Content uploaded by Maja Katharina Schachner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maja Katharina Schachner on May 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cultural Diversity Climate and Psychological Adjustment at
School—Equality and Inclusion Versus Cultural Pluralism
Maja K. Schachner
Friedrich Schiller University Jena and Tilburg University
Peter Noack
Friedrich Schiller University Jena
Fons J. R. Van de Vijver
Tilburg University and North-West University and
University of Queensland
Katharina Eckstein
Friedrich Schiller University Jena
The present study is concerned with cultural diversity climate at school and how it relates to acculturation ori-
entations and psychological school adjustment of early adolescent immigrants. Specifically, the distinct role of
two types of diversity policy is investigated, namely (a) fostering equality and inclusion and (b) acknowledg-
ing cultural pluralism. Longitudinal multilevel analyses based on 386 early adolescent immigrant students
(M
age
=10.49 years) in 44 ethnically heterogeneous classrooms in Germany revealed that the manifestations of
both types of policies promote psychological school adjustment (i.e., better well-being and fewer psychological
and behavioral problems) at the individual level. However, they differ in their effects on acculturation orienta-
tions. At the classroom level, equality and inclusion promote assimilation. Implications for research and
educational practice are discussed.
Cultural diversity in education is no longer just an
issue in traditional immigrant countries like the
United States, Canada, or Australia, or former colo-
nizing countries like the United Kingdom, France,
or the Netherlands. In recent years, it also concerns
many other European countries, such as Germany,
which have received large numbers of labor
migrants and political refugees since the 1960s. Yet,
schools are often ill-prepared and overwhelmed by
the cultural diversity of their student population.
The focus has mainly been on mainstream language
acquisition and educational outcomes of immigrant
students, whereas little attention has been paid to
intercultural adjustment processes. Especially out-
side the Anglo-Saxon world, it is only in recent
years that educators and policymakers become
aware of this issue (Dietz, 2007).
This is particularly dramatic as immigrant stu-
dents not only lag behind their mainstream peers in
educational achievement in most countries (Organi-
sation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
2012) but often also experience mental health and
behavioral problems that are manifested in and
affect their school life (e.g., Frankenberg, Kupper,
Wagner, & Bongard, 2013). This pattern has not only
been found in first-generation immigrants but also
in later generations. The opposite pattern, known as
the immigrant paradox, where first-generation
immigrant students show better adjustment than
their mainstream peers and later immigrant genera-
tions, has mainly been confirmed for particular
immigrant groups in North America (Garc
ıa Coll
et al., 2012). However, a recent meta-analysis sug-
gests that this paradox is less common in Europe
and that its prevalence is moderated by the integra-
tion policies and multicultural climate in a particular
country (Dimitrova, Chasiotis, & Van de Vijver,
2016). In this study, we want to investigate how the
perceived school context and way schools deal with
cultural diversity are related to acculturation and
psychological school adjustment (i.e., better general
and school-related well-being and fewer general and
school-related behavioral and psychological prob-
lems) of adolescent immigrants.
This study was funded by the federal program “ProExzellenz”
of the Free State of Thuringia, which also provided a scholarship
to Maja K. Schachner at the Graduate School of Human Behavior
in Social and Economic Change at Friedrich Schiller University
Jena.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Maja Schachner, University of Potsdam, Inclusive Education,
Karl-Liebknecht-Str.24-25, 14476 Potsdam (OT Golm), Germany.
Electronic mail may be sent to maja.schachner@uni-potsdam.de.
©2016 The Authors
Child Development ©2016 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2016/8704-0018
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12536
Child Development, July/August 2016, Volume 87, Number 4, Pages 1175–1191
Schools are an important acculturative context
for adolescent immigrants (Horenczyk & Tatar,
2012; Motti-Stefanidi, Berry, Chryssochoou, Sam, &
Phinney, 2012). Their adjustment at school is a
major outcome of a successful acculturation pro-
cess, which facilitates long-term integration in soci-
ety (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). In
early adolescence, the role of school as an accultur-
ation agent and context may be particularly critical
as it is an important period for ethnic identity
development (Phinney, 1989). Also, the onset of
puberty and the transition from primary to sec-
ondary school can provide a risk for psychological
school adjustment problems (Eccles, Lord, & Roe-
ser, 1996). This risk may be heightened for immi-
grant students, who have to face many other
demands. A positive school climate can promote
adjustment (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-
D’Alessandro, 2013). Still, only very few studies
have investigated diversity-specific aspects of
school context and climate, and their impact on
immigrant students’school adjustment (for excep-
tions see Brand, Felner, Shim, Seitsinger, & Dumas,
2003; Brown & Chu, 2012; Haenni Hoti, Heinz-
mann, M€
uller, & Buholzer, 2015; Verkuyten &
Thijs, 2001).
Drawing on the literature in social and cross-
cultural psychology (e.g., Berry, 1997; Park & Judd,
2005), two main approaches of dealing with cul-
tural diversity have been identified, which also
form the basis of diversity policy in organizations
(Ely & Thomas, 2001). The first policy aims to
reduce the negative consequences of diversity by
preventing discrimination and fostering equality
and inclusion. The second policy promotes cultural
pluralism and views diversity as a resource. The
manifestation of these policies is also visible in the
school context (Hachfeld et al., 2011). Yet, there is
no empirical evidence on the effectiveness of these
policies in promoting school adjustment among
immigrant students. We want to address this gap
and study the relation between these two types of
diversity policy as manifested in the cultural diver-
sity climate at school, immigrant students’accul-
turation orientations, and their psychological
school adjustment. We consider the school as an
important developmental as well as acculturative
context for adolescent immigrants (Motti-Stefanidi
et al., 2012). In order to do so, we adopt an accul-
turation framework (Arends-T
oth & Van de Vijver,
2006), which assumes that effects on school adjust-
ment outcomes are mediated by adolescents’orien-
tation toward the ethnic and the mainstream
cultures.
School as a Developmental and Acculturative Context
Within the school context, much attention has
been dedicated to school climate, defined as the
experience of norms, goals, values, interpersonal
relationships, teaching and learning practices, and
organizational structures in everyday school life
(Eccles & Roeser, 2011). School climate has been
associated with a wide range of school adjustment
outcomes (for a review see Thapa et al., 2013). A
positive school climate, which promotes safety and
positive relationships among students and between
students and teachers, promotes students’well-
being and reduces psychological and behavioral
problems.
Immigrant students have to negotiate between
cultural, socioeconomic, and linguistic boundaries,
and adapt to a context that is usually characterized
by the cultural norms and practices of the main-
stream society (Horenczyk & Tatar, 2012). In addi-
tion to acculturation-related demands such as
language issues, they may be faced with discrimi-
nation at school and find it more difficult to adjust
to a new classroom and peer group and establish a
good working relationship with teachers (
€
Ozdemir
& Stattin, 2013). Also, their parents often can only
provide limited support in dealing with school-
related issues (Turney & Kao, 2009). It has therefore
been suggested that a positive school climate is
even more important for adolescents with an immi-
grant background (Haenni Hoti et al., 2015; Thapa
et al., 2013) and that it can buffer the negative
effects of perceived discrimination (
€
Ozdemir &
Stattin, 2013).
Yet, hardly any studies systematically look into
specific climate aspects that are related to a school’s
approach to cultural diversity (Horenczyk & Tatar,
2012). In addition, Brand et al. (2003) found that
compared to more established dimensions of school
climate, such as student–teacher relations and qual-
ity of instruction, the cultural diversity climate
showed much greater variance between schools.
This suggests that this area is also not systemati-
cally targeted in school development activities.
Cultural Diversity in the School Context
Approaches to ethnic diversity in schools seem
to reflect the two types of policies that have been
identified in organizations, namely fostering equal-
ity and inclusion and acknowledging and promot-
ing cultural pluralism (Hachfeld et al., 2011). Often,
the provision of equality and inclusion (and the
prevention of discrimination) is seen as a necessary
1176 Schachner, Noack, Van de Vijver, and Eckstein
but insufficient condition for the promotion of cul-
tural pluralism. Besides the manifestation of these
two policies in the school climate, structural aspects
of culturally diverse schools, such as their ethnic
composition, may play a role in explaining the
acculturation and school adjustment of immigrant
students.
