Back to and beyond Berry's basics: The ...

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 472–485

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Back to and beyond Berry’s basics: The conceptualization, operationalization and classification of acculturation Colleen Ward ∗ , Larissa Kus Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 13 August 2010 Received in revised form 10 January 2012 Accepted 2 February 2012 Keywords: Acculturation Adaptation Integration Immigrants Measurement

a b s t r a c t Berry (1990) distinguished four acculturation attitudes (integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization) arising from two acculturation questions (concerning cultural maintenance and cultural contact). This research examines the distributions of acculturation attitudes based on his original cultural maintenance–cultural contact conceptualization and on a later cultural maintenance–cultural adoption model. In line with the Relative Extended Acculturation Model it also compares the outcomes of real (self-reported behavioral) and ideal (attitudinal) assessments of acculturation. Two hundred and eightynine first generation immigrants in New Zealand participated in the study. In line with the hypotheses, integration occurred more frequently when derived from cultural contact than from cultural adoption and when acculturation was framed in attitudinal, rather than behavioral, terms. The findings point to the necessity of clearly defining the dimensions of acculturation, ensuring they are appropriately operationalized, and differentiating attitudinal and self-reported behavioral measures. The consequences of the operationalization of acculturation for its relationship to adaptation are also reported and discussed. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the international arena there is little doubt that John Berry has established himself as the leading acculturation theorist. For more than three decades his bi-dimensional, fourfold model of acculturation has been used in the study of sojourners, immigrants, refugees and native peoples. What is less frequently recognized or explicitly discussed, however, are the ways in which Berry’s theorizing has developed, how contemporary research subtly diverges from his original and later conceptualizations of acculturation and the consequences of this divergence for the study of acculturation in a changing world. This paper examines intersecting perspectives on Berry’s (1980, 1990) two acculturation dimensions and their implications for both the categorization of the four acculturation orientations and the relationship between acculturation and adaptation. Berry’s earliest work on acculturation concentrated on the nature of marginality and the distinction of assimilation and integration with Australian aboriginals (Berry, 1970; Sommerlad & Berry, 1970). By 1974 and based on his experiences in Canada he began to formulate questions about the retention of cultural identity and positive intergroup relations and to identify patterns of relationships in plural societies that included integration, assimilation, rejection/segregation and marginality/deculturation (Berry, 1974; Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977). In his writings on acculturation as varieties of adaptation the precursor of his current model was introduced, with assimilation, integration, rejection and deculturation identified

∗ Corresponding author at: Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research and School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. Tel.: +64 4 4636037; fax: +64 4 4635402. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Ward). 0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.02.002

