Stevens et al. (2003). Parent, teacher and self-reported problem behavior in the Netherlands (2003).” – Article summary

Structural adversity and rejection by the host country may cause stress and negatively influence psychological adaptation. Adolescents are at particular risk because they have to function in different cultural contexts (e.g. family; peers; institutions; ethnic community). Turkish adolescent immigrants show more internalizing and externalizing problems compared to Dutch natives. However, there is no consensus regarding the impact of migration on psychological development. Results may vary due to methodological difficulties. For example, parents, teachers and adolescents report different levels of behavioural and emotional problems. Next, there may also be differences between specific migrant groups regarding their culture (1), socio-economic status (2), level of education (3), migration history (4), position in the host country (5) and reception in the host country (6).

Moroccans may have to cross a wider cultural gap when migrating to the Netherlands than Turks due to the lower levels of literacy (1), education (2) and later development of democracy and industrialization (3).

Moroccan parents report less internalizing and externalizing problems than Turkish parents but more internalizing problems than Dutch parents. Teachers report more externalizing problems for the Moroccan children than for the Dutch and Turkish children. Moroccan adolescents report less internalizing problems than Turkish adolescents and less externalizing problems than both Turkish and Dutch adolescents.

Boys had higher externalizing problems (1), aggressive behaviour (2), delinquent behaviour (3) and attention problems (4). Girls had more somatic complaints. 12- 18 year olds had  higher withdrawn and somatic complaint scores but lower aggressive behaviour than 4- 11 year old children. Young Moroccan children scored lower on delinquent behaviour compared to Dutch natives whereas adolescents scored higher. Gender differences in somatic complaints were less marked at a younger age.

Moroccan adolescents scored higher on delinquent behaviour and externalizing problems than Turkish adolescents whereas the opposite pattern occurred for young Moroccan and Turkish children. Differences between young Turkish and Moroccan immigrant children were greater than between adolescents.

Dutch adolescents had more self-reported somatic complaints (1), thought problems (2), attention problems (3), delinquent behaviour (4), aggressive behaviour (5), externalizing problems (6) and total problems (7) than Moroccan adolescents.

DISCUSSION

Moroccan parents reported similar levels of problems compared to Dutch parents. Teachers reported more externalizing problems for Moroccan children than for Dutch children. Moroccan adolescents reported less problems than Dutch adolescents. Moroccan parents reported less emotional and behavioural problems than Turkish parents. Similar patterns were present for the teacher and self-report between Moroccan and Turkish immigrants. Differences between Moroccans and Turks were most striking for children aged 4-11 years.

The found results may be explained by true differences in children’s behaviour (1), perceptual biases (2), social desirability (3), differences in parents’, adolescents’ and teachers’ thresholds to report child problem behaviours (4) and methodological limitations (5). Culture may influence expectancies and beliefs regarding children and this may influence the distress felt concerning particular kinds of child behaviour.