Fostering Equality and Inclusion
Drawing on social psychological research on inter-
group contact as a means to reduce prejudice
(Allport, 1954; Park & Judd, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006), policies fostering equality and inclusion
encourage contact, cooperation and common goals
between members of diverse groups, and equal treat-
ment of all groups. In the school context, equality and
inclusion can be reflected in students from different
ethnic groups seeking contact (e.g., during break
time, in seating arrangements), working together and
helping each other with course work or homework,
and treating each other equally and without discrimi-
nation. Teachers endorsing equality and inclusion are
expected to treat all students equally and encourage
contact and collaboration between diverse students
(e.g., through allocating students to diverse work
groups, employing cooperative learning techniques,
and encouraging a mixed seating arrangement). Stud-
ies measuring perceived norms about equality and
inclusion between students from different ethnic
groups not only investigated and confirmed their
positive effect on interethnic relations (e.g., Molina &
Wittig, 2006; Schachner, Brenick, Noack, Van de
Vijver, & Heizmann, 2015), but there is also some evi-
dence for a positive effect on school adjustment
(Brand et al., 2003).
A general emphasis on fairness and justice at
school has been found to buffer the negative effects
of individually perceived discrimination and victim-
ization on school adjustment (Morin, Ma€
ıano,
Marsh, Nagengast, & Janosz, 2013;
€
Ozdemir & Stat-
tin, 2013). Individual experiences of inequality and
exclusion can be detrimental for school adjustment
(Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Horenczyk & Tatar, 2012).
They have been associated with a decline in aca-
demic self-concept and an increase in psychological
problems (
€
Ozdemir & Stattin, 2013; Wong, Eccles,
& Sameroff, 2003) and delinquent behavior (Park,
Schwartz, Lee, Kim, & Rodriguez, 2013) among
ethnic minority students. Garc
ıa Coll et al. (1996)
suggest that perceived discrimination and exclusion
are the most important factors (negatively) affect-
ing developmental outcomes in ethnic minority
students.
Valuing Cultural Pluralism
Valuing pluralism goes beyond the prevention of
negative consequences of cultural diversity in see-
ing it as an asset and something that can enrich the
learning experience at school. This approach is rela-
tively new in educational settings (Dietz, 2007). It
can mean not only learning about topics related to
cultural pluralism but also creating a climate that
welcomes and appreciates cultural diversity. This
includes learning about the history and current situ-
ation of different minority groups in the main-
stream society, learning about culture and
traditions in students’countries of origin, and
learning about intercultural relations. When cultural
diversity is valued, students belonging to an ethnic
minority may also perceive a greater interest in
their cultural background by fellow students and
teachers.
Previous studies confirmed that a curriculum
that is meaningful to students’cultural background
can promote academic motivation and support
school belonging (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000)
and that students belonging to an ethnic minority
show greater interest in course content and materi-
als involving underrepresented groups (Graham &
Taylor, 2002). Intercultural education (i.e., learning
about ethnic minorities and interethnic relations as
part of the curriculum) has been associated with
lower levels of racial bias (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2001)
and better psychological adjustment (general life
satisfaction and self-efficacy) of immigrant students
(Haenni Hoti et al., 2015). Similarly, teachers’self-
reports of valuing and teaching about cultural
diversity were associated with lower levels of per-
ceived discrimination and a stronger ethnic identity
among immigrant and ethnic minority students
(Brown & Chu, 2012).
Structural Aspects of Multicultural Schools
Structural aspects of classes or schools, such as
the proportion and diversity of immigrants or the
school track, can also affect psychological school
adjustment. A high share of immigrants in the class-
room is usually associated with fewer opportunities
for contact with mainstream students. In addition,
students have been found to perceive more stereo-
types and discrimination in these schools (Brenick,
Titzmann, Michel, & Silbereisen, 2012). Both can
contribute to a lower mainstream orientation and
lead to less optimal psychological outcomes (Wong
et al., 2003). Yet, if the immigrant group is very
diverse (i.e., representing many different countries
School Diversity Climate and Adjustment 1177
of origin), the mainstream culture may provide a
common ground for students from different ethnic
groups. This may be associated with a stronger
mainstream orientation among immigrant students.
In a school system with different, performance-
based tracks like in Germany, students on low-
performance tracks are more at risk of developing
less positive school-related attitudes and delinquent
behavior patterns (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). In Ger-
many, the school track is heavily confounded with
socioeconomic status and the proportion of immi-
grants, which may exacerbate the risk at lower track
schools.
Acculturation Orientations as Mediators Between
Context and Adjustment
Acculturation orientations play a central role in
immigrants’acculturation process, mediating the
effects of acculturative contexts on adjustment out-
comes (Arends-T
oth & Van de Vijver, 2006; Berry,
1997; Ward, 2001). We therefore expect effects of
the school context on adolescent immigrants’
school adjustment to be mediated by their orienta-
tions toward ethnic and mainstream cultures.
These orientations also include ethnic and main-
stream identity components (Liebkind, 2006). The
orientation toward the mainstream culture, defined
here as the German national culture, has mostly
been associated with sociocultural outcomes in the
domain of the mainstream culture, such as school
performance and friendships with mainstream
members. The orientation toward the ethnic cul-
ture, defined here as the culture of the immigrant’s
country of origin, helps to maintain relationships
with ethnic peers and the ethnic or immigrant
community, which are an important source of
emotional support (Ward, 2001). A strong ethnic
orientation can also buffer experiences of discrimi-
nation (Wong et al., 2003).
The integration of ethnic and mainstream cul-
tures with strong orientations toward both therefore
seems to be the most effective acculturation strategy
(Nguyen & Benet-Mart
ınez, 2013). A strong orienta-
tion toward only one of the cultures (i.e., assimila-
tion to the mainstream culture or separation into
the ethnic community; Berry, 1997) has been associ-
ated with less positive outcomes among adolescent
immigrants (Berry et al., 2006). We expect that the
effect of a positive diversity climate on immigrant
students’school adjustment (e.g., Brand et al., 2003)
is mediated by a stronger orientation toward both
cultures. At the classroom level, we expect that the
mainstream culture is less salient when the propor-
tion of immigrant students is high, resulting in a
stronger ethnic and weaker mainstream orientation.
However, if the immigrant group is very diverse,
the mainstream culture may be more salient and
provide the common ground, resulting in the oppo-
site pattern.
Studying School Context and Adjustment in Early
Adolescence
Early adolescence is an important developmental
period and provides an interesting time to investi-
gate school climate effects on immigrant students’
acculturation orientations and school adjustment.
With increasing independence from parents and the
family as a primary socialization context, the
importance of other contexts, such as the school,
increases (Eccles et al., 1996). Early adolescence is
also a critical period in terms of ethnic identity
development, where adolescent immigrants have to
negotiate their identity between two cultures (Phin-
ney, 1989). Finally, the onset of puberty comes with
many physical and emotional changes, which may
affect psychological adjustment and well-being
(Eccles et al., 1996).
The transition from primary to secondary school
comes with additional changes and challenges
(Eccles & Roeser, 2011). It usually implies a new
school with new teachers and new classmates.
Additionally, academic workload increases and the
setting is more institutional and requires more inde-
pendence of students at secondary school compared
to primary school. Such a setting often clashes with
developmental needs in early adolescence and can
increase the likelihood of psychological problems
and disengagement from school. Especially for
immigrant students, integrating in the new context
may be difficult. Perceptions of discrimination may
be more salient in the beginning, when students
and teachers do not know each other yet, language
issues may still exist after a short period of primary
schooling, and immigrant parents may be less able
to assist their children in finding their way at the
new school (Turney & Kao, 2009).
The Present Study
The present study investigates the manifestation
of two types of diversity policies (namely fostering
equality and inclusion vs. valuing cultural plural-
ism) and the ethnic composition of the classroom,
which are related to acculturation orientations and
school adjustment among early adolescent immi-
grants. Specifically, we wanted to find out not only
1178 Schachner, Noack, Van de Vijver, and Eckstein
the relative effects of both types of policies on
school adjustment outcomes of immigrant students,
but also the mechanisms by which they work.
Although measures tapping into both types of poli-
cies have been used in previous research, studies
have usually either focused on one of them (e.g.,
Brown & Chu, 2012; Molina & Wittig, 2006) or
measured a combination of the two (Brand et al.,
2003), which does not allow conclusions about their
unique effects.
In order to study changes over the course of stu-
dents’1st year at secondary school, a longitudinal
framework with two measurement points is applied,
with Time 1 (T1) in the first 3 months at secondary
school and Time 2 (T2) 1 year later. It has been
highlighted that school or classroom climate effects
should not only be investigated at individual but
also at aggregate level (e.g., Marsh et al., 2012).