C. Ward, L. Kus / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 472–485

473

on the basis of two questions pertaining to the retention of cultural identity and positive relationships with the dominant society (Berry, 1980, p. 14).1 The model was refined further in 1984 with the core questions posed as “Is it considered to be of value to maintain one’s own distinctive identity and cultural group characteristics?” and “Is it considered to be of value to maintain positive relations with my group and others within the society?” (Berry, 1984a, p. 357, 1984b). With this refinement, separation came to replace rejection, and discussions commenced about “relational attitudes” among indigenous and ethnic groups in Canada. By 1989 marginalization was introduced into the framework replacing deculturation, and the now familiar graphic representation of the two acculturation issues and four strategies appeared (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989). There have been only minor differences in the presentation of Berry’s two-dimensional model over the last two decades. More recent graphic illustrations do not frame the fundamental issues in terms of questions, but merely refer to the issues as “cultural maintenance” and “contact-participation” (Berry, 2001) or “maintenance of heritage culture and identity” and “relationships sought among groups,” which form the basis of four acculturation orientations (Berry, 2002, 2006, 2009). That is, when individuals wish to maintain both cultural heritage and relations with other groups, integration results. If neither is desired, marginalization occurs. Separation reflects a valuing of only cultural maintenance while assimilation occurs if only intergroup relations are desired. Despite slight variations in the presentation of underlying issues, Berry and colleagues continue to apply this conceptualization to the study of acculturation attitudes (Phinney, Berry, Vedder, & Liebkind, 2006). There are two important points to take from the development of Berry’s theorizing. First, Berry’s two dimensions reflect cultural maintenance and cultural contact. Second, the acculturation dimensions are largely (though not exclusively) situated in the realm of attitudes described as “relative preferences” (Berry, 2009, p. 366). For the most part, the measures used by Berry and colleagues have been consistent with this conceptualization. The assessment of integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization by parallel statements has been the preferred approach with early research using similar scales to measure acculturation attitudes across diverse immigrant groups in Canada, including Koreans, Hungarians, Portuguese and Greeks (e.g., Berry et al., 1989; Krishnan & Berry, 1992; Sands & Berry, 1993).2 However, Berry and colleagues have also made use of two-dimensional attitudinal measures to construct acculturation categories (Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Donà & Berry, 1994). In both methodological approaches the item-level statements generally reflect preferences for or importance ratings of a range of activities relating to cultural maintenance and cultural contact. For example, in the recent International Comparative Study of Ethno-cultural Youth items included: “It is more important to be fluent in my ethnic language than the national language” and “I prefer to have both ethnic and national friends” (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). Research by Berry and associates, based both on the two-dimensions (maintenance and contact) and the four-options (integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization) approaches, has commonly found that integration is preferred over the other acculturation styles; Berry has also argued that integration is typically associated with the most favorable adaptation outcomes (Berry, 2005; Berry et al., 1989; Krishnan & Berry, 1992). Berry’s early (1980, 1984a,b, 1990) theorizing represented a conceptual advance over the unidimensional models of the time that viewed the acculturation process as relinquishing identification with heritage culture and adopting traits, values, attitudes and behaviors of the dominant society (e.g., Cuéllar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980; Olmeda, 1979). Empirical evidence has supported the conclusion that the bidimensional model is a “more valid and useful operationalization of acculturation” (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000, p. 49); critical reviews have recommended the use of bilineal assessment tools (Kim & Abreu, 2001; Matsudaira, 2006; Rudmin, 2009), and a recent meta-analysis has supported the psychometric reliability of these measures (Huynh, Howell, & Benet-Martínez, 2009). However, acculturation researchers who have been quick to cite Berry have been less than precise in their operationalization of his two defining issues. Indeed, Matsudaira’s (2006) review of acculturation measures, which identified 51 acculturation scales published between 1978 and 2004, cited only one instrument that captured the essence of Berry’s dimensions – Kosic’s (2002) Scale of Acculturation Strategies with Maintenance of Original Culture and Relationships with Host Group subscales. 2. Research rationale Liebkind (2001) summarized the modifications of Berry’s (1980) cultural maintenance and contact model, noting that some researchers have conceptualized acculturation in terms of cultural maintenance and cultural adoption (e.g., Bourhis,

1 Berry added a third question in his 1974 and 1980 papers: “whether the minority groups are permitted the option of answering the first two questions?” While this question is not addressed in this paper, it is important in the context of the development of Berry’s theorizing as it recognizes the role and influence of the dominant society on the acculturation options of non-dominant ethnic, migrant and indigenous groups. Berry et al. (1977) explored this issue in connection with multicultural ideology in their national survey in Canada. 2 This paper will not address issues pertaining to the assessment of acculturation by four parallel scales to measure integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization. This method has been the subject of strong psychometric criticism by Rudmin (2003, 2009) and Rudmin and Ahmadzadeh (2001), who noted problems arising from double-barreled statements, ipsative constructs and acquiescence effects. Furthermore, we agree with the conclusions of Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2006) in their critical review of acculturation assessments that the four statement measurement method is the least appropriate of three assessment options and that the two statement method, reflecting a bi-dimensional model, provides a more detailed picture than the one statement, unidimensional approach. Therefore, we have confined our analyses to techniques that assess orientations to heritage and contact cultures in some form.

