400 Words summary for a article

British Journal of Social Psychology (2015), 54,

748

–766

© 2015 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Marginal and happy? The need for uniqueness
predicts the adjustment of marginal immigrants

R�egine Debrosse1,2*, Roxane de la Sablonni�ere1 and
Maya Rossignac-Milon

3

1
Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2
Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
3
Psychology Department, Columbia University, New York, USA

Marginalization is often presented as the strategy associated with the worst adjustment

for immigrants. This study identifies a critical variable that buffers marginal immigrants

from the negative effects of marginalization on adjustment: The need for uniqueness. In

three studies, we surveyed immigrants recruited on university campuses (n = 119,
n = 116) and in the field (n = 61). Among marginal immigrants, a higher need for
uniqueness predicted higher self-esteem (Study 1), affect (Study 2), and life satisfaction

(Study 3), and marginally higher happiness (Study 2) and self-esteem (Study 3). No

relationship between the need for uniqueness and adjustment was found among non-

marginal immigrants. The adaptive value of the need for uniqueness for marginal

immigrants is discussed.

Human beings are more mobile today than ever before in world history. According to the

United Nations (2013), more than 214 million people were not living in the country in

which they were born in 2010, compared to 155 million people only two decades earlier.

It is unlikely that this trend in global migration will taper in the near future: Indeed, a

Gallup poll indicated that more than 640 million people would move to another country if

they could (Clifton, 2012). As a result of these migration trends, an increasing number of

people face the consequences of being in extensive contact with at least two cultures and

having to negotiate between different and often disparate cultural identities.
Negotiating these multiple cultural identities is a challenge for many immigrants.

Failing to adopt the customs of the mainstream culture they live in may hinder their

ability to successfully navigate their social reality, whereas failing to maintain the customs

of the heritage culture they grew up in might result in a painful sense of loss. This might be

why most immigrants integrate (i.e., have strong connections to both cultures),

assimilate (i.e., only have a strong connection to their mainstream culture), or separate

(i.e., only have a strong connection to their heritage culture). However, some immigrants

have weak connections to both of their cultural groups (Berry, 1990). These immigrants
experience marginalization – that is, they feel disconnected from both the heritage
culture they grew up in and the mainstream culture of the society they live in.

The idea that marginalization is related to poor adjustment is widespread in the

acculturation literature. Indeed, previous studies have found that marginal immigrants are

*Correspondence should be addressed to R�egine Debrosse, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Stewart Biology
Building, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada (email: regine.debrosse@mail.mcgill.ca).

DOI:10.1111/bjso.12113

748

not as well adjusted as other immigrants: They are more likely to experience poor mental

health, such as high levels of stress and depression (Bhui et al., 2005; Choi, Miller, &

Wilbur, 2009; Nakash, Nagar, Shoshani, Zubida, & Harper, 2012). Some studies have

found that marginalization is also associated with lower self-esteem (Berry & Sabatier,
2010; Pham & Harris, 2001; Virta, Sam, & Westin, 2004), which might signal both low self-

evaluation and poor well-being (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel,

2004). Finally, marginalization has also been associated with lower subjective well-being:

Marginalimmigrants reported lower life satisfaction scores (Pfafferott &Brown, 2006) and

lower positive and higher negative affect scores (Abu-Rayya, 2007) than non-marginal

immigrants. Therefore, it is not surprising that marginalization has been repeatedly

identified as the acculturation strategy associated with the worst outcomes for the

adjustment of immigrants.
However, the association between adjustment and marginalization deserves further

examination for two reasons. First, much emphasis has been placed on the association

between marginalization and poor outcomes, yet some studies suggest that this pattern

may not always apply. Although a large portion of marginal immigrants seems to have

trouble adjusting, some empirical evidence suggests that many marginal immigrants are

able to live happily, despite being detached from their cultural groups (de la Sablonni�ere,
Debrosse, & Benoit, 2010; van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998). For instance, many

marginal immigrants have similar levels of self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and
adjustment as other immigrants (Abouguendia & Noels, 2001; Nigbur et al., 2008).

Second, marginalization is not fully understood. For instance, Rudmin (2008) proposes

that results suggesting that marginal immigrants are not as well adjusted as other

immigrantsmightbeduetotheuse ofproblematicscales,suchasthefourfoldacculturation

scale. Similarly, some researchers have suggested that evidence of marginalization

outcomes can be difficult to interpret (Fosados et al., 2007). Furthermore, some

researchers propose that the concept of marginalization might need further clarification.

Specifically, some note that the definition of marginalization seems to have evolved across
different papers (Rudmin, 2008). Others propose that the literature does not sufficiently

take into account the influence of the mainstream cultural context or the relationships

shared with members of the mainstream culture on the adjustment of immigrants,

regardless of their acculturation strategy (Bhatia & Ram, 2001). Other researchers have

emphasized the need to clarify the different ways in which individuals can be distant from a

social group (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000),

especially for the purposes of predicting outcomes associated with such a distant position.

For instance, certain marginal immigrants could have intentionally distanced themselves
from a group that would have otherwise accepted them, whereas other marginal

immigrants could unsuccessfully attempt to be included by a rejecting group.

Taken together, this body of research suggests that marginalization is in need of

clarification. Little of the current theorizing attempts to explain why certain marginal

immigrants adjust well, whereas others do not. Furthermore, the different types of

distancing that group members may experience have been neglected. One notable

exceptiontothis trend isthework ofBoski(2008),whichsuggests that marginalizationcan

be a very positive and desirable acculturation strategy when lived as a form of detachment
rather than alienation from one’s cultures. Another notable exception to this trend is the

work of Bourhis, Mo€ıse, Perreault, and Sen�ecal (1997), which distinguishes between two
types of marginalization strategies: ‘Anomic marginalization’ and ‘individualism’. They

propose that the experience of certain marginal immigrants is characterized by anomie –
feeling alienated from the both their heritage culture and the mainstream culture. They

Marginalization and uniqueness 749

propose that the experience of other marginal immigrants is characterized instead by

focusing on personal achievements and that the lack of connection and identification with

their heritage and mainstream cultures is simply a reflection of this individualistic

worldview. Interestingly, adopting the individualism strategy (vs. the ‘anomic marginal-
ization’ strategy) was associated with more positive intergroup outcomes (Bourhis,

Montaruli, El-Geledi, Harvey, & Barrette, 2010), such as more harmonious relationships

with members of the host culture (Bourhis, Barrette, El-Geledi, & Schmidt, 2009).