First, the climate is a shared perception of context
and should therefore also be investigated at this
level. Second, the relation between antecedents and
outcomes may differ between the individual and
aggregate levels. We therefore apply a multilevel
framework and model the relations both at individ-
ual and classroom levels, thereby accommodating
structural variables, like the proportion and diver-
sity of immigrant students, which are intrinsically at
a higher level of analysis. We have chosen the class-
room level as the higher level, as students in this
age group in Germany usually spend their entire
school day within their classroom community. Their
experiences at school therefore mainly reflect what
they experience in their classroom. Drawing on the
research outlined earlier, we will test the conceptual
model outlined in Figure 1. In particular, we expect
the following relations between variables:
Hypothesis 1: The (perceived) manifestation of
both types of diversity policies (fostering equality
and inclusion vs. acknowledging and promoting
cultural pluralism) in the classroom climate at T1
improves immigrant students’psychological school
adjustment at T2 at the individual (Hypothesis 1a)
and the classroom levels (Hypothesis 1b).
Hypothesis 2: The (perceived) manifestation of
both types of diversity policies in the classroom cli-
mate at T1 is associated with a stronger orientation
toward mainstream and ethnic cultures at T2 at the
individual (Hypothesis 2a) and the classroom levels
(Hypothesis 2b). The stronger orientation toward
both cultures partly mediates the effects specified in
Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 3: At the classroom level, a higher
proportion of immigrants at T1 is associated with a
weaker mainstream orientation, a stronger ethnic
orientation, and lower levels of adjustment at T2.
A more diverse immigrant group at T1 is associated
with a stronger mainstream orientation and better
adjustment at T2.
Cultural Pluralism
Climate T1
Ethnic
Orientation T2
Psych. School
Adjustment T2
Psych. School
Adjustment T1
Mainstream
Orientation T2
Equality & Incl.
Climate T1
Cultural Pluralism
Climate T1
Proportion of
Immigrants
L1
L2
Ethnic
Orientation T2
Diversity of
Immigran ts
Equality & Incl.
Climate T1
Mainstream
Orientation T2
+
(+)
+
+
+
(+)
+
+
+
Psych. School
Adjustment T2
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
-
Figure 1. Conceptual model at the individual and the classroom levels.
Note. T1 =Time 1; T2 =Time 2; L1 =individual level; L2 =classroom level.
School Diversity Climate and Adjustment 1179
Method
Participants and Procedure
The sample comprised 396 students with an
immigrant background in Germany. The average
age at T1 was 10.49 years (SD =0.67), 54% were
female. Students were classified as having an
immigrant background when at least one parent
came from another country. The majority (93%)
were born in Germany, mostly representing the
second generation of immigrants (53%), followed
by those with one German and one immigrant
parent (19%), those with one immigrant parent
born in Germany and one abroad (also called
generation 2.5; 14%), those representing the third
generation of immigrants (2%), and a few cases
where the birth place of one of the parents was
unknown (3%). Those participants who were not
born in Germany (7%) had migrated at a very
young age (M=3.42 years, SD =2.42). Students
represented 55 countries of origin, with the biggest
group being from Turkey (38%), followed by Italy
(9%) and Croatia (5%).
Data were collected as part of a larger study on
acculturation and intergroup relations, which tar-
geted multiethnic secondary schools in urban areas
in southwest Germany. To have a diverse sample,
students were recruited in 54 classrooms at 21 sec-
ondary schools representing the three main sec-
ondary school tracks (streams) in the German
school system. Not only is placement into tracks
based on students’performance in primary school,
but tracks also reflect differences in students’
socioeconomic status and vary in the proportion
and diversity of immigrant students. In our sample,
23% of students attended a low vocational and 46%
a medium vocational track, which allows an
apprenticeship after graduation. A further 31%
attended the high academic track, which allows
university entry. Schools were promised feedback
about their diversity climate for an internal evalua-
tion as a reward for participation, resulting in a
participation rate of 87% at T1.
The questionnaire was administered during class
and in German, which is the language of instruc-
tion. Participation was subject to students’consent
and permission from school authorities and parents.
Students were assessed in the first trimester at sec-
ondary school and again 1 year later. In order to
match questionnaires of the same student com-
pleted at T1 and T2, students were asked to gener-
ate an individual code. After some data loss due to
students’absence at the assessment day, some erro-
neous codes, and some incomplete questionnaires
(with more than 20% missing values on the vari-
ables of interest), 69% of T1 data could be matched
with T2 data (N=396).
Measures
Where possible, we chose measures that had
previously been used with early adolescent immi-
grants. Where no suitable or adaptable measure
was found, we developed our own measures. Mea-
sures not originally available in German were trans-
lated using a translation–back-translation method
(Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). The term foreigner
(“Ausl€
ander”) was used in the questionnaire to
refer to students with an immigrant background as
it is still commonly used in Germany and also
revealed to be best understood by early adolescents.
All measures were pretested and then piloted with
51 early adolescent immigrant students. Measures
are listed in the order they occur in the conceptual
model (see Figure 1). Unless stated differently,
responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale from
1=no, that’s not right to 5 =yes, that’s right.
Equality and Inclusion Climate
The perceived equality and inclusion climate was
measured as descriptive norms about intergroup
contact (Allport, 1954) between immigrant and non-
immigrant students in the classroom. Adapted from
the School Interracial Climate Scale (Green, Adams,
& Turner, 1988; Molina & Wittig, 2006), items
assessed the perceived contact norms of both teach-
ers and students. The scale comprised five subscales:
(a) perceived unequal treatment by teachers (six
items; e.g., “German children can take more liberties
in front of the teacher than foreign children.”), (b)
perceived support for contact and cooperation by
teachers (eight items; e.g., “Our teachers want Ger-
man and foreign children to help each other with
course work.”), (c) perceived unequal treatment by
students (six items; e.g., “In my classroom, foreign
children are often teased by the other children.”),
(d) perceived support for contact by students (eight
items; e.g., “German and foreign children like to sit
next to each other in my classroom.”), and (e) per-
ceived support for cooperation by students (five
items; e.g., “The German and the foreign children in
my classroom stick together.”).
Cultural Pluralism Climate
Perceived cultural pluralism climate was mea-
sured using a combination of three scales, which
1180 Schachner, Noack, Van de Vijver, and Eckstein
had been developed for the purpose of this study:
(a) the perceived interest of fellow students and
teachers in children’s ethnic background (six items;
e.g., “Fellow students are interested in foreign chil-
dren’s countries of origin.”), (b) learning about
intercultural relations (three items; e.g., “At school
we are taught to respect each other even if we are
from different countries.”), and (c) learning about
multicultural topics (five items; e.g., “In class, we
often talk about festivities and traditions from other
countries.”).
Ethnic Composition of the Classroom
The ethnic composition of the classroom was
measured by (a) the actual share of immigrant chil-
dren and (b) the diversity of the immigrant group
using the Ethnolinguistic Fractionalization Index
(ELF; Alesina, Devleeschauwer, Easterly, Kurlat, &
Wacziarg, 2003). In order to create these measures,
we obtained the ethnicities for participating stu-
dents from their questionnaires and for nonpartici-
pating students from the schools. The ELF was
calculated as 1 PK
k1p2
k;where Kis the number of
ethnic groups and p
k
is the proportion of each eth-
nic group out of the total immigrant group. Values
range from 0 to 1, with values closer to 1 represent-
ing higher levels of heterogeneity. Using two mea-
sures of ethnic composition, we were able to
disentangle the effect of the proportion of immi-
grants and the effect of the heterogeneity of the
immigrant group.
Acculturation Orientations
These included measures on acculturation orien-
tations and (ethnic) identity, with mirrored items
for ethnic and mainstream cultures. Ethnic and
mainstream identities were measured with 10 items
by Phinney (1992, e.g., “I am happy that I am from
my other country.”). Items measuring acculturation
orientations were adapted from Arends-T
oth and
Van de Vijver (2007, e.g., “I like the traditions and
holidays in Germany.”). The scale was also
extended to tap into more aspects that are relevant
for adolescents, such as parenting practices and
family life, resulting in a total of 18 items.
Psychological School Adjustment
This included measures on general and school-
related well-being as well as two negative out-
comes, namely psychological and behavioral
problems.
Well-being. This included social self-concept, aca-
demic self-concept, and general life satisfaction.