474


Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997) while others have framed it in relation to identification with heritage and host cultures (e.g., Hutnik, 1991). Indeed, Berry (2001, p. 620) in his analysis of attitudes toward contact-participation and cultural maintenance and their role in the psychology of immigration noted that “a parallel approach to understanding acculturation strategies uses the concept of cultural identity.” Snauwaert, Soenens, Vanbeselaere, and Boen (2003) examined the implications of these differences for the classification of acculturation orientations and found that integration was the preferred orientation for ethnic minority members in Belgium when the cultural maintenance–contact model was used, but that separation was preferred when acculturation was defined in terms of maintenance-adoption or identification with ethnic and national groups. This study partially replicates Snauwaert et al.’s (2003) research and examines the contact and adoption operationalizations of acculturation in first generation migrants in New Zealand; however, it goes further to examine the implications for immigrant adaptation. In line with Snauwaert et al.’s findings it is hypothesized that the proportion of immigrants classified as integrated will be greater when maintenance and contact, rather than maintenance and adoption, form the underlying dimensions of acculturation. A second point of contention arising from Berry’s original conceptualization is the categorization of acculturation modes on the basis of attitudes rather than self-reported behaviors. Berry’s early writings posed the questions: is it of value or is it considered to be of value? (Berry, 1980, 1984a,b, 1990), suggesting attitudes as the defining feature of acculturation. Notably, although some of his early work incorporated assessments of both acculturation attitudes and self-reported behaviors (Berry et al., 1989; Donà & Berry, 1994), it was the attitudes measure that was used to operationalize integration, separation, assimilation and marginalization. Conceptually, some of Berry’s later work blurs the attitude–behavior distinction by merely labeling issue one as maintenance of heritage culture and identity and issue two as relationships sought among groups (Berry, 2006). This ambiguity was clarified by Berry (2009, p. 366) who indicated that his work was initially based on the assessment of attitudes, but that later research included other psychological features such as identity and behaviors, leading to “a more comprehensive concept of acculturation strategies.” A number of researchers have been true to Berry’s original conceptualization of acculturation attitudes (e.g., Rudmin & Ahmadzadeh, 2001; Sam, 1995) while others have focused more on acculturation behaviors (Tsai-Chae & Nagata, 2008), identity (Oetting & Beauvais, 1991; Sayegh & Lasry, 1993) or a combination of these (Birman, Trickett, & Vinokurov, 2002; Chung, Kim, & Abreu, 2004; Lim, Heiby, Brislin, & Griffin, 2002; Nyugen & von Eye, 2002; Stephenson, 2000). One of the fewprograms of research to make clear and consistent distinctions between acculturation attitudes and self-reported behaviors is that by Navas and colleagues, who proposed the Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM) that includes real and ideal acculturation responses (Navas et al., 2005; Navas, Rojas, Garcia, & Pumares, 2007). More specifically, Navas et al. (2005, p. 206) specify that “the RAEM makes a distinction between acculturation attitudes preferred . . . and the strategies finally adopted, that is to say, the step from an ideal situation to a real one in the acculturation process.” While all of these approaches may offer valuable insights, it is important to be specific about the conceptual base that underpins the assessment of acculturation. In accordance with proposals by Navas et al. (2005, 2007) this research compares ideal and real assessments of acculturation; we use these assessments as representations of acculturation attitudes and self-reported behaviors. Research with Turkish-Dutch adults by Arends-Tóth, van de Vijver, and Poortinga (2006) examined acculturation attitudes (e.g., It is important for me to have nearly only Turkish/nearly only Dutch friends) and self-reported behaviors (e.g., I have nearly only Turkish/nearly only Dutch friends) and found that while attitudes and behaviors are both underlying components of a unitary construct of acculturation, they are not interchangeable. Although integration is often held as an ideal, it may be difficult to achieve for a number of reasons (Bourhis et al., 1997), and Berry (2001) himself has argued that it is only viable in a multicultural society. Therefore, in line with work by Navas et al. (2005, 2007) we predict that the proportion of immigrants classified as integrated will be greater when “ideal” attitudinal preferences, rather than “real” self-reported behaviors, are used as the underlying dimensions. The conceptualization and measurement of acculturation are likely to have consequences not only for the categorization of integration, separation, assimilation and marginalization, but also for their relationship to immigrant adaptation. This was explored by Berry and Sabatier (2011) in their recent research, which examined nine ways of conceptualizing and operationalizing acculturation by crossing attitudes toward own group cultural maintenance, contact and identity with national cultural adoption, contact and identity. A one-way analysis of variance was then conducted on the basis of each of the classification systems to compare self-esteem in integrated, separated, assimilated and marginalized youth from Montreal and Paris. Results pointed to both similarities and differences across classification techniques. Findings indicated that five of the nine comparisons based on the total sample, seven of nine in the Canadian sub-sample and four of nine in the French subsample produced significant differences across the acculturation categories. The highest mean scores for self-esteem were uniformly found for integrated youth, but Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed substantial variations in the extent to which these differed significantly from separation, assimilation and marginalization, respectively. With respect to the specific analysis of cultural maintenance crossed with contact versus cultural adoption, significant differences in self-esteem were found across acculturation categories based on contact, but not adoption, for the total sample and Canadian sub-sample, but not the French sub-sample. We likewise explore group differences in adaptation arising from acculturation classification methods, but rely on multiple regression with the use of dummy coding to test whether integration predicts better adaptive outcomes than separation,


