section A who stated that,
for them, being a Canadian meant they had a multicultural identity.

TABLE 2. The Immigrants' Canadian Identity Scale (ICIS): The subscale
items, the factor pattern loadings, and the subscale
intercorrelations for Studies 2a and 2b

                                                               Civic
Scale Items                        Belonging   Citizenship    Freedom

Study                              2a    2b     2a     2b    2a    2b

I feel like I belong here, in      .80   .72
  Canada
I would be proud to carry the      .72   .60
  Canadian flag
I feel like Canada is my home      .57   .70
I am a Canadian citizen                        .93    .62
I can hold a Canadian passport                 .91    .36
I am able to vote in a free                    .75    .58
  election
I am living in a peaceful                                    .75   .64
  country
I am living in a safe country                                .71   .67
I am free to go anywhere I wish                              .59   .40
I have freedom of speech                                     .47   .58
I am living in the free world I                              .42   .44
  live in a country of
  immigrants
I live in a multicultural
  society
My countrymen and women are
  from many different cultural
  backgrounds
I am free to hold my own
  cultural beliefs and
  practices
I do not have to give up my
  cultural roots and traditions

Subscales                           Intercorrelations Among Subscales

Study                              2a    2b     2a     2b    2a    2b

ICIS (belonging)                               .53    .31    .58   .44
ICIS (citizenship)                                           .36   .33
ICIS (civic freedom)
ICIS (cultural diversity)

                                   Cultural    Cultural
Scale Items                        Diversity    Freedom

Study                              2a    2b    2a    2b

I feel like I belong here, in
  Canada
I would be proud to carry the
  Canadian flag
I feel like Canada is my home
1 am a Canadian citizen
I can hold a Canadian passport
I am able to vote in a free
  election
I am living in a peaceful
  country
I am living in a safe country
I am free to go anywhere I wish
I have freedom of speech
I am living in the free world I    .80   .35
  live in a country of
  immigrants
I live in a multicultural          .76   .59
  society
My countrymen and women are        .45   .59
  from many different cultural
  backgrounds
I am free to hold my own                       .65   .79
  cultural beliefs and
  practices
I do not have to give up my                    .52   .64
  cultural roots and traditions

                                     Intercorrelations
Subscales                             Among Subscales

Study                              2a    2b    2a    2b

ICIS (belonging)                   .41   .18   .42   .38
ICIS (citizenship)                 .24   .14   .24   .26
ICIS (civic freedom)               .38   .28   .51   .50
ICIS (cultural diversity)                      .41   .26

Note. The Intercorrelations among the subscales are all significant
at the p < .01 level or better (one tailed, Study 2a: IN = 389;
Study 2b: IN = 461).

TABLE 3. Mean differences between the respondents in Study 2a
(immigrants) and Study 2b (Canadians raised in Canada)

                                                 Study
                                  Study 2a--   2b--Raised
Variable Name                     Immigrants   in Canada

ICIS 16                              4.18         4.52
                                    (395)        (462)
ICIS (belonging)                     4.02         4.68
                                    (399)        (463)
ICIS (citizenship)                   4.08         4.86
                                    (394)        (465)
ICIS (civic freedom)                 4.23         4.37
                                    (400)        (465)
ICIS (cultural diversity)            4.33         4.31
                                    (398)        (463)
ICIS (cultural freedom)              4.17         4.47
                                    (399)        (464)
Canadian Identity Strength           5.04         5.90
                                    (392)        (465)
Behavioural Acculturation to         3.67         4.36
  Canada                            (354)        (461)
Attitude Toward Canadians in        75.29        85.87
  general                           (350)        (458)
Attitudes Toward                     4.02         3.97
  Multiculturalism                  (399)        (463)
Discrimination against               3.74         3.37
  immigrants                        (357)        (461)
Threat to Cultural Identity          3.20         2.27
                                    (397)        (109)
Cultural Identity Strength           5.51         5.49
                                    (396)        (104)
Behavioural acculturation to a       3.94         4.05
  Cultural Group                    (356)        (105)
Attitude Toward Cultural Group      78.46        81.17
                                    (347)        (111)
Cultural Group Bias                 +2.90        -0.27
                                    (346)        (110)

                                                           Partial
Variable Name                      Significance Test    [[eta].sup.2]