The present research seeks to use a somewhat similar approach to Bourhis et al.

(1997) to improve our understanding of marginalization. However, whereas their work

focuses on the intergroup outcomes associated with two different types of marginaliza-

tion strategies, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of marginalization by exploring

the role of a factor that could potentially buffer adjustment. Specifically, we propose that
having a high need for uniqueness might be adaptive when placed in a position in which it

is difficult to experience strong feelings of group membership. This position is

characteristic of marginal immigrants, no matter whether they adopt an individualistic

or anomic approach. In exploring the role of the need for uniqueness, we aim to shed light

on the conditions under which marginalization can be experienced more or less positively.

The need for uniqueness
The need to feel and to perceive oneself as distinct has been identified by many

researchers (Brewer, 1991; Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980;

Vignoles et al., 2000). Individuals need to differentiate themselves from others, for

example by placing what they feel distinguishes themselves at the centre of their identities

or by behaving in a manner that they believe sets them apart (Vignoles et al., 2000). When

the need for distinctiveness is threatened, people adopt cognitive or behavioural

strategies to re-establish themselves as different (Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010).

Social identity theorists propose that belonging to a group and perceiving this group as
distinct from other groups allow individuals to incorporate the distinctiveness of this

group’s identity into their personal identity, which in turn provides positive psychological

benefits (Tajfel&Turner,1986).Supportingthisassumption,manystudieshavefoundthat

belonging to a distinct group allows one to meet the need for distinctiveness (Jetten et al.,

2004). However, given that they feel distant from their two cultures, marginal immigrants

might not as easily satisfy their need for distinctiveness through group membership.

When attempting to meet their need for distinctiveness, people may also feel the need

to experience uniqueness – feeling unique as an individual, and perceiving that one’s
uniqueness is valued (Brewer, 1991; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). The drive to feel unique as

an individual varies from one person to the next, as well as from one situation to another

(Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). Furthermore, some research suggests that uniqueness is

valued more highly in Western cultures, which are more individualistic, than in Eastern

cultures, which are more collectivistic (Kim & Markus, 1999). Fulfilling the need for

uniqueness is associated with high well-being, regardless of whether needing uniqueness

is a chronic individual tendency or whether it has been induced by situational factors

(Lynn & Snyder, 2002; Sheldon & Bettencourt, 2002).

Uniqueness and marginalization

Detached from both their heritage and mainstream cultures, marginal immigrants

likely feel quite unique. Experiencing marginalization involves feeling that one does not fit

750 R�egine Debrosse et al.

into either culture and therefore feeling different from others. For some marginal

immigrants – specifically, those high on the need for uniqueness – this feeling of being
different from others may be a source of well-being. For instance, because different

cultures often promote very different sets of values and attitudes (Cheng & Lee, 2009;
Stroink & Lalonde, 2009), marginal immigrants who are high on the need for uniqueness

might feel that possessing a comprehensive understanding of two such cultures

(especially without strongly identifying as a member of either) gives them the perspective

necessary to critically evaluate both cultures and develop their own point of view. As

such, their detachment from both cultures may provide them with a unique perspective

and make their exceptionality quite salient. They may feel that being detached from both

their heritage and mainstream cultures allows them to have a ‘special’ worldview.

In other words, most marginal immigrants are placed in a situation that emphasizes
their individuality; for this reason, marginal immigrants who have a high need for

individual uniqueness are especially well positioned to meet this need, and are thus able to

benefit from the positive outcomes associated with meeting it. On the contrary, marginal

immigrants who do not have a high need for individual uniqueness might not be able to

capitalize as much on their individuality as a source of well-being. Indeed, if marginal

immigrants do not have a high need for individual uniqueness, then feeling unique as an

individual may not buffer them from the negative outcomes associated with being

marginal. Perhaps feeling different from those around them may instead be a source of
distress.

In short, the uniqueness of marginal immigrants should emphasize their individuality.

Thus, the adjustment of marginal immigrants might be closely linked to the extent to

which they perceive that they need to feel unique as individuals. For this reason, we

hypothesize that marginal immigrants who have a high need for uniqueness are better

adjusted than marginal immigrants who have a low need for uniqueness. Furthermore, as

we do not expect that having a high need for uniqueness will play a role in the adjustment

of non-marginal immigrants, we hypothesized that the interaction of marginalization and
the need for uniqueness will predict adjustment.

Overview of studies

We investigated the role of uniqueness in the adjustment of marginal immigrants in three

studies. In Study 1, we examined whether the need for uniqueness predicts the self-

esteem of marginal immigrants and non-marginal immigrants. Self-esteem indicates how

people feel about themselves and their resulting well-being (Pyszczynski et al., 2004). As
such, it is a good indicator of adjustment and of self-evaluation in a wide array of domains

(Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001). Moreover, past research has suggested that

marginal immigrants can experience lower self-esteem than other immigrants (Berry &

Sabatier, 2010; Pham & Harris, 2001; Virta et al., 2004). Self-esteem is used as an indicator

of adjustment and has often been investigated among marginal immigrants; for these

reasons, it was examined in Study 1.

We turned to emotions in Study 2. Affect, a component of subjective well-being

(Diener, 2000), is a good indicator of adjustment as it is associated with success in several
areas of life (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005), flourishing mental health (Fredrickson

& Losada, 2005) and enhanced coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Finally,happiness is

also related to adjustment. As such, we examined whether the hypothesis tested with self-

esteem in Study 1 would replicate with affect and happiness in Study 2.

Marginalization and uniqueness 751

Finally, one limitation of Study 1 and Study 2 was that all the immigrants were recruited

among university students. To extend the scope of our findings, participants in Study 3

were recruited in a community sample of adolescent immigrants. Study 3 aimed to

replicate the results of Study 1, and extend the results of Study 2 by examining how
uniqueness is associated with the other component of subjective well-being, life

satisfaction. Life satisfaction measures capture the cognitive component of subjective

well-being: They assess how an individual evaluates their life in terms of fulfilment and

happiness (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Individuals who are very satisfied with

their lives experience positive outcomes, such as success and health (Lyubomirsky et al.,

2005). For these reasons, and because marginal immigrants report lower life satisfaction

(Pfafferott & Brown, 2006), we explored the relationship between marginalization,

adjustment, and life satisfaction in Study 3.