475

assimilation and marginalization.3 This represents a methodological improvement over Berry and Sabatier’s (2011) study in that unlike analysis of variance, unequal cell sizes are not problematic in regression (SPSS Library, n.d.). There are, however, limitations to both of these approaches; specifically, these categorical analyses provide no information about the relative contributions of the underlying acculturation dimensions to group differences in adaptation. Consequently, we also undertake a set of regression analyses that examines these dimensions (cultural maintenance–contact, cultural maintenance–cultural adoption, real ethnic and national cultural orientations and ideal or preferred ethnic and national cultural orientations) and their interactions as predictors of adaptation. In both sets of analyses we expect to find some differences in the relationships between acculturation and adaptation as a function of the defining dimensions of acculturation. What specifically these differences will be, however, are more difficult to predict. Adoption of the national culture and self-reported behaviors involve a stronger relationship with or commitment to the dominant culture compared to cultural adoption and to ideal preferences, respectively, but there is a paucity of research on these topics. To our knowledge, the recent study by Berry and Sabatier (2011) is the only one to address the contact-adoption issue in connection with four acculturation categories and adaptive outcomes, and none has considered the attitude–behavior distinction in this way. In any event, the rationale for this research is less about theorizing predictors of adaptation and more about illustrating how the association between acculturation and adaptation varies when Berry’s basics – the contact dimension and the primacy of attitudes – are changed. One reason for this is to address Rudmin’s (2006, p. 3) claim that critiques of Berry’s model have “avoided problems of methodology, including constructs, confounds and mistaken conclusions.” Another is that this endeavor is viewed as a small, but necessary step, towards eventually synthesizing a body of empirical work what often appears to present markedly conflicting findings on acculturation and adaptation. Finally, the cultural context of the research will also exert a strong influence on the patterns of acculturation. Studies have shown that the proportion of short and long term migrants classified as integrated varies widely across studies (Rudmin, 2003, 2006), even when using the same assessment instruments. For example, Ward (1999) found a range of 1–46% of integrated sojourners across five samples in three countries based on the ethnic and national subscales of the Acculturation Index. Using different measurement techniques Berry and Sabatier (2011) demonstrated that the proportion of integrated youth arising from crossing maintenance/adoption, identity and contact varied from 28.5 to 59.2% in Canada and 24.8 to 62.5% in France and that the distributions were significantly different between the two countries in two of the nine comparisons. Our research is undertaken in New Zealand, a modern nation of immigrants built on the historical bicultural relationship between the British colonizers and indigenous Maori tribes. Along with strategic changes to immigration policy in the late 1980s and early 1990s came an influx of new settlers from diverse countries of origin. Consequently, New Zealand now ranks fourth in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for the percentage (23%) of overseas-born population (Ministry of Social Development, 2008). The country is characterized by a high level of cultural and linguistic diversity with the most recent census showing 67.6% of the population being made up of New Zealanders of European descent, 14.6% Maori, 9.2% Asian and 6.9% Pacific peoples (Statistics New Zealand, 2007).4 This diversity is currently supported by multicultural policies and practices (Berry, Westin, et al., 2006). Furthermore, national surveys have revealed that New Zealanders hold a strong multicultural ideology, particularly in comparison with citizens of European Union countries, and that nationals of both European and Maori descent, like immigrants, favor integration (Ward, 2009; Ward & Lin, 2005; Ward & Masgoret, 2008). Therefore, it is hypothesized that integration will be the modal category chosen by immigrants across the four assessment techniques used in this study. In summary, this study addresses Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver’s (2006) criticism that there has been little research on the systematic comparison of the acculturation measurement methods. Particular emphasis is placed on selected aspects of divergence from “Berry’s basics” and how this affects the classification of acculturation and the relationship between acculturation and adaptation. The research hypotheses are: 1. Integration will be the modal response category for first generation immigrants in New Zealand across all assessment techniques. 2. The integration category will occur more frequently on the basis of cultural maintenance–contact than cultural maintenance-adoption dimensions. 3. The integration category will occur more frequently with ideal than real measures. The research objective is: 1. to explore how and why the relationship between acculturation and adaptation varies as a function of the acculturation measurement.