Social self-concept was measured by seven items
from the peer relations subscale of the Self-Descrip-
tion Questionnaire for early adolescents by Marsh
(1988; e.g., “Most children like me.”). Academic
self-concept was measured with five items from a
scale by Sch€
one, Dickh€
auser, Spinath, and Stiens-
meier-Pelster (2002), which is frequently used in
Germany (e.g., “I am very smart.”). For general life
satisfaction, we used the Satisfaction With Life Scale
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) compris-
ing five items (e.g., “I am satisfied with my life.”)
and recently validated for adolescent immigrants
(Ponizovsky, Dimitrova, Schachner, & Van de
Schoot, 2012).
Psychological problems. A combination of five
items on depressive mood (“I feel lonely even with
other people.”) and five items on physiological
stress symptoms (e.g., “I feel tired.”) were used.
The items have been validated with adolescent
immigrants (Berry et al., 2006). Responses ranged
from 1 =almost never to 5 =very often.
Behavioral problems. Scales on delinquency (Mc
Carthy & Hoge, 1987) and disruptive behavior
(Jenkins, 1995) were used to measure behavioral
problems. The delinquency scale comprised six
items, asking adolescents how often a particular sit-
uation had occurred over the last 12 months (e.g.,
“How often did you get into a punch-up in the last
12 months?”), from 1 =never to 5 =once a month or
more. For disruptive behavior, we used a selection
of five items, which were considered appropriate
for the age group and context of our study. Stu-
dents were asked how often a particular situation
had occurred over the last 4 weeks (e.g., “How
often did you arrive late for class in the last
4 weeks?”), from 1 =never to 5 =very often.
Results
Analytic Approach
In order to test our hypotheses, we took several
steps in the analyses. First, we conducted some pre-
liminary analyses on our measures, addressing
issues of attrition and missing values, as well as the
reliability and factor structure of the scales across
the two time points. We then computed observed
scores for all scales that would go into the struc-
tural model at the individual level and also tested
for differences in these variables between T1 and
T2 to get an idea of changes over time. Finally, we
computed a two-level structural model to test the
School Diversity Climate and Adjustment 1181
paths outlined in the conceptual model at the indi-
vidual and the classroom levels. As our sample size
did not allow for a doubly latent model as recom-
mended by Marsh et al. (2012), we decided for a
“manifest measurement—latent aggregation
model,”which is recommended as the best alterna-
tive when there is considerable variation in the
number of Level 1 units per Level 2 unit (L€
udtke,
Marsh, Robitzsch & Trautwein, 2011). This means
that observed variables at the individual level are
used to compute latent aggregate measures using
the implicit latent group mean centering function in
MPlus (Muth
en & Muth
en, 2010). We also tested all
possible cross-level and within-level interactions
between predictors and mediators. The goal was to
check if effects of the cultural diversity climate and
acculturation orientations may be moderated by the
ethnic composition of the classroom and to check if
there are interactions between the two acculturation
orientations or aspects of the cultural diversity cli-
mate.
Preliminary Analyses
Psychometrics and Integration of Measures
In order to address the potential risk of attrition
effects, we tested for significant differences in scale
means between students only participating at T1
and students participating at both T1 and T2. We
did not find any significant differences, allowing us
to proceed with further analyses without correcting
for attrition effects. As there were only very few
missing values in the longitudinal sample (3%),
these were imputed at item level using the regres-
sion estimation function in SPSS. Reliabilities,
means, and standard deviations for each scale are
displayed in Table 1. At T2, internal consistencies
were adequate with most of them well above 0.80.
At T1, three scales revealed internal consistencies
around 0.60. Yet, all scales were later combined in
more conglomerate constructs as described below.
To establish measurement invariance across time,
confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on all
scales using AMOS (Arbuckle, 2010). Scalar invari-
ance was confirmed for all scales with an adequate
fit of the intercept invariance model (see
Appendix S1, for fit statistics).
In the next step, we combined individual scales
into composite measures using exploratory factor
analyses, which were used as the observed vari-
ables for our path model. As expected, measures on
perceived equality and inclusion climate could be
reduced to a single, positive factor, which explained
58% of the variance. Measures on perceived cultural
pluralism climate could also be reduced to a single
factor, which explained 71% of the variance. Fur-
thermore, an ethnic and a mainstream factor
emerged including the corresponding acculturation
orientation and identity, explaining 76% and 83% of
the variance, respectively. Measures of well-being,
psychological problems, and behavioral problems
formed three unifactorial constructs comprising
individual subscales as mentioned earlier and
explaining 66%, 82%, and 74% of the variance,
respectively. The three constructs were then further
merged into a single, second-order factor of psycho-
logical school adjustment, which explained 53% of
the variance of the initial three factors. Loadings on
the factors ranged from 0.53 to 0.91.
Repeated Measures Multivariate Analysis of Variance
In order to test for mean differences between T1
and T2 on the variables subsequently to be
included in the model, repeated measures multi-
variate analyses of covariance were computed with
sex and school track as between-subjects factors.
Results revealed significant changes between T1
and T2 on all variables except perceived cultural
pluralism climate. Perceptions of the equality and
inclusion climate got less positive, F(1, 392) =9.76,
p<.01, (partial) g
2
=.02, and psychological school
adjustment decreased, F(1, 392) =21.11, p<.001,
(partial) g
2
=.06, over students’1st year at sec-
ondary school. Differences in children’s accultura-
tion orientations suggest a trend toward separation
during their 1st year at secondary school, with a
decrease in mainstream orientation, F(1, 392) =5.57,
p<.05, (partial) g
2
=.01, and an increase in ethnic
orientation, F(1, 392) =14.21, p<.001, (partial)
g
2
=.04.
Regardless of time, boys reported a more nega-
tive equality and inclusion climate, F(1,
392) =12.01, p<.01, (partial) g
2
=.03, and a more
negative cultural pluralism climate, F(1, 392) =4.62,
p<.05, (partial) g
2
=.01, had a lower mainstream
orientation, F(1, 392) =7.44, p<.01, (partial)
g
2
=.02, and were less well adjusted, F(1,
392) =8.13, p<.01, (partial) g
2
=.02, than girls.
Students from lower tracks perceived a more posi-
tive cultural pluralism climate, F(2, 392) =3.25,
p<.05, (partial) g
2
=.02, but a more negative
equality and inclusion climate, F(2, 392) =9.23,
p<.001, (partial) g
2
=.05, than students from
higher tracks. Students from lower tracks were also
less oriented toward the mainstream culture, F(2,
392) =4.18, p<.01, (partial) g
2
=.02, and less well
1182 Schachner, Noack, Van de Vijver, and Eckstein
adjusted, F(2, 392) =6.62, p<.01, (partial) g
2
=.03.
There was a significant interaction between time
and sex, revealing that the decrease in mainstream
orientation between T1 and T2 was mainly driven
by girls, F(1, 392) =5.30, p<.05, (partial) g
2
=.01.
Generally, effect sizes suggest that both differences
within and between subjects are small, with time
differences in psychological adjustment reaching
medium size.
Longitudinal Multilevel Analyses
In order to test our hypotheses, we looked at the
relation between variables across the two time
points and at individual and classroom levels as
specified in our conceptual model (Figure 1). Before
doing this, we excluded data from classrooms rep-
resented only by a single student, leaving us with
386 cases in 44 classrooms. The remaining class-
rooms were represented by an average of nine stu-
dents, with one classroom including only two
students and the rest including between 3 and 20
students.
Intraclass correlations (ICCs) were then com-
puted on all measures that were based on individ-
ual self-reports (Table 2). The values suggest that
our measures of classroom climate are reliable at
the classroom level. Values are lower for students’
acculturation orientations and school adjustment.
However, as these measures refer to individual stu-
dent characteristics as opposed to the classroom
context, we consider this to be less problematic.
Correlations between measures at the individual
and classroom level across time points are dis-
played in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. As signifi-
cant correlations with classroom climate indicators
and structural variables were found at the class-
room level, acculturation orientations and psycho-
logical adjustment were also considered as
outcomes at this level.