STUDY 1

Method

Sample

Students (n = 122) who immigrated to Canada or whose parents did were recruited
among students attending a university in Montreal, Canada; however, as three participants

who did not follow the instructions were excluded from the analyses, the final sample

consisted of 119 participants. Most of the participants constituting the final sample (77%)

were female (M = 19.61 years old, SD = 1.59 years old). All participants were first- and
second-generation immigrants originating from more than 50 different countries.

For instance, 57% had East Asian or South Asian origins (e.g., Chinese, Sri Lankan), 13%
had West European origins (e.g., Spanish, French), and 8% had East European origins

(e.g., Polish, Romanian).

Measures

Marginalization

The Vancouver Acculturation scale was used to assess whether participants were

marginal (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000). In their review of the different measurement

methods of acculturation strategies, Arends-T�oth and van de Vijver (2006) have
recommended assessing the relationships with the heritage culture and with the

mainstream culture separately. This scale is made of two identical sets of 10 items each,
assessing the relationship with the mainstream culture and the heritage culture.

Participants were asked to indicate on a Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 9

(Strongly Agree) the extent to which they behave in concordance with each culture (e.g.,

‘I often behave in ways that are typical of my heritage culture’). In this study, the Cronbach

alphas of both the mainstream culture dimension (a = .84) and heritage culture
dimension (a = .85) indicated satisfying reliability. Participants whose heritage and
mainstream culture acculturation scores were under the median were considered

marginal (n = 34; all the others were considered non-marginal, n = 85).

Need for uniqueness

Participants also completed the Self-Attributed Need for Uniqueness scale (Lynn & Harris,

1997; Lynn & Snyder, 2002). Participants chose the word missing in each of four items to

752 R�egine Debrosse et al.

express the strength of their need for uniqueness. For example, ‘I _______ intentionally

do things to make myself different from those around me’ can be answered from 1 (Never)

to 5 (Always). In this study, the Cronbach alpha of this scale (a = .83) indicated satisfying
reliability.

Self-esteem

Participants completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965). They

indicated their agreement to 10 items (i.e., ‘I feel that I am a person of worth’), on a 4-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 4 (Strongly disagree). In this study, the

Cronbach alpha (a = .83) indicated satisfying reliability.

Results and discussion

Preliminary analyses

All variables were distributed normally, and no univariate or multivariate outliers were

identified. We compared whether marginal and non-marginal immigrants reported similar

need for uniqueness and self-esteem scores, on average. The need for uniqueness scores
did not differ significantly among marginal (M = 3.13, SD = 0.60) and non-marginal
(M = 3.05, SD = 0.72) immigrants, t(117) = 0.53, p = .60. Similarly, the self-esteem
scores did not differ significantly among marginal (M = 3.02, SD = 0.49) and non-
marginal (M = 2.98, SD = 0.47) immigrants, t(117) = 0.37, p = .71.

Principal analyses

We expected that the interaction of marginalization and need for uniqueness would
best predict self-esteem. Specifically, we predicted that need for uniqueness would

predict self-esteem for participants categorized as marginal, but not for those

categorized as non-marginal (i.e., integrated, separated or assimilated).
1
Therefore,

despite the fact that marginalization is the main independent variable, given that it is

dichotomous, we computed a regression model in which the need for uniqueness was

entered as the main independent variable and marginalization was entered as a

moderator.

In line with our hypothesis, the regression model in which marginalization, need for
uniqueness, and their interaction were predictors had a significant effect on self-esteem

(R
2 = .07; p < .05). No main effect of need for uniqueness (b = �.08, p = .46) or of

marginalization (b = .04, p = .86) was found, but the interaction of need for uniqueness
and marginalization (b = .62, p < .01) significantly predicted self-esteem (see Figure 1). Testing for simple slope effects revealed the expected finding: The effect of the need for

uniqueness on self-esteem was significant for marginal immigrants (b = .55, p < .01) but not for non-marginal immigrants (b = �.08, p = .46). In other words, the self-esteem of marginal immigrants was lower when their need for uniqueness was low, and higher

1
In this study, we report regression analyses comparing marginal immigrants with all non-marginal immigrants (i.e., integrated,

separated and assimilated) placed in the same category. However, we have also performed regression analyses to examine
whether the adjustment of integrated, separated, and assimilated immigrants could also be predicted by their need for
uniqueness. In line with the analyses reported in this study, these regressions indicated that, in all three studies, the need for
uniqueness does not predict the adjustment of integrated, assimilated, and separated immigrants. Ergo, for matters of simplicity,
we have reported analyses comparing marginal and

non-marginal immigrants.

Marginalization and uniqueness 753

when their need for uniqueness was high, but the self-esteem of non-marginal immigrants

did not vary significantly with

their need for uniqueness.

Discussion

Study 1 examined the relationship between marginalization, uniqueness, and self-

esteem. We found that the need for uniqueness predicts the self-esteem of marginal

immigrants, but not the self-esteem of non-marginal immigrants. Also, marginal

immigrants were no more likely to be high on the need for uniqueness, or to experience

low self-esteem, than non-marginal immigrants. Whereas Study 1 focused on self-esteem,

Study 2 examined whether the need for uniqueness of marginal immigrants would
influence emotions, measured with affect and happiness. As such, Study 2 was an

attempt to replicate the results found in Study 1 with a similar sample but with different

measures of adjustment.

STUDY 2

Method
Sample

Students (n = 116) who immigrated to Canada or whose parents did were recruited
among students attending a university in Montreal, Canada (M = 20.28 years old,
SD = 2.31 years old), on the condition that they had not participated in Study 1. Most
participants were women (81.9%), and almost half were born in Canada (46.6%). Most
participants had East Asian or South Asian origins (48%; e.g., Japanese, Korean), West

European origins (25%; e.g., British, Luxembourgian), or East European origins (13%; e.g.,

Bulgarian, Ukrainian).

Measures
Marginalization

We used the same method as in Study 1 to assess marginalization. In this study, the

Cronbach alphas of both the mainstream culture dimension (a = .82) and heritage culture

Figure 1. The need for uniqueness predicts the self-esteem of marginal immigrants.

754 R�egine Debrosse et al.

dimension (a = .87) indicated satisfying reliability. In this sample, 30 immigrants were
marginal and 86 were non-marginal.