3

We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. The New Zealand census permits identification with more than one ethnic group so that the total percentage may exceed 100%. In addition, the drop in the New Zealand European population from 80% to 67% between the 2001 and 2006 censuses was largely due to changes in the census ethnic categories, which in 2006 included New Zealander (now classified as other). 4

476


3. Method 3.1. Participants and procedure Participants were recruited by advertisements through a web-based ethnic network and through members of the ethnic communities with a lucky draw offered as an incentive. Participation involved the completion of an anonymous survey. Respondents’ surveys and personal details required for inclusion in the lucky draw were returned in separate envelopes to ensure anonymity. Two hundred and eighty-nine first-generation, “visibly different” immigrants (55% female), aged 15–86 years (M = 38.35, SD = 12.38) returned surveys. Participants had resided in New Zealand from less than 1 year to 67 years (M = 8.23, SD = 9.51) and had arrived in New Zealand between the ages of 1 and 70 years (M = 30.42 years, SD = 11.53). Participants’ self-descriptors of ethnic background were diverse with Indians (n = 88), Pakistanis (n = 44), Chinese (n = 32) and Filipinos (n = 31) forming the largest groups. There was global geographic representation with respondents generally describing their ethnicity in terms of national groups from: Asia (e.g., Cambodian, Thai, Japanese, Indonesian), the Middle East (e.g., Iranian, Iraqi, Palestinian), South America (e.g., Guyanese, Chilean), Africa (e.g., Somali, Zimbabwean, Sierra Leonese) and the Pacific (e.g., Samoan, Tongan, New Caledonian). The most common religious affiliations were Muslim (34.6%) and Christian (26.3%). The sample also included Hindus (15.2%) and Sikhs (7.6%). Buddhism, Judaism and other religions constituted less than 3% each, although 10.4% of the sample claimed no religion. The research participants were generally well educated with 75% having at least a tertiary qualification. Sixteen per cent of the respondents were students and another 15% not working, however, 35% were employed in professional occupations and another 24% in white-collar jobs. Respondents came largely from the Auckland (72%) and Wellington (25%) areas. 3.2. Materials The survey contained a section of background information (age, ethnicity, length of residence in New Zealand, religion, and education), four measures of acculturation, and two measures of adaptation (life satisfaction and social functioning). 3.2.1. Acculturation Acculturation dimensions. Single items were used to assess attitudes toward cultural maintenance, cultural contact and cultural adoption. These were: “It is important that my ethnic group maintains its own culture in New Zealand” (maintenance); “It is important that my ethnic group engages in the wider New Zealand society” (contact); and “It is important that my ethnic group adopts New Zealand culture” (adoption). Each statement was accompanied by a 5-point disagree/agree response scale. Used in conjunction with a scalar midpoint split, maintenance can be crossed with either adoption or contact to categorize research participants as integrated (agree with both maintenance and contact/adoption), assimilated (agree only with contact/adoption), separated (agree only with maintenance) or marginalized (disagree with both maintenance and contact/adoption). Acculturation Index (AI). The Acculturation Index has 18 items pertaining to both public and private acculturation domains (e.g., political ideology, communication styles, language, family life) and examines orientation toward ethnic and national cultural groups (Ward & Kennedy, 1994). Respondents use 7-point scales (endpoints: not at all/very much) to rate their similarity to the two reference groups. The measure may be used to examine these two orientations independently or in conjunction with a scalar midpoint split to classify respondents into one of four acculturation categories. Both “real” (e.g., to what extent are your actual experiences and behaviors similar to . . .?) and “ideal” (e.g., to what extent would your experiences and behaviors be similar to . . . under ideal circumstances?) versions of the AI were used (Navas et al., 2005, 2007) and can be taken to represent self-reported acculturation behaviors and attitudes or preferences, respectively.5 The inventory and has previously proven reliable and valid in the assessment of immigrants and sojourners over a range of cultural backgrounds (Ward, 1999; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999), and the alphas for the real and ideal measures ranged from .92 to .95 in this study. 3.2.2. Adaptation Psychological (life satisfaction) and social (social functioning) aspects of immigrant adaptation were measured. Life satisfaction was assessed by a 5-item scale devised by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985) that has been used widely in cross-cultural research on subjective well-being (e.g., Oishi, Diener, Lucas, & Suh, 2009) and in multi-national studies of acculturation (e.g., Berry, Phinney et al., 2006). The measure has demonstrated excellent reliability in these contexts,