Table 1
Characteristics of Subscales and Composite Scales at Time 1 and Time 2
Scale
Time 1
a
Time 2
M(SD)M(SD)
Cultural diversity climate
Equality and inclusion climate
Perceived unequal treatment by teachers
a
1.67 (0.84) .82 1.89 (1.00)
Perceived support for contact and cooperation by teachers 3.22 (1.11) .74 3.07 (1.17)
Perceived unequal treatment by students
a
2.20 (1.10) .83 2.21 (1.13)
Perceived support for contact by students 3.96 (0.97) .95 3.95 (0.95)
Perceived support for cooperation by students 3.95 (0.95) .86 3.79 (1.02)
Cultural pluralism climate
Perceived interest in ethnic background of students 3.43 (0.99) .87 3.46 (0.98)
Learning about intercultural relations 3.99 (0.93) .63 3.91 (1.02)
Learning about multicultural topics 3.13 (1.03) .84 3.20 (1.01)
Acculturation orientations
Mainstream culture
Mainstream identity 3.12 (1.12) .95 2.82 (1.25)
Mainstream orientation (adoption) 3.63 (0.92) .87 3.65 (0.94)
Ethnic culture
Ethnic identity 4.12 (0.95) .91 4.23 (0.85)
Ethnic orientation (maintenance) 3.73 (0.82) .80 3.87 (0.82)
Psychological school adjustment
Well-being
Social self-concept 3.97 (0.79) .86 3.96 (0.80)
Academic self-concept 3.66 (0.78) .82 3.53 (0.77)
Life satisfaction (SWLS) 3.93 (0.84) .79 3.79 (0.93)
Psychological problems
a
Depression
a
1.72 (0.82) .84 1.79 (0.80)
Physiological stress symptoms
a
1.72 (0.68) .75 1.82 (0.67)
Behavioral problems
a
Disruptive behavior at school
a
1.90 (0.60) .55 2.07 (0.70)
School delinquency
a
1.25 (0.39) .60 1.31 (0.50)
Note. SWLS =Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin, 1985).
a
Scale reversed to create composite measures.
School Diversity Climate and Adjustment 1183
We proceeded by first testing the relations at the
individual level only (Hypothesis 1a and 2a) using
MPlus 6 (Muth
en & Muth
en, 2010). Because there
were significant effects of sex in the multivariate
analysis of variance, we included sex as an addi-
tional predictor of acculturation orientations and
school adjustment at the individual level. However,
it turned out not to be significant and was therefore
excluded again from further analyses. In order to
achieve a good model fit, we allowed for correla-
tions between the predictors at T1 and between the
two mediators at T2, v
2
/df (N=386) =2.98,
p>.05; root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) =0.07; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) =0.89;
comparative fit index (CFI) =0.98; Akaike’s infor-
mation criterion (AIC) =4982.59; standardized root
mean squared residual (SRMR) =0.02. Supporting
Hypothesis 1a, both types of climate at T1 were
associated with better adjustment at T2. This effect
was mostly indirect through ethnic and mainstream
orientation at T2 (Hypothesis 2a). Although the
effect of the equality and inclusion climate was
mediated by adolescents’mainstream orientation (s-
tandardized b=.06, p<.01), the effect of the cul-
tural pluralism climate was (marginally) mediated
by their ethnic orientation, standardized b=.02,
p=.08.
Next, we added the classroom-level relations to
test whether school adjustment is also predicted by
climate perceptions at this level (Hypothesis 1b),
whether the mediational paths also hold there
(Hypothesis 2b), and whether additional classroom-
level variables can explain variance in either of the
acculturation orientations and psychological school
adjustment at the classroom level (Hypothesis 3).
To control for cluster size and sampling error we
used the implicit latent group mean centering func-
tion in MPlus to aggregate individual-level vari-
ables. Most likely due to their low ICCs,
psychological school adjustment could not be
explained at the classroom level (disconfirming
Hypothesis 1b) and was therefore only retained at
the individual level. School track did not signifi-
cantly predict any of the dependent variables and
was also not retained in the model. The final multi-
Table 2
Variance and Intraclass Correlations (ICC) of Composite Factors at the
Individual and the Classroom Levels
Composite factor
Level 1
variance
Level 2
variance
Level 1
ICC
Level 2
ICC
1. Equality and inclusion
climate T1
.33 .11 .25 .74
2. Equality and inclusion
climate T2
.42 .16 .27 .76
3. Cultural pluralism
climate T1
.84 .13 .13 .57
4. Cultural pluralism
climate T2
.85 .14 .14 .60
5. Mainstream
orientation T1
.72 .08 .10 .50
6. Mainstream
rientation T2
.72 .12 .14 .60
7. Ethnic orientation T1 .77 .04 .05 .31
8. Ethnic orientation T2 .70 .04 .05 .32
9. Psychological school
adjustment T1
.40 .03 .07 .41
10. Psychological school
adjustment T2
.31 .03 .01 .49
Note. Level 1 =individual level; Level 2 =classroom level.
T1 =Time 1; T2 =Time 2. N=386, average cluster size at Level
2=8.77.
Table 3
Individual-Level Correlations at T1 and T2
1 2345 6 7 891011
1. Sex (male) —
2. Equality and inclusion climate T1 .10* —
3. Equality and inclusion climate T2 .17** .46** —
4. Cultural pluralism climate T1 .06 .39** .17** —
5. Cultural pluralism climate T2 .10* .30** .50** .43** —
6. Mainstream orientation T1 .17** .38** .22** .18** .15** —
7. Mainstream orientation T2 .08 .27** .42** .10* .35** .58** —
8. Ethnic orientation T1 .00 .17** .05 .20** .11* .29** .21** —
9. Ethnic orientation T2 .01 .03 .02 .13* .13** .28** .24** .50** —
10. Psychological school adjustment T1 .14** .45** .27** .20** .19** .30** .17** .11* .10* —
11. Psychological school adjustment T2 .10* .32** .46** .11* .23** .17** .28** .06 .14** .52** —
Note. N =386. T1 =Time 1; T2 =Time 2.
*p<.05. **p<.01.
1184 Schachner, Noack, Van de Vijver, and Eckstein
level model revealed an adequate fit, v
2
/df
(N=386) =1.33, p>.05, RMSEA =0.03,
TLI =0.96; CFI =0.98, AIC =4892.00, SRMR at the
individual level 1 =0.02, SRMR at the classroom
level =0.29. The standardized coefficients are pre-
sented in Figure 2.
At the classroom level, we could replicate the
effect of the equality and inclusion climate on main-
stream orientation (partly confirming Hypothesis
2b), but this effect was not significantly stronger
than at the individual level. Against our expecta-
tions, there was also a strong negative effect of the
equality and inclusion climate on ethnic orientation,
and cultural pluralism climate did not affect either
acculturation orientation at classroom level. Con-
cerning the ethnic composition, we could only con-
firm our expectations regarding their effect on
mainstream orientation (Hypothesis 3). A larger
proportion of immigrants in the classroom at T1
was associated with a decreased mainstream orien-
tation at T2. Yet, if the immigrant group was more
diverse (i.e., representing more different countries
of origin) at T1, this was associated with an
increased mainstream orientation at T2. Classrooms
with a large immigrant group and with many stu-
dents from the same ethnic group, in our case
mostly with a Turkish background, therefore pro-
vided the least conducive composition for fostering
students’mainstream orientation. For psychological
school adjustment, 34% of the individual-level vari-
ance could be explained. For mainstream orienta-
tion, 6% of the individual and 85% of the
classroom-level variance could be explained. For
ethnic orientation, 3% of the individual and 75% of
the classroom-level variance could be explained.
The pattern of results remained when individual
school adjustment components were used as depen-
dent variables. We also tested for indirect effects of
the classroom-level predictors on individual-level
adjustment via individual-level acculturation orien-
tations. Results confirmed a positive indirect effect
of equality and inclusion via mainstream orienta-
tion (standardized b=.22, p<.05), complemented
by a marginal negative effect via ethnic orientation
(standardized b=.27, p=.09). A higher propor-
tion of immigrants had a negative indirect effect via
mainstream orientation (standardized b=.27,
p<.05). Finally, we tested for possible within- and
cross-level interactions between any of the predic-
tors and the mediators. When testing these interac-
Table 4
Classroom-Level Correlations at T1 and T2
12345678910111213
1. School track —
2. Proportion of
immigrants
.20 —
3. Diversity of
immigrants
.22 .17 —
4. Equality and inclusion
climate T1
.02 .13 .01 —
5. Equality and inclusion
climate T2
.25 .23 .32* .45** —
6. Cultural pluralism
climate T1
.28
†
.03 .21 .43** .18 —
7. Cultural pluralism
climate T2
.19 .01 .28
†
.30
†
.59** .55** —
8. Mainstream
orientation T1
.20 .43** .18 .53** .27
†
.15 .05 —
9. Mainstream
orientation T2
.32* .58** .22 .42** .63** .11 .38* .67** —
10. Ethnic orientation T1 .14 .05 .20 .13 .05 .14 .16 .31* .12 —
11. Ethnic orientation T2 .06 .23 .10 .38* .28
†
.09 .08 .43** .35* .26
†
—
12. Psychological school
adjustment T1
.42** .10 .16 .49** .33* .07 .11 .40** .39** .04 .25 —
13. Psychological school
adjustment T2
.31* .16 .06 .29
†
.49** .09 .19 .26
†
.50** .13 .20 .56** —
Note. N =43. T1 =Time 1; T2 =Time 2.