Need for uniqueness

We used the same scale as in Study 1 to assess the need for uniqueness. In this study, the

Cronbach alpha of this scale (a = .82) indicated satisfying reliability.

Positive and negative affect

Participants were asked to report their affect by completing the positive and negative

affect scale (PANAS, Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS is a widely used
measure of positive affect (10 items, e.g., ‘enthusiastic’) and of negative affect (10 items,

e.g., ‘afraid’), which were combined in a single score in the present study (the negative

items were reversed). Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale from 1

(Very slightly or not at all) to 5 (Extremely) to what extent each item described how they

felt at the moment. The Cronbach alpha of this scale indicated satisfying reliability

(a = .87).

Happiness

Finally, participants answered the single-item happiness scale (Fordyce, 1988), thus

indicating how happy they were on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (Extremely unhappy

– utterly depressed, completely down) to 10 (Extremely happy – feeling ecstatic, joyous,
fantastic!). Unfortunately, however, due to a technical defect, only 78 participants were
presented this scale and answered it.

Results and discussion
Preliminary analyses
All variables were distributed normally, and no univariate or multivariate outliers were

identified. We computed t-tests to compare the need for uniqueness and the affect

of marginal and non-marginal immigrants. No significant differences were found

between the scores of marginal and non-marginal immigrants, when we compared their
need for uniqueness scores, Mmarginal = 2.78, SDmarginal = 0.70; Mnon-marginal = 2.96,
SDnon-marginal = 0.69; t(114) = 1.26, p = .21, their affect scores, Mmarginal = 3.75,
SDmarginal = 0.60; Mnon-marginal = 3.64, SDnon-marginal = 0.53; t(114) = 0.87, p = .39,
and their happiness scores, Mmarginal = 5.92, SDmarginal = 1.55; Mnon-marginal = 5.96,
SDnon-marginal = 1.56; t(76) = 0.11, p = .91. In short, marginal immigrants yielded scores
on the need for uniqueness, affect, and happiness that were as high as those of

non-marginal immigrants.
Principal analyses

Similar to Study 1, we computed two regression models that tested for the interaction

effects of marginalization and of the need for uniqueness on affect and on happiness. The

regression model that predicted affect with marginalization, need for uniqueness, and

their interaction yielded results that were in line with our hypothesis (R
2 = .07; p = .05).

Marginalization and uniqueness 755

The interaction of the need for uniqueness and marginalization significantly predicted

affect (b = .46, p < .05; see Figure 2). Analysing the simple slopes revealed that the effect of the need for uniqueness on affect was significant for marginal immigrants (b = .48, p < .01), but not for non-marginal immigrants (b = .02, p = .85). Neither the need for uniqueness (b = .02, p = .85) nor marginalization (b = �.28, p = .18) had a significant main effect on affect.

The regression model that included marginalization, need for uniqueness, and their

interaction as predictors of happiness yielded results that were also in line with our

hypothesis (R
2 = .08; p = .09). The interaction of the need for uniqueness and

marginalization had a marginally significant effect on happiness (b = .44, p = .06; see
Figure 3). Analysing the simple slopes revealed that the effect of the need for uniqueness

on happiness was significant for marginal immigrants (b = .49, p < .05), but not for non- marginal immigrants (b = .05, p = .72). Furthermore, neither the need for uniqueness (b = .05, p = .72) nor marginalization (b = .03, p = .90) had a significant main effect on happiness. In other words, marginal immigrants who possessed a high need for

uniqueness felt happier than marginal immigrants who had a low need for uniqueness.

However, the happiness of non-marginal immigrants did not vary based on the level of

their need for uniqueness.

Figure 2. The need for uniqueness predicts the affect of marginal immigrants.

Figure 3. The need for uniqueness marginally predicts the happiness of marginal immigrants.

756 R�egine Debrosse et al.

Discussion

Whereas Study 1 investigated the association between the need for uniqueness and self-

esteem, Study 2 examined the association between the need for uniqueness and emotions.

Preliminary analyses indicated that marginal and non-marginal immigrants did not differ in
measures of affect, happiness, or need for uniqueness. However, in concordance with our

hypothesis, the results indicate that the higher marginal immigrants’ need for uniqueness,

the better their affect. The results further suggest that the more marginal immigrants need

uniqueness, the happier they are.

Both Study 1 and Study 2 examined the association between the need for uniqueness

and the adjustment of marginal immigrants recruited among the university student

population. However, many have underlined the overrepresentation of ‘WEIRD’

populations, that is Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, in psycho-
logical research (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Although their bicultural

background might not make of the participants of Study 1 and Study 2 typical ‘WEIRD’

participants, we deemed important to examine whether our hypothesis was also

supported among a population that would not be constituted of university students. As

such, the goal of Study 3 was to replicate the association between uniqueness,

marginalization, and self-esteem found in Study 1, and to extend the scope of Studies 1 and

2 by examining whether similar results can be found among marginal immigrants from a

community sample.

STUDY 3

Method
Sample

We recruited 61 first-generation and second-generation immigrants in the youth

programme of a community centre located in a highly multicultural neighbourhood in

Montreal. This sample was comprised of 42 girls and 19 boys (M = 17.78 years-old,
SD = 4.11 years old). The community centre where we recruited participants welcomes
many immigrants who recently arrived in Canada as well as many students who face

difficulties in school – as such, 56% reported that their last school year was spent in Middle
School and, on average, their last school year was the 10th grade (M = 10.4th grade,
SD = 2.7 grade). Approximately half of the participants (49.2%) were born in Canada, and
about a third of the participants (31.1%) moved to Canada before 12 years of age.

Measures
Marginalization

To assess whether or not the participants adopted the marginalization strategy, they

indicated their agreement with six items. The three-first items evaluated the relationship

with the heritage culture (i.e., ‘I identify with the members of my heritage culture’, ‘Being

a member of my heritage culture is an important characteristic of my person’, ‘I find it

important that others identify me as a member of my heritage culture’), and its internal
reliability was adequate (a = .82). The three last items were almost identical, but
pertained to the relationship with the mainstream culture (i.e., ‘I identify with the

members of the Quebec culture’, ‘Being a Quebecker is an important characteristic of my

person’, ‘I find it important that others identify me as a Quebecker’); its internal reliability

was also satisfying (a = .90). Immigrants whose heritage and mainstream culture scores

Marginalization and uniqueness 757

were under the median were considered marginal (n = 13), whereas the others were
considered non-marginal (n = 48).