5 Ward and Kennedy (1994) and Ward and Rana-Deuba (1999) originally described the Acculturation Index as assessing co-national and host national identity, defined in terms of similarity of behaviors, values and experiences. However, identity involves more than mere similarity to ethnic or national groups. Therefore, it is more appropriate to refer to an “orientation” to the two cultural groups based on behavioral similarity rather than “identity.” The AI items refer primarily to behaviors (e.g., language usage, work behaviors, time management), but also include beliefs (e.g., religious beliefs) and values (e.g., personal values). Although the AI may be more appropriately described as a cognitive-behavioral measure, we use the term acculturation behaviors in keeping with Navas et al.’s (2005, 2007) REAM, which was similarly based on a measure of beliefs, values and behaviors.


477

and Cronbach alpha = .85 in this study. Sample items include: “I am satisfied with my life,” and “If I could live my life over, I would not change anything.” Five point agree-disagree scales accompany each item, with higher scores indicating greater life satisfaction. Seven items composing the Social Dysfunction sub-scale of the General Health Questionnaire-28 (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) were used to assess immigrants’ social functioning. Sample items include: “I have the impression that I am, generally speaking, doing things right,” and “I feel capable of taking decisions.” As the current state of social functioning was of interest here, rather than changes in normative functioning, the response options were changed from the 4-point “better” to “worse” alternatives to a 5-point “never” to “often” scale. Higher scores reflect better social functioning. The GHQ-28 has two major advantages over comparable instruments; research has shown that the instrument is a robust assessment tool across cultures, and scoring methods are flexible, including the use of Likert scales (Goldberg et al., 1997). In this study one item with a negative item-total correlation (−.03) was dropped from the measure; the remaining six items demonstrated excellent internal consistency (alpha = .91). 3.3. Analysis of data The hypotheses and research objective deal with the classification of acculturation and the relationship between acculturation and adaptation. 3.3.1. Classification of acculturation Four versions of two-dimensional acculturation measures are used in the analyses: (1) cultural maintenance–contact, (2) cultural maintenance–cultural adoption, (3) real ethnic and national cultural orientations and (4) ideal ethnic and national cultural orientations. In each case scalar midpoints of these dimensions are used to divide immigrants into “low/disagree” and “high/agree” categories and to classify them as integrated, separated, assimilated or marginalized. The modal acculturation category across all analyses is examined to test hypothesis one. The remaining hypotheses are tested by deriving z scores from the comparisons of the proportion of integrated immigrants in the contact versus cultural adoption condition (H2) and the real versus ideal (H3) conditions. 3.3.2. Acculturation and adaptation Two sets of hierarchical regression analyses are undertaken to investigate how and why the relationship between acculturation and adaptation varies as a function of the acculturation measures. The first analysis examines the prediction of psychological and social adaptation by the four acculturation categories while the second tests the two underlying dimensions and their interactions as predictors of these adaptive outcomes. In both cases age, gender, education and years in New Zealand are entered in the first step as controls. In the first analysis the acculturation categories are derived from the initial analyses described above on the basis of cultural maintenance–contact, cultural maintenance-adoption, real orientation to ethnic and national cultures, or ideal orientation to ethnic and national cultures. Integration is set as the regression intercept, and dummy codes for assimilation, separation and marginalization are entered in the second step. This allows us to determine if separated, assimilated or marginalized immigrants have lower levels of life satisfaction or poorer social functioning than those who are integrated. In the second analysis, the dimensions of acculturation (cultural maintenance and contact, cultural maintenance and adoption, real ethnic and national cultural orientations, or ideal ethnic and national orientations) are entered in the second step, and the interaction of the dimensions centered on the scale midpoint in third and final step. According to Rudmin (2006), this centering procedure best represents respondents’ position in relation to integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization. This analysis permits us to determine which underlying dimensions of acculturation explain psychological and social adaptation. In addition, significant interactions graphed with Modgraph (Jose, 2008) and subjected to simple slope analysis can provide clues about the association between acculturation categories and adaptation, which can be considered in relationship to the results of the dummy coding in the first set of regression analyses. 4. Results The results are reported in three sections. The first presents the psychometric properties of the measurement scales and the inter-relationships amongst the measures. The second section examines variations in the classification of immigrants as integrated, assimilated, separated or marginalized as a function of the acculturation measure. The final section reports the relationships between acculturation and adaptation as a function of the acculturation measurement. 4.1. Preliminary analyses As can be seen in Table 1, all multi-item scales were internally consistent with Cronbach alphas ranging from .85 to .95. The mean item responses reveal that immigrants tend to endorse both cultural maintenance and contact, and that contact is seen as significantly more important than adoption of New Zealand culture; t (272) = 10.80, p < .001. Immigrants also report that their behaviors are more reflective of their ethnic culture than the national culture (t (273) = 10.42, p < .001) and see this as ideal (t (250) = 5.31, p < .001); however, immigrants would like to be more similar to New Zealanders than they actually