†
p<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01.
School Diversity Climate and Adjustment 1185
tions one by one and only including the variables
concerned, we found only one significant interac-
tion between the diversity of immigrants and cul-
tural pluralism climate at the classroom level,
b=17.07, p<.05. This signifies a larger (positive)
effect of cultural pluralism climate on mainstream
orientation in classrooms with a more homogenous
immigrant group. However, this effect did not
remain when the other classroom-level predictors
were included.
Discussion
We were interested in the manifestation of two dif-
ferent types of diversity policy, which often co-
occur, in perceptions of the diversity climate at
school and their effect on adolescent immigrants’
acculturation orientations and school adjustment
over the course of their 1st year at secondary
school. Results suggest that the individual percep-
tion of both climate aspects promotes psychological
school adjustment (Hypothesis 1a). Although the
perception of an equality and inclusion climate
works both directly and indirectly through stu-
dents’orientation toward the mainstream culture,
the perception of a cultural pluralism climate works
indirectly through students’orientation toward the
ethnic culture (Hypothesis 2a). Psychological school
adjustment seems to be associated with antecedents
at the individual level and not so much with con-
textual factors (disconfirming Hypothesis 1b). How-
ever, a climate that emphasizes equality and
inclusion promotes assimilation at the classroom
level (Hypothesis 2b) and a smaller and more
diverse immigrant group further promotes orienta-
tion toward the mainstream culture (Hypothesis 3).
If the immigrant group is more homogenous, a
stronger emphasis on cultural pluralism is also
likely to increase mainstream orientation at the
classroom level.
Our study is one of the first to investigate cul-
tural diversity climate at school and its effect on
acculturation orientations and school adjustment
and the only one applying a longitudinal multilevel
framework. It is the first study systematically disen-
tangling the perception and effect of the two most
prominent types of diversity policy, which are often
mixed in research and in practice. We first compare
effects of the two types of diversity policy as mani-
fested in the classroom climate, also looking at
effects of the ethnic composition of the classroom.
We then discuss the situation of immigrant stu-
dents in Germany concerning diversity climate
Cultural Pluralism
Climate T1
Ethnic
Psych. School
Adjustment T2
Psych. School
Adjustment T1
Mainstream
Proportion of
Immigran ts
L1
L2
.21***
Ethnic
Orientation T2
Orientation T2
Orientation T2
Diversity of
Immigran ts
Equality & Incl.
Climate T1
.39***
Mainstream
.45***
-.73**
.44*
.15**
.45***
.24***
.23***
.09†
.15***
-.25***
.46*
Equality & Incl.
Climate T1
Cultural Pluralism
Climate T1
-.02
.06
-.03
-.03
-.79*
.14
.31
.27†
-.28
Orientation T2
Figure 2. Final model with standardized coefficients at the individual and the classroom levels.
Note. T1 =Time 1; T2 =Time 2; L1 =individual level; L2 =classroom level.
†
p<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
N
L1
=386. N
L2
=43.
1186 Schachner, Noack, Van de Vijver, and Eckstein
perceptions, acculturation orientations, and school
adjustment, and how these change during the 1st
year at secondary school.
Effects of Two Types of Diversity Policy and Ethnic
Composition
A climate that prevents discrimination and
emphasizes equality and inclusion seems to implic-
itly promote identification with and orientation
toward the mainstream culture as a common in-
group and thereby facilitates adjustment at individ-
ual level. However, such a climate also had a
strong negative effect on students’ethnic orienta-
tion at the classroom level. It therefore seems to
promote assimilation at the higher level (Berry,
1997). These inconsistent findings between levels
suggest that promoting equality and inclusion car-
ries a different meaning at the individual and the
classroom levels. At the classroom level, systematic
efforts to establish equality and inclusion may be
perceived as neglecting cultural differences between
students. This comes close to adopting a so-called
“colorblind”perspective, where equality is taken
for sameness, and highlighting any differences is
seen as a risk for harmony in the class. This per-
spective has been shown to be very common in
educational settings not only in the United States
(Schofield, 2001) but also in Germany (Hachfeld
et al., 2011), and has been associated with assimila-
tion as the preferred acculturation strategy (Plaut,
Thomas, & Goren, 2009).
The perception of a climate that embraces cul-
tural pluralism and appreciates students’ethnic
background on the other hand allows them to
acknowledge and identify with their ethnic culture,
which also contributes to a better adjustment. At
classroom level, the effect on ethnic orientation is
much weaker, and there also appears to be a posi-
tive effect on mainstream orientation in classrooms
with a more homogenous immigrant group. Taken
together, there is some indication that cultural plu-
ralism can promote integration at classroom level.
However, in our study there appears to be little
agreement on the level of perceived cultural plural-
ism between students attending the same class-
room. Low ICCs are common in school climate
research (Marsh et al., 2012). Yet, the lower ICCs of
support for cultural pluralism could suggest that
this policy is employed less systematically in Ger-
man schools than promoting equality and inclusion.
One of the reasons for this relative absence may
be that fighting ethnic discrimination and support-
ing equality and inclusion has a longer tradition
than promoting multiculturalism and acknowledg-
ing ethnic diversity, not only in social psychological
research (Park & Judd, 2005) but also in social pol-
icy and legal frameworks in many countries (Berry,
1997). Therefore, it is likely to have gained more
attention among practitioners and policymakers.
There may also be historic and political reasons
why this approach is still particularly prominent in
Germany. Due to the history of the holocaust in
Germany, the prevention of racism is still an impor-
tant educational goal in German schools today. The
implicit assimilation expectation that is inherent in
this type of policy also fits with the overall support
for assimilation as the preferred strategy of dealing
with immigrants in Germany (Ya
gmur & Van de
Vijver, 2012; Zick, Wagner, Van Dick, & Petzel,
2001). Germany has only recently acknowledged
being a multicultural society and adopted the con-
cept of multicultural education (Faas, 2008).
The ethnic composition of the classroom is also
associated with adolescent immigrants’accultura-
tion orientations. Particularly classrooms with a
large and relatively homogenous immigrant group
seem to be at risk in terms of immigrant students
disengaging from the mainstream culture. Students’
ethnic orientation on the other hand seems to be
hardly affected by the ethnic composition. Class-
room-level correlations show that a higher share of
immigrants was also associated with a less positive
equality and inclusion climate. These findings con-
firm negative effects associated with a high share of
immigrants identified in previous studies (Brenick
et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2003). The diversity of the
immigrant group as an additional factor is usually
not taken into account in these studies. However,
classroom-level correlations suggest that out of the
structural characteristics, a diverse immigrant group
is most strongly associated with a favorable diver-
sity climate. The path model confirms that it is also
linked to a stronger mainstream orientation. These
findings suggest that in classrooms with a more
diverse immigrant group dealing with cultural
diversity seems to be higher on the agenda, which
further enhances students’mainstream orientation.
Taken together, we can say that both types of
policies and their manifestation in the classroom cli-
mate can promote adjustment. However, efforts to
promote equality and inclusion without also
encouraging cultural pluralism are at risk of being
one sided as they systematically neglect cultural
differences and students’ethnic background. This
can actually hinder adjustment. Assimilation—in
comparison to integration—has been found to
lead to good sociocultural outcomes (e.g., school
School Diversity Climate and Adjustment 1187
performance) but to less optimal psychological
adjustment outcomes, particularly concerning well-
being (Berry, 1997; Ward, 2001). More explicit pres-
sure to assimilate can easily be perceived as discrimi-
nation against one’s ethnic group, eventually leading
to separation. Research from social and organiza-
tional psychology has repeatedly demonstrated the
negative effects of a “colorblind”perspective on
intergroup attitudes and the psychological function-
ing of ethnic minority members in experimental set-
tings (Holoien & Shelton, 2012) and real life (Plaut
et al., 2009). A large and ethnically homogenous
immigrant group in the classroom can further
enhance the risk of separation.