Need for uniqueness

Participants also self-reported their need for uniqueness by indicating their agreement

with this single item adapted from the Self-Attributed Need for Uniqueness scale (Lynn &

Harris, 1997; Lynn & Snyder, 2002): ‘I prefer being very different from other people’ on a

Likert scale ranging from 1 (Highly disagree) to 7 (Highly agree). Many authors found using

single items is appropriate (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001), notably because it

reduces participants’ fatigue (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007), which is critical when

conducting research among populations that are less used to formal questionnaires (de la
Sablonni�ere, Auger, Taylor, Crush, & McDonald, 2012).

Satisfaction with life

Participants also completed the 5-item Satisfaction With Life scale (Diener, Emmons,

Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), which had a satisfying internal reliability in the present study

(a = .77). Participants rated their agreement to all items on Likert scales ranging from 1
(Highly disagree) to 7 (Highly agree).

Self-esteem

Finally, participants completed the RosenbergSelf-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965).In this

study, the Cronbach alpha (a = .85) indicated satisfying reliability.

Results and discussion
Preliminary analyses

All variables were distributed normally, and no univariate or multivariate outlier was

identified. We computed t-tests to compare the need for uniqueness, self-esteem, and life

satisfaction of marginal and non-marginal immigrants. We found no significant difference

of the need for uniqueness scores of marginal (M = 4.62, SD = 1.45) and non-marginal
(M = 4.81, SD = 1.61) immigrants, t(59) = 0.40, p = .69. Also, we found no significant
difference in the self-esteem scores of marginal (M = 5.06, SD = 0.93) and non-marginal
(M = 5.36, SD = 1.04) immigrants, t(59) = 0.94, p = .35. However, we found a signif-
icant difference in their life satisfaction scores, t(59) = 2.24, p < .05. Marginal immigrants (M = 4.51, SD = 1.14) reported lower life satisfaction than non-marginal immigrants (M = 5.25, SD = 1.04).

Principal analyses
Similarly as in Study 1 and Study 2, we computed two regression models that tested for the

interaction effects of marginalization and of the need for uniqueness on self-esteem and on

life satisfaction. A regression model in which marginalization, need for uniqueness, and

their interaction were entered as self-esteem predictors presented results that were in line

with our hypothesis (R
2 = .10; p = .10). The interaction of the need for uniqueness and

marginalization marginally predicted self-esteem (b = .62, p = .07; see Figure 4). The

758 R�egine Debrosse et al.

effect of the need for uniqueness on self-esteem was significant for marginal immigrants

(b = .70, p < .05), but not for non-marginal immigrants (b = .08, p = .55). Therefore, marginal immigrants who had a high need for uniqueness reported higher self-esteem,

whereas marginal immigrants who had a low need for uniqueness reported lower self-

esteem.

Furthermore, the need for uniqueness alone had no effect (b = .08, p = .55), which
indicates that the self-esteem of non-marginal immigrants did not significantly vary with a

high or low need for uniqueness. Also, being marginal did not have a significant main

effect (b = �.22, p = .47) on self-esteem.
In line with our hypothesis, a regression model that included marginalization, need for

uniqueness, and their interaction as predictors significantly predicted life satisfaction

(R
2 = .16; p < .05). The interaction of the need for uniqueness and marginalization

significantly predicted life satisfaction (b = .67, p < .05; see Figure 5). We then performed simple slope analyses to examine the effect of uniqueness for marginal and

non-marginal immigrants. For immigrants who adopted the marginalization strategy, the

effect of the need for uniqueness on life satisfaction was significant (b = .68, p < .05). However, for non-marginal immigrants, the need for uniqueness had no effect on life

satisfaction (b = .00, p = .97). Finally, in this model, the need for uniqueness alone had no
effect (b = .00, p = .97), whereas being marginal had a significant main effect (b = �.61,
p < .05) on life satisfaction. In sum, marginal immigrants who had a high need for uniqueness reported higher life satisfaction than those who had a low need for

uniqueness.
2

Figure 4. The need for uniqueness marginally predicts the self-esteem of marginal immigrants.

2
Following the excellent suggestion of our reviewers, we computed supplementary analyses examining whether generation was a

moderator in our models. No effect, or even marginal effect, of generation,or of interactionsthat includedgeneration in their term,
was found in Study 2 or in Study 3. In Study 1, however, one significant effect of generation was found. More precisely, marginal
immigrants from the first and second generations both benefitted from a higher self-esteem when their need for uniqueness was
higher; however, the effects were stronger for the first generation.

We also computed supplementary analyses examining whether the level of individualism (vs. collectivism) of the heritage
culture was a moderator in our models. No effect, or even marginal effect, of culture, or of interactions that included culture in their
term, was found in Study 1 or in Study 3. In Study 2, however, a significant effect of culture was found on happiness (but not on
affect). In this case, marginal immigrants from collectivistic and individualistic heritage cultures both benefited from a higher
happiness when their need for uniqueness was higher; however, the effects were slightly stronger for immigrants whose heritage
culture was collectivistic.

Marginalization and uniqueness 759

Discussion

Study 1 and Study 2 examined whether marginalization and uniqueness predicted the

happiness, affect, and self-esteem of university students; Study 3 attempted to extend their
scope by examining the self-esteem and the life satisfaction of youths recruited in the

community. In Study 3, marginal immigrants who had a higher need for uniqueness

reported significantly higher life satisfaction and marginally higher self-esteem, but did not

predict the life satisfaction or the self-esteem of non-marginal immigrants. Furthermore,

the self-esteem scores of marginal and non-marginal immigrants did not differ

significantly; however, lower life satisfaction scores were found among marginal (vs.

non-marginal) immigrants. This was the only instance in which we found a difference

between the adjustment of the marginal and non-marginal immigrants across the three
studies. This finding might suggest that, although our main hypothesis was replicated in a

community sample, the association between adjustment and marginalization might

present variations across different groups of immigrants.

On the whole, Study 3 is in line with Study 1 and Study 2; marginal immigrants are

better adjusted when they have a high need for uniqueness.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Although marginalization is often presented as the strategy associated with the worst

adjustment for immigrants, research has not provided a clear understanding of how

marginalization and adjustment are related. We propose that having a high need for

uniqueness may allow well-adjusted marginal immigrants to overcome some of the

difficulties associated with dual cultural group membership.