478


Table 1 Psychometric properties of the measurement scales. Measure

Number of items

M

SD

Alpha

Maintenance Adoption Contact Ethnic orientation: real National orientation: real Ethnic orientation: ideal National orientation: ideal Social functioning Life satisfaction

1 1 1 18 18 18 18 6 5

4.00 3.28 4.12 5.11 4.12 5.32 4.83 3.79 3.37

1.07 1.17 0.99 1.29 1.26 1.21 1.25 0.85 0.80

– – – .95 .92 .95 .94 .91 .85

Note: Mean item scores are reported for multi-item scales. Ethnic and national orientation scores (real and ideal) range from 1 to 7; all other multi-item scales score 1–5. Table 2 Correlation matrix: Pearson r’s. Measure 1. Maintenance 2. Adoption 3. Contact 4. Ethnic orientation (real) 5. National orientation (real) 6. Ethnic orientation (ideal) 7. National orientation (ideal) 8. Social functioning 9. Life satisfaction * ** ***

2

3 **

.00 –

.18 .30*** –

4

5

.12 −.02 −.09 –

−.08 .44*** .21*** .19** –

6

7 ***

.22 .00 −.02 .72*** .15* –

−.01 .41*** .21*** .11 .68*** .30*** –

8

9 **

.19 .20*** .16** .14* .21*** .10 .10 –

−.03 .27*** .15* .01 .33*** .07 .30*** .30*** –

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

Table 3 Acculturation categories derived from cultural maintenance and cultural adoption or contact. Cultural maintenance ×