The Situation of Adolescent Immigrants at German
Schools
Overall, policies fostering equality and inclusion
seem to be more visible for adolescent immigrants
at German schools than policies promoting cultural
pluralism. Yet, adolescent immigrants perceived the
equality and inclusion climate to be less positive
after their 1st year at secondary school than when
they just entered it. An increasing negativity con-
cerning the school environment in early adolescence
has also been found in previous studies (Eccles
et al., 1996; Way, Reddy, & Rhodes, 2007). This
trend may be the effect of the many psychological,
physical, and emotional changes in adolescence,
which can lead to adolescents perceiving their envi-
ronment more negatively, regardless of the school
they attend. Yet, we found this trend only for one
of the climate dimensions, which suggests that the
pattern is specific to the equality and inclusion cli-
mate. Following the stage–environment fit hypothe-
sis (Eccles et al., 1996), this may imply that there is
a global and increasing perception of a misfit
between the way in which schools deal with issues
of equality and inclusion and the developmental
needs of adolescent immigrants. In particular, their
development of an ethnic identity in this period
(Phinney, 1989) can make them more sensitive
about ethnic discrimination and exclusion. There-
fore, they may perceive the equality and inclusion
climate at school as less positive over time.
The global pattern of acculturation orientations
reveals that in our sample, adolescent immigrants’
ethnic orientations are stronger than their main-
stream orientations, suggesting a pattern of separa-
tion (Berry, 1997). This is consistent with previous
findings that separation is particularly strong
among adolescents with a Turkish immigrant back-
ground (Berry et al., 2006), which is also the biggest
group in our sample. In the German context, this
preference for separation is particularly strong com-
pared to other countries (Ya
gmur & Van de Vijver,
2012). It may therefore also be a reaction to the
mainstream societal climate in Germany, which
favors assimilation (or otherwise separation) over
integration (Zick et al., 2001). Classroom-level
correlations between variables confirm this separa-
tion–assimilation dichotomy. The trend toward sep-
aration among the students in our study increases
over the 1st year at secondary school and school
adjustment decreases, possibly as a reaction to the
more negative perception of the equality and inclu-
sion climate at school. Such a reaction would be
consistent with previous research, which suggests
that perceived discrimination can trigger separation
(Berry et al., 2006; Ward, 2001). Separation can buf-
fer negative effects of perceived exclusion and dis-
crimination but has also been linked to less positive
sociocultural outcomes like achievement.
Limitations and Future Directions
Our findings highlight the importance of con-
ducting longitudinal multilevel analyses when
studying school context effects (Marsh et al., 2012).
Effects are often small in this type of research, yet
the relations we found were systematic. To get
more reliable and robust measures of the school
diversity climate at aggregate level, future studies
should include data from multiple informants, such
as the perspectives and diversity-related attitudes
of nonimmigrant students and teachers, and mea-
sures of the physical school environment (Horenc-
zyk & Tatar, 2012). Our sample was also too small
to test for differences between immigrant groups,
which may experience the diversity climate at
school differently, based on the status and relative
size of their group in society. These relations should
therefore also be studied separately in different
immigrant groups and societies of settlement. Fur-
thermore, our study only included two time points
in early adolescence. Future studies should cover a
longer period, extending into later periods in ado-
lescence. Finally, future studies should include a
broader range of outcomes beyond psychological
school adjustment to get a clearer idea of the speci-
fic effects of these two policies.
Conclusion and Implications
Although policies fostering equality and inclu-
sion and policies promoting cultural pluralism often
co-occur, our results suggest they are distinct in
1188 Schachner, Noack, Van de Vijver, and Eckstein
their effects on acculturation and adjustment of
immigrant students. Confirming previous observa-
tions from U.S. schools (Schofield, 2001), we found
that reducing discrimination and promoting equal-
ity and inclusion still seems to be the most visible
and systematic approach when dealing with a
diverse student population. Promoting adoption of
the mainstream culture is clearly an important edu-
cational goal of schools teaching immigrant
students, particularly if they come from separated
communities and attend schools with a high pro-
portion of immigrants. However, the implicit pro-
motion of assimilation to the mainstream culture
prevents immigrant students from drawing on their
ethnic culture and identity as an additional resource
for psychological adjustment.
Supporting again the benefits of integration
(Nguyen & Benet-Mart
ınez, 2013), we found that
the orientations toward ethnic and mainstream cul-
tures are almost equally important for adolescent
immigrants’psychological school adjustment.
However, the overall picture in our sample suggests
that notably at classroom level, the dynamics seem
to be mainly between separation and assimilation.
Our results once again confirm that integration can
only flourish if the context allows (Ward, 2013),
both in societies and in classrooms. Especially in
adolescence, neglecting cultural differences and
students’ethnic backgrounds at school may clash
with ethnic identity development, which mostly
takes place in this period (Eccles et al., 1996).
Our study has implications for practitioners and
policymakers. First, efforts should be made to
create classrooms with a more balanced ethnic
composition, both in terms of the overall share of
immigrant students and in terms of their diversity.
Second, schools should move beyond merely reduc-
ing discrimination and promoting equality and
inclusion and simultaneously develop a climate
embracing cultural pluralism. This might allow stu-
dents to also draw on their ethnic culture and iden-
tity and adopt an integration strategy at school,
which is likely to be more beneficial than assimila-
tion for school adjustment outcomes.
Even small and easy to implement measures like
greeting each other in different languages or learn-
ing about students’ethnic cultures during a school
project may help to develop such a climate. Yet,
school climate development is not only about
implementing measures but also about tackling the
beliefs, attitudes, and expectations of different
stakeholders, such as teachers (Hachfeld et al.,
2011). Diversity training measures should be carried
out much more systematically, both on the job and
during teacher education, and individual coaching
offered where needed. Many teachers feel unpre-
pared and overwhelmed when they are confronted
with an ethnically heterogeneous studentship. Espe-
cially in situations of insecurity, it may be easier to
ignore cultural differences and focus on the preven-
tion of negative consequences of diversity rather
than seeing it as a resource and the “spice of life”
(Berry, 1997, p. 29) it can be.
References
Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S.,
& Wacziarg, R. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Eco-
nomic Growth,8, 155–194. doi:10.1023/a:1024471506938
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge,
MA: Perseus Books.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2010). IBM SPSS Amos 19 user’s guide.
Chicago, IL: Amos Development Corporation.
Arends-T
oth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Issues in
the conceptualization and assessment of acculturation.
In M. H. Bornstein & L. R. Cote (Eds.), Acculturation
and parent–child relationships: Measurement and develop-
ment (pp. 33–62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Arends-T
oth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Accultur-
ation attitudes: A comparison of measurement meth-
ods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,37, 1462–1488.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00222.x
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adap-
tation. Applied Psychology—An International Review,46,
5–34. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P.
(Eds.). (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition:
Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national con-
texts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas,
T. (2003). Middle school improvement and reform:
Development and validation of a school-level assess-
ment of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety.
Journal of Educational Psychology,95, 570–588.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.570
Brenick, A., Titzmann, P. F., Michel, A., & Silbereisen, R.
K. (2012). Perceptions of discrimination by young dias-
pora migrants. European Psychologist,17, 105–119.
doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000118
Brown, C. S., & Chu, H. (2012). Discrimination, ethnic iden-
tity, and academic outcomes of Mexican immigrant chil-
dren: The importance of school context. Child Development,
83, 1477–1485. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01786.x
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985).
The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment,49,71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Dietz, G. (2007). Keyword: Cultural diversity. Zeitschrift
f€
ur Erziehungswissenschaft,10,7–30. doi:10.1007/s11618-
007-0003-1
Dimitrova, R., Chasiotis, A., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R.
(2016). Adjustment outcomes of immigrant children
School Diversity Climate and Adjustment 1189
and youth in Europe: A meta-analysis. European Psy-
chologist,21, 150–162.