In three studies, a consistent pattern of results emerged that supported our main
assertion: Marginal immigrants who reported a high need for uniqueness experienced

significantly higher self-esteem (Study 1), marginally higher self-esteem (Study 3), better

affect (Study 2), marginally higher happiness (Study 2), and higher life satisfaction (Study

3) than those reporting a low need for uniqueness; whereas this pattern did not exist for

non-marginal immigrants. These trends held for a range of adjustment measures and were

found both among university students and a community sample. In other words, having a

high need for individuality may allow marginal immigrants to respond positively to the

feeling of being marginal.

Figure 5. The need for uniqueness predicts the life satisfaction of marginal immigrants.

760 R�egine Debrosse et al.

The results of all three studies suggest that marginal immigrants are able to experience

better adjustment when they need to feel unique as individuals. Uniqueness could

partially explain why some marginal immigrants are better adjusted than others. Adding to

previous work suggesting that marginal immigrants might be isolated and might not
benefit from the social networks of their cultural groups (Berry, 1990), the present studies

suggest that the extent to which one needs to experience uniqueness might also have a

critical impact on the adjustment of marginal immigrants.

Perhaps surprisingly, considering the work on acculturation suggesting that marginal

immigrants should be the least adjusted, we only found a difference between the

adjustment of marginal and non-marginal immigrants when assessing their life satisfac-

tion, in Study 3. This trend would be contrary to what many researchers have found;

however, similar to what we found and as noted earlier, several studies also found no
differences. Although we cannot fully explain these results in the present paper, we

believe that they underline the necessity to deepen the understanding on marginalization,

notably by examining the potential moderators that can explain when marginal

immigrants are well or not so well adjusted.

On marginalization, individuality, and Western mainstream cultures

Certain cultures seem to place a higher value on distinctiveness and individuality than
other cultures. For instance, some research suggests that the uniqueness of individuals is

valued more highly in Western cultures than in Eastern cultures (Kim & Markus, 1999).

Perhaps paradoxically, certain marginal immigrants who have a high need for uniqueness

might be inadvertently adhering to the values and enacting behaviours typical of their

Western mainstream cultures (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004).

Are Western marginal immigrants who experience a high need for uniqueness truly

distant from their mainstream culture? Past research suggest that individuals who identify

highly with a North American culture are more likely to embrace individualism than low
identifiers (McAuliffe, Jetten, Hornsey, & Hogg, 2003). Thus, one could expect that

marginal immigrants are not particularly likely to embrace individualism, or at least not

more than most people. Yet, one could expect that living in a Western culture might allow

marginal immigrants who endorse individualistic values such as uniqueness to feel

particularly well adjusted, which could reconcile our findings with the work of Bhatia and

Ram (2001), who argued that one cannot use acculturation strategies to explain the

adjustment of immigrants without considering the mainstream societal context.

Would marginal immigrants who have a high need for uniqueness and live in an Eastern
mainstream culture also experience better adjustment? If the expression of the need for

distinctiveness in Eastern cultures has received less attention than it deserves, the work of

Becker et al. (2012) is one notable exception to this trend. Their data, which were

collected among 4,751 people in 21 cultures, indicated that the need for distinctiveness is

expressed differently but is as strong in collectivistic cultures as in individualistic cultures.

These findings underline the importance of exploring whether the need for uniqueness

also plays a role in the adjustment of marginal immigrants living in Eastern contexts.

Conceptualizing and assessing marginalization

Some researchers have underlined the issues inherent with using a fourfold scale to assess

acculturation strategies, especially when assessing marginalization (Rudmin, 2008). To

answer these concerns, many researchers have noted the importance of measuring

Marginalization and uniqueness 761

acculturation using two dimensions and crossing them to obtain four acculturation

strategies (Arends-T�oth & van de Vijver, 2006; Ryder et al., 2000), which is what we
decided to do in the present studies. One of the two common ways to derive acculturation

strategy is to use a scalar mid-point split, but it often results in unequal groups that can be
difficult to compare to each other (Pfafferott & Brown, 2006; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999)

and there is disagreement regarding how to interpret the neutral point (Arends-T�oth &
Van de Vijver, 2007).

Notably, for these reasons, many acculturation researchers use a median split (Berry &

Sabatier, 2010; Cemalcilar & Falbo, 2008; Zagefka, Gonz�alez, & Brown, 2011), which
facilitates comparisons across acculturation strategies (Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009).

Some researchers go as far as computing results using both techniques, but it was not

possible to perform such analyses with our studies, considering the small number of
participants/cell.

3
One of the limits associated with the median-split technique is that it

does not allow categories as ‘pure’ as those created using scalar mid-point splits: One

could argue that only the participants labelled as marginal using a scalar mid-point split are

truly marginal. As such, this technique makes the generalization of results more difficult,

and it is possible that using median splits prevented us from obtaining major differences

on outcome variables across strategies.

While we acknowledge that the use of the median split has its limits, there is no ideal

technique (Berry & Sabatier, 2010) and no consensus on the one that should be chosen to
derive the four acculturation strategies. Finally, and although the use of the median-split

technique might have not allowed to find ‘pure’ marginal immigrants, we labelled

marginal immigrants those that had the weakest ties to their groups and that thus

displayed the most a tendency to be marginal – a tendency which interacted with the need
for uniqueness to significantly predict their adjustment. As such, using median split

allowed us to inform research on immigrants who tend to be the most detached from their

heritage and host cultures.

Conclusive remarks: Intervening with marginal immigrants

The present paper identifies a factor that may buffer marginal immigrants from the

negative effects of marginalization on self-esteem, life satisfaction, and affect. However, it

presents several limitations. Notably, the use of a single-item measure to assess the need

for uniqueness in Study 3, and of different items to measure marginalization is Study 3,

makes it difficult to compare the findings of Study 3 to the findings of Study 1 and Study 2.

Furthermore, although the community sample of Study 3 enriches the scope of the
present paper, one should take into account its small size when interpreting the results.