ICIS 16                           t = 11.30, p < .001       .137
ICIS (belonging)                  t = 14.68, p < .001       .208
ICIS (citizenship)                t = 15.35, p < .001       .240
ICIS (civic freedom)              t = 3.72, p < .001        .016
ICIS (cultural diversity)         t < 1, n.s.                --
ICIS (cultural freedom)           t = 6.81, p < .001        .051
Canadian Identity Strength        t = 11.43, p < .001       .140
Behavioural Acculturation to      t = 20.12, p < .001       .332
  Canada
Attitude Toward Canadians in      t = 11.69, p < .001       .153
  general
Attitudes Toward                  t = 1.22, n.s.             --
  Multiculturalism
Discrimination against            t = -7.96, p < .001       .072
  immigrants
Threat to Cultural Identity       t = -11.06, p < .001      .195
Cultural Identity Strength        t < 1, n.s.                --
Behavioural acculturation to a    t = 1.71, n.s.             --
  Cultural Group
Attitude Toward Cultural Group    t = 1.74, n.s.             --
Cultural Group Bias               t = -3.64, p < .001       .009

Note: The t-tests were corrected, where necessary for unequal
variances. The number of respondents for each analysis is shown in
parentheses under the means. The same pattern of results is obtained
when age is used as a covariate. A high score indicates that the
respondents strongly identified with Canada as measured by ICIS and
its five subscales, strongly identified with Canada and their
cultural group as measured by the scale developed by Brown and his
colleagues, participated more in Canadian and cultural activities,
held a more positive attitude toward Canadians and multiculturallsm,
felt that immigrants face discriminatory barriers, felt that their
cultural group identity was threatened in Canada, and were biased in
favour of their cultural group.

TABLE 4. Regressing various dependent variables on the five subscales
of the Immigrants' Canadian Identity Scale (ICIS)

Standardized Regression Coefficients for the Independent Variables
(correlations with dependent variable)

Dependent Variables   Belonging    Citizenship   Civic Freedom

Canadian Identity      .58 ***       .13 ***        .13 ***
(Brown's scale)       (.75 ***)     (.53 ***)      (.49 ***)

Acculturation          .37 ***        .04ns         .11 ***
(Canada)              (.63 ***)     (.48 ***)      (.39 ***)

Attitudes toward       .28 ***       -.07ns         .12 ***
Canadians             (.44 ***)     (.28 ***)      (.30 ***)

Attitudes Toward        .05ns        -.04ns         .15 ***
Multiculturalism      (.27 ***)     (.14 ***)      (.36 ***)

Discrimination          -.04ns       -.00ns         -.05ns
                      (-.22 ***)   (-.18 ***)     (-.17 ***)

Threat to Cultural     -.22 ***       .01ns         -.05ns
Identity              (-.37 ***)   (-.26 ***)     (-.21 ***)

Cultural Identity       -.09ns        .10ns          -.00
(Brown's scale)        (.09 *)      (.13 **)       (.12 **)

                       Cultural     Cultural
Dependent Variables   Diversity      Freedom        Sample

Canadian Identity       .02ns         .02ns         -.03ns
(Brown's scale)       (.25 ***)     (.40 ***)     (-.37 ***)

Acculturation           -.04ns        .06ns        -.36 ***
(Canada)              (.11 ***)     (.36 ***)     (-.57 ***)

Attitudes toward        .01ns         .03ns        -.27 ***
Canadians             (.12 ***)     (.26 ***)     (-.39 ***)

Attitudes Toward       .21 ***       .25 ***          N/A
Multiculturalism      (.34 ***)     (.40 ***)

Discrimination            S          -.13 **        .21 ***
                       (.05ns)     (-.22 ***)      (.26 ***)

Threat to Cultural        S          -.03ns         .36 ***
Identity               (.00ns)     (-.22 ***)      (.44 ***)

Cultural Identity       .11 *        .19 ***          N/A
(Brown's scale)       (.18 ***)     (.22 ***)

Dependent Variables   [R.sup.2]      F (df)

Canadian Identity       59.5%      204.89 ***
(Brown's scale)                      -6.836

Acculturation           51.9%      143.20 ***
(Canada)                             -6.796

Attitudes toward        25.3%       44.41 ***
Canadians                            -6.786

Attitudes Toward        23.0%       50.20 ***
Multiculturalism                      -5.84

Discrimination          10.0%       17.74 ***
                                     -5.801

Threat to Cultural      25.4%       33.42 ***
Identity                              -5.49

Cultural Identity        6.8%       6.98 ***
(Brown's scale)                      -5.482

Note. There were no significant mean differences between the two
samples in their attitudes toward multiculturalism or the strength of
their cultural Identity (see Table 3) so it was not necessary to
include the dummy variable for the sample in these analyses
(indicated by N/A). The letter "S" indicates that the cultural
diversity subscale of the identity measure acted as a suppressor (did
not correlate with the dependent variable, but had a significant
regression coefficient) and so the analysis had to be repeated
without this variable in the regression equation.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 two tailed.