Eccles, J. S., Lord, S. E., & Roeser, R. W. (1996). Round
holes, square pegs, rocky roads, and sore feet: The impact
of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’experi-
ences in schools and families. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth
(Eds.), Adolescence: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 47–
92). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as develop-
mental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research
on Adolescence,21, 225–241. doi:10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2010.00725.x
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at
work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work
group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science
Quarterly,46, 229–273. doi:10.2307/2667087
Faas, D. (2008). From foreigner pedagogy to intercultural
education: An analysis of the German responses to
diversity and its impact on schools and students. Euro-
pean Educational Research Journal,7, 108–123.
doi:10.2304/eerj.2008.7.1.108
Frankenberg, E., Kupper, K., Wagner, R., & Bongard, S.
(2013). Immigrant youth in Germany: Psychological
and sociocultural adaptation. European Psychologist,18,
158–168. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000154
Garc
ıa Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P.,
Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & V
azquez Garc
ıa, H. (1996).
An integrative model for the study of developmental
competencies in minority children. Child Development,
67, 1891–1914. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9706060144
Garc
ıa Coll, C., Patton, F., Marks, A. K., Dimitrova, R.,
Yang, H., Suarez-Aviles, G., & Batchelor, A. (2012).
Understanding the immigrant paradox in youth: Devel-
opmental considerations. In A. S. Masten, K. Liebkind,
& D. G. Hernandez (Eds.), Realizing the potential of
immigrant youth (pp. 159–180). Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Graham, S., & Taylor, A. Z. (2002). Ethnicity, gender, and
the development of achievement values. In A. Wigfield
& J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motiva-
tion. A volume in the educational psychology series (pp.
121–146). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Green, C. W., Adams, A. M., & Turner, C. W. (1988).
Development and validation of the School Interracial
Climate Scale. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy,16, 241–259. doi:10.1007/BF00912525
Hachfeld, A., Hahn, A., Schroeder, S., Anders, Y., Stanat,
P., & Kunter, M. (2011). Assessing teachers’multicul-
tural and egalitarian beliefs: The Teacher Cultural
Beliefs Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education,27, 986–
996. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.006
Haenni Hoti, A., Heinzmann, S., M€
uller, M., & Buholzer,
A. (2015). Psychosocial adaptation and school success of
Italian, Portuguese and Albanian students in Switzer-
land: Disentangling migration background, accultura-
tion and the school context. International Migration and
Integration, Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/
s12134-015-0461-x
Holoien, D. S., & Shelton, J. N. (2012). You deplete me:
The cognitive costs of colorblindness on ethnic minori-
ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48, 562–
565. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.010
Horenczyk, G., & Tatar, M. (2012). Conceptualising the
school acculturative context. School, classroom and the
immigrant student. In A. S. Masten, K. Liebkind, & D.
J. Hernandez (Eds.), Realizing the potential of immigrant
youth (pp. 359–375). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows,
Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: Author.
Jenkins, P. H. (1995). School delinquency and school com-
mitment. Sociology of Education,68, 221–239.
doi:10.2307/2112686
Liebkind, K. (2006). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In
D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook
of acculturation psychology (pp. 78–96). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
L€
udtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., & Trautwein, U.
(2011). A 2 92 taxonomy of multilevel latent contex-
tual models: Accuracy -bias trade-offs in full and par-
tial error correction models. Psychological Methods,16,
444–467. doi:10.1037/a0024376
Marsh, H. W. (1988). The Self Description Questionnaire
(SDQ): A theoretical and empirical basis for the measure-
ment of multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept: A
test manual and a research monograph. San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.
Marsh, H. W., L€
udtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U.,
Morin, A. J. S., Abduljabbar, A. S., & K€
oller, O. (2012).
Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual
and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-
level effects. Educational Psychologist,47, 106–124.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.670488
Mc Carthy, J. D., & Hoge, D. R. (1987). The social con-
struction of school punishment: Racial disadvantage
out of universalistic process. Social Forces,65, 1101–
1120. doi:10.2307/2579025
Molina, L. E., & Wittig, M. A. (2006). Relative importance
of contact conditions in explaining prejudice reduction
in a classroom context: Separate and equal? Journal of
Social Issues,62, 489–509. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4560.2006.00470.x
Morin, A. J. S., Ma€
ıano, C., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B.,
& Janosz, M. (2013). School life and adolescents’self-
esteem trajectories. Child Development,84, 1967–1988.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12089
Motti-Stefanidi, F., Berry, J. W., Chryssochoou, X., Sam,
D. L., & Phinney, J. S. (2012). Positive youth adaptation
in context. Developmental, acculturation and social
psychological perspectives. In A. S. Masten, K. Lieb-
kind, & D. J. Hernandez (Eds.), Realizing the potential of
immigrant youth (pp. 117–158). New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Muth
en, L. K., & Muth
en, B. O. (2010). MPlus—Statistical
analysis with latent variables (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Author.
1190 Schachner, Noack, Van de Vijver, and Eckstein
Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Mart
ınez, V. (2013). Bicultur-
alism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology,44, 122–159. doi:10.1177/
0022022111435097
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment (OECD). (2012). Untapped skills: Realising the
potential of immigrant students. Retrieved from http://
browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/9812041e.pdf.
doi:10.1787/9789264172470-en
€
Ozdemir, S. B., & Stattin, H. (2013). Why and when is
ethnic harassment a risk for immigrant adolescents’
school adjustment? Understanding the processes and
conditions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,43, 1252–
1265. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0038-y
Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2005). Rethinking the link
between categorization and prejudice within the social
cognition perspective. Personality and Social Psychology
Review,9, 108–130. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_2
Park, I. J., Schwartz, S. J., Lee, R. M., Kim, M., & Rodri-
guez, L. (2013). Perceived racial/ethnic discrimination
and antisocial behaviors among Asian American college
students: Testing the moderating roles of ethnic and
American identity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minor-
ity Psychology,19, 166–176. doi:10.1037/a0028640
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic
test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.90.5.751
Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity develop-
ment in minority group adolescents. The Journal of Early
Adolescence,9,34–49. doi:10.1177/0272431689091004
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity mea-
sure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal
of Adolescent Research,7, 156–176. doi:10.1177/
074355489272003
Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is
multiculturalism or color blindness better for minori-
ties? Psychological Science,20, 444–446. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2009.02318.x
Ponizovsky, Y., Dimitrova, R., Schachner, M. K., & Van
de Schoot, R. (2012). The Satisfaction With Life Scale:
Measurement invariance across immigrant groups.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology,10, 526–
532. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.707778
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000).
School as a context of early adolescents’academic and
social-emotional development: A summary of research
findings. The Elementary School Journal,100, 443–471.
doi:10.1086/499650
Schachner, M. K., Brenick, A., Noack, P., Van de Vijver,
F. J. R., & Heizmann, B. (2015). Structural and norma-
tive conditions for interethnic friendships in multiethnic
classrooms. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
47,1–12. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.02.003
Schofield, J. W. (2001). The colorblind perspective in
school: Causes and consequences. In J. A. Banks & C.
A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education. Issues &
perspectives (4th ed., pp. 247–267). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Sch€
one, C., Dickh€
auser, O., Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pel-
ster, J. (2002). Skalen zur Erfassung des schulischen Selb-
stkonzepts [Scales for measuring academic self-concept].
G€
ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro,
A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review
of Educational Research,83, 357–385. doi:10.3102/
0034654313483907
Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school involve-
ment: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged? The Jour-
nal of Educational Research,102, 257–271. doi:10.3200/
joer.102.4.257-271
Van de Vijver, A. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and
data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2001). Ethnic and gender bias
among Dutch and Turkish children in late childhood:
The role of social context. Infant and Child Development,
10, 203–217. doi:10.1002/icd.279
Ward, C. (2001). The A, B, Cs of acculturation. In D. Mat-
sumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp.
411–445). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ward, C. (2013). Probing identity, integration and adapta-
tion: Big questions, little answers. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations,37, 391–404. doi:10.1016/j.ijin-
trel.2013.04.001
Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’percep-
tions of school climate during the middle school years:
Associations with trajectories of psychological and
behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community
Psychology,40, 194–213. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9143-y
Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The
influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identifica-
tion on African American adolescents’school and
socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality,71,
1197–1232. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7106012
Ya
gmur, K., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2012). Accultura-
tion and language orientations of Turkish immigrants
in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,43, 1110–1130.
doi:10.1177/0022022111420145
Zick, A., Wagner, U., Van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001).
Acculturation and prejudice in Germany: Majority and
minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues,57, 541–
557. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00228
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in
the online version of this article at the publisher’s
website:
Appendix S1. Equivalence of Subscales at Time
1 and Time 2.
School Diversity Climate and Adjustment 1191