Also, despite the fact that all five regressions showed a similar pattern aligned with our

hypothesis, two of them produced marginally significant results. As mentioned earlier, the

use of median split and the impossibility of computing scalar mid-point split as a

comparative may undermine the potential to generalize from the findings. Finally,

although possessing a high need for uniqueness was associated with the adjustment of

marginal immigrants, we have not assessed the influence of experiencing the fulfilment of

the need for uniqueness (i.e., actually feeling unique), which we hope will be addressed in
future studies.

3
There were <10 participants per study who would have been labelled marginal when using the scalar mid-point split technique

to compute acculturation strategies. Unfortunately, for this practical reason, we could not compare the use of the median-split
technique with the use of the scalar mid-point split technique.

762 R�egine Debrosse et al.

Despite these limitations, these studies allow us to identify the need for uniqueness as

an individual difference that seems to play a role in the adjustment of marginal immigrants.

It is our hope that these results provide a first step to help these at-risk marginal

immigrants who are low on the need for uniqueness to cope with the lack of group
identity they feel. For instance, future studies may test interventions designed to improve

the adjustment of marginal immigrants by helping them foster a high need for uniqueness.

Interventions could emphasize the advantages that stem from developing a unique

worldview or explain how to use the distance one feels from both cultures to adopt a

special perspective. We hope that such interventions, by helping to reconcile immigrants

low on the need for uniqueness with their marginalized position, might increase their

adjustment and well-being.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a SSHRC Armand-Bombardier Fellowship (number 766-2009-

1180), a FQRSC Master’s Fellowship (number 131913) and a SSHRC Vanier Fellowship

(number 770-2011-0018) that were awarded to the first author, as well as by a grant from

SSHRC (number 820-2009-0039) that was awarded to the second author.

References

Abouguendia, M., & Noels, K. A. (2001). General and acculturation-related daily hassles and

psychological adjustment in first- and second-generation South Asian immigrants to Canada.

International Journal of Psychology, 36, 163–173. doi:10.1177/0022022104268386
Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2007). Acculturation, Christian religiosity, and psychological and marital well-

being among the European wives of Arabs in Israel. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10, 171–
190. doi:10.1080/13694670500504901

Arends-T�oth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Assessment of psychological acculturation. In D. L.
Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 142–
160). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Arends-T�oth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of
measurement methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1462–1488. doi:10.1111/
j.1559-1816.2007.00222.x

Becker, M., Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Brown, R., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M., . . . Yamakoglu, N.
(2012). Culture and the distinctiveness motive: Constructing identity in individualistic and

collectivistic contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 833–855.
doi:10.1037/a0026853

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item

measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184. doi:10.1509/
jmkr.44.2.175

Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second

generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 34, 191–207. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.11.007
Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001). Rethinking ‘acculturation’ in relation to diasporic cultures and

postcolonial identities. Human Development, 44, 1–18. doi:10.1159/000057036
Bhui, K., Lawrence, A., Klineberg, E., Woodley-Jones, D., Taylor, S., Stansfeld, S., . . . Booy, R. (2005).

Acculturation and health status among African-Caribbean, Bangladeshi and White British

adolescents: Validation and findings from the RELACHS study. Social Psychiatry and

Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40, 259–266. doi:10.1007/s00127-005-0890-5

Marginalization and uniqueness 763

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022104268386

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13694670500504901

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00222.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00222.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026853

http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/ jmkr.44.2.175

http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/ jmkr.44.2.175

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.11.007

http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000057036

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00127-005-0890-5

Boski, P. (2008). Five meanings of integration in acculturation research. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 32, 142–153. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.005
Bourhis, R. Y., Barrette, G., El-Geledi, S., & Schmidt, R. (2009). Acculturation orientations and social

relations between immigrant and host community members in California. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 40, 443–467. doi:10.1177/0022022108330988
Bourhis, R. Y., Mo€ıse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Sen�ecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation

model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386.
doi:10.1080/002075997400629

Bourhis, R. Y., Montaruli, E., El-Geledi, S., Harvey, S. P., & Barrette, G. (2010). Acculturation in

multiple host community settings. The Journal of Social Issues, 66, 780–802. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-4560.2010.01675.x

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001
Cemalcilar, Z., & Falbo, T. (2008). A longitudinal study of the adaptation of international students in

the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 799–804. doi:10.1177/
0022022108323787

Cheng, C. Y., & Lee, F. (2009). Multiracial identity integration: Perceptions of conflict and distance

among multiracial individuals. The Journal of Social Issues, 65, 51–68. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4560.2008.01587.x

Choi, J. W., Miller, A., & Wilbur, J. E. (2009). Acculturation and depressive symptoms in Korea

immigrant women. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 11, 13–19. doi:10.1007/s10903-
007-9080-8

Clifton, J. (2012). 150 Million adults worldwide would migrate to the U.S. Retrieved from Gallup

website: http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-million-adults-worldwide-migrate.aspx

de la Sablonni�ere, R., Auger, E., Taylor, D. M., Crush, J., & McDonald, D. (2012). Social change in
South Africa: A historical approach to relative deprivation. British Journal of Social Psychology,

52, 1–23. doi:10.1111/bjso.12003
de la Sablonni�ere, R., Debrosse, R., & Benoit, S. (2010). Comparing three identity integration

conceptualizations: A study among Quebec immigrants. Les Cahiers Internationaux de

Psychologie Sociale, 88, 663–682. doi:10.3917/cips.088.0661
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national

index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34
Diener,E., Emmons, R. A.,Larsen, R.J., &Griffin, S.(1985). The satisfaction withlife scale. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of

progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American

Psychologist, 55, 647–654. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.647
Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty-second index of

happiness and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20, 355–381. doi:10.1007/
BF00302333

Fosados, R., McClain, A., Ritt-Olson, A., Sussman, S., Soto, D., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., & Unger, J. B.

(2007). The influence of acculturation on drug and alcohol use in a sample of adolescents.

Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2990–3004. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.015
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human

flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and

Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1038/466029a
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong

with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248–264.
doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_2

764 R�egine Debrosse et al.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022108330988

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01675.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01675.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022108323787

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022108323787

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01587.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01587.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10903-007-9080-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10903-007-9080-8

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-million-adults-worldwide-migrate.aspx

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12003

http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/cips.088.0661

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.647

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00302333

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00302333

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/466029a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_2

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-

analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 862–879. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.86.6.862

Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785–800. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.77.4.785

Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework

for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 43, 63–113. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43002-6
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness through

consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1861–1883. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1997.tb01629.x

Lynn, M., & Snyder, C. R. (2002). Uniqueness seeking. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook

of positive psychology (pp. 395–411). Oxford, UK: University Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does

happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.131.6.803

McAuliffe, B. J., Jetten, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Individualist and collectivist norms:

When it’s ok to go your own way. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 57–70.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.129

Nakash, O., Nagar, M., Shoshani, A., Zubida, H., & Harper, R. A. (2012). The effect of acculturation

and discrimination on mental health symptoms and risk behaviors among adolescent migrants in

Israel. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 228–238. doi:10.1037/
a0027659

Nigbur, D., Brown, R., Cameron, L., Hossain, R., Landau, A., Le Touze, D., . . . Watters, C. (2008).
Acculturation, well-being and classroom behaviour among white British and British Asian

primary-school children in the south-east of England: Validating a child-friendly measure of

acculturation attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 493–504.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.03.001

Pfafferott, I., & Brown, R. (2006). Acculturation preferences of majority and minority adolescents in

Germany in the context of society and family. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

30, 703–717. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.005
Pham, T. B., & Harris, R. J. (2001). Acculturation strategies among Vietnamese-Americans.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 279–300. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(01)
00004-9

Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why do people need self-

esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 435–468. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.130.3.435

Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct

validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161. doi:10.1177/0146167201272002
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Rudmin, F. (2008). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative

stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 106–123. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.
2008.12.001

Ryder, A., Alden, L., & Paulhus, D. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-

to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49–65. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.49
Sheldon, K. M., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2002). Psychological need-satisfaction and subjective well-

being within social groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 25–38. doi:10.1348/
014466602165036

Marginalization and uniqueness 765

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.862

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.862

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43002-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01629.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01629.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.129

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027659

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027659

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.03.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00004-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00004-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.435

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.435

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.49

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466602165036

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466602165036

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events?

Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,

325–339. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325
Snyder, C., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York, NY:

Plenum.

Stroink, M. L., & Lalonde, R. N. (2009). Bicultural identity conflict in second-generation Asian

Canadians. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 44–65. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.1.44-65
Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies and integrative complexity

the cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 105–139.
doi:10.1177/0022022108326279

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel &

W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
United Nations, Economic and Social Council (2013). New trends in migration: Demographic

aspects (document No. E/CN.9/2013/3). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/

view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.9/2013/3

van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority

members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995–
1013. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<995:AID-EJSP908>3.0.CO;2-8

Vignoles, V. L., Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, G. M. (2000). The distinctiveness principle: Identity,

meaning, and the bounds of cultural relativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4,

337–354. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0404_4
Virta, E., Sam, D. L., & Westin, C. (2004). Adolescents with Turkish background in Norway and

Sweden: A comparative study of their psychological adaptation. Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 45, 15–25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00374.x
Ward, C., & Rana-Deuba, A. (1999). Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 30, 422–442. doi:10.1177/0022022199030004003
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Zagefka, H., Gonz�alez, R., & Brown, R. (2011). How minority members’ perceptions of majority

members’ acculturation preferences shape minority members’ own acculturation preferences:

Evidence from Chile. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 216–233. doi:10.1348/
014466610X512211

Received 16 July 2014; revised version received 24 March 2015

766 R�egine Debrosse et al.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325

http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.1.44-65

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022108326279

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.9/2013/3

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.9/2013/3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6%3c995:AID-EJSP908%3e3.0.CO;2-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0404_4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00374.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030004003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466610X512211

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466610X512211

Your posts in these forums offer you a low-stakes chance to practice skills and try out ideas related to the major assignments for this course. (For more info, see “Practice Assignments” in the syllabus.) Your posts are rated on a scale from 1 to 5, and we grade them as follows:
4 to 5 Expected level	3 Moving toward expected level	1 to 2 Please seek support from your instructor, TA, or the Centre for Academic Communication .
Content Comprehension (Understanding of the content being discussed)	The student understands the assignment (or asks questions in order to understand the assignment). Information and knowledge presented in the post are accurate. The student includes accurate explanations, reasons, and/or evidence as per assignment expectations.	The ideas are reasonably clear and the student shows some understanding of expectations but probably needed to ask for further clarification. The contributions show some attempt at completing the assignment. The explanations are somewhat accurate. Ideas are correct but might not be concise.	The student is struggling to understand the assignment expectations. The student has difficulty explaining themselves. The ideas are inaccurate and/or unnecessarily difficult to comprehend.
Reasoning (Ability to follow guidelines and make informed decisions)	The student has a clear idea of the assignment expectations and applies their knowledge in a thoughtful manner. For example, the student might offer ask thoughtful responses or raise a helpful question when more explanation is needed. The organization of the post makes it easy to follow the student’s ideas. The student is able to critically assess the topic and is able to distinguish fact from opinion. The student supports assertions with evidence.	The student seems to rely too much on what others have done (but does not plagiarize). For example, their work may include repetitive questions or comments. The student may overuse opinion or not have a clear idea of when to support an assertion or claim. The organization is uneven or slightly confused.	Opinions may be stated as facts. The organization is lacking – the reader finds it hard to understand which idea is important. The student’s post jumps randomly between topics.
Interaction with others	The student initiates dialogue thoughtfully. Interactions are appropriate and supportive. Criticism is offered constructively. The student encourages a variety of points of view.	The student interacts rarely if at all.	There is no interaction at all. If there is interaction, it’s not related to the topic. The student attacks or is dismissive of ideas posted by others.
Written expression or language conventions	The student uses language that others in the group/discussion will understand. The student employs well-chosen vocabulary. The word order/sentence structure facilitates reading. The student defines or clearly explains terms and concepts that might be unfamiliar to others; the student knows when such explanations are necessary.	The vocabulary and sentence structures are not equally understandable to other members in the discussion or they make the post somewhat difficult to understand. The post is wordy. There are simply too many extraneous words, which makes the post difficult to read.	The student uses language that others in the group are unlikely to understand. The ideas are difficult to follow. The language choices are vague, or unnecessary jargon may be used.
Mechanics	There are few, if any, errors in written expression (e.g. commas are where they are supposed to be; each sentence has a capital and a period and so on).	There are misspellings and grammatical errors that impede reading comprehension.	The frequency of misspellings and grammatical errors makes the post difficult to understand.