Cultural adoption

Contact

%

n

%

n

Integrated Separated Assimilated Marginalized

60.5 30.8 5.2 3.5

104 53 9 6

85 4.8 6.3 3.9

175 10 13 8

Total

100

172

100

206

are (t (250) = 11.36, p < .001). Overall, immigrants demonstrate good adaptation with mean scores for social functioning being moderately high and life satisfaction scores exceeding 3.31, the mean score suggested by Cummins (1995) as the “gold standard” for Diener et al.’s measure. Table 2 presents the inter-correlations amongst measures. Of primary interest are the relationships between the acculturation dimensions. Analyses clearly reveal that attitudes toward cultural maintenance are independent from attitudes toward cultural adoption (r = −.00, ns). The relationships between cultural maintenance and contact (r = .19, p < .01) and between real ethnic and national orientations (r = .19, p < .01), while significantly related, are indicative of a small effect size (Cohen, 1992) and point to only 3.2% shared variance. A moderate correlation (r = .30, p < .001) was found between ethnic and national culture ideals, and considered in conjunction with the mean scores, both above the scalar mid-point, suggest integration is viewed as optimal. Real and ideal measures were highly correlated for both ethnic (r = .72, p < .001) and national (r = .68, p < .001) orientations. This large effect size suggests that the real and ideal measures could be combined to produce ethnic and national orientation scores; however, for conceptual and methodological reasons relating to the distinction of behaviors and attitudes (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006; Celenk & van de Vijver, in press), these are kept separate for subsequent analyses of the relationship between acculturation and adaptation. As might be expected, a medium effect size was found for the correlation between indices of psychological and social adaptation (r = .30, p < .001). 4.2. The classification of acculturation orientations The classifications of acculturation orientations, based on the scalar midpoint (3.0 or 4.0) split are presented in Tables 3 and 4. As can be seen in all cases and consistent with the first hypothesis, integration in the modal response. However, the proportion of those in the integrated category changes as a function of the second acculturation dimension.


479

Table 4 Acculturation categories derived from real and ideal cultural orientations. Real

Ideal

% Integrated Separated Assimilated Marginalized

n

51.2 31.5 8.5 8.8

Total

%

145 89 24 25

100

n

70.5 14.2 9.9 5.4

283

186 37 26 14

100

263

Table 5 Acculturation and adaptation: standardized betas for acculturation attitudes derived from cultural maintenance and contact or cultural adoption. Life satisfaction Cultural maintenance ×

1. Age Gender Years in NZ Education 2. Assimilation Separation Marginalization Constant 2 R change R2 N * ** ***

Contact

Social functioning Adoption

Contact

Adoption

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

.086 −.111 .210* −.036

.090 −.112 .198* −.053 .004 −.098 −.009 3.446 .009 .098**

.138 −.077 .203* −.132

.151 −.089 .178 −.117 −.011 −.220** −.121 3.535 .055* .174***

.054 −.018 .021 .103

.118 −.013 −.032 .041 .054 −.065 −.346*** 3.550 .123*** .140***

.207* −.011 −.097 .026

.234** −.018 −.128 .036 −.037 −.159* −.151 3.497 .040 .073

3.384 .089** .089** 195

3.424 .120** .120** 160

3.480 .017 .017 195

3.442 .033 .033 160

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

Table 3 shows a shift from separation to integration when cultural maintenance is crossed with contact, compared to adoption, and the increase in integration from 61% to 85% is statistically significant (z = 5.48, p < .001). This confirms hypothesis two. Table 4 shows a similar shift towards integration when self-descriptions (51%) are compared to ideals (71%). Again, the difference is statistically significant (z = 3.67, p < .005) and supports hypothesis three. 4.3. Acculturation and adaptation Table 5 reports significant differences in psychological and social adaptation between integrated immigrants compared to assimilated, separated and marginalized when the acculturation categories are derived from crossing cultural maintenance with contact, as originally proposed by Berry (1984a,b, 1990), or with cultural adoption. The results show notably different patterns of results as a function of the classification technique. With respect to life satisfaction, separated, assimilated and marginalized immigrants do as well as their integrated peers when acculturation is defined by cultural maintenance and contact; however, when cultural adoption is used as the second dimension of acculturation, separated immigrants (ˇ = −.220, p < .01) experience lower levels of life satisfaction. In the case of social functioning, integrated immigrants fare significantly better than their marginalized peers (ˇ = −. 346, p < .01) when the categories are defined by cultural maintenance and contact, but higher levels of social functioning are found in integrated, compared to separated (ˇ = −.159, p < .05), immigrants when cultural maintenance and adoption operate as the defining criteria. Table 6 reports the parallel analyses for real and ideal ethnic and national cultural orientations. Analyses indicate that separated immigrants report lower levels of life satisfaction than their integrated counterparts, whether the classification is based on real (ˇ = −.196, p < .01) or ideal (ˇ = −.265, p < .01) descriptions. In addition, marginalized immigrants report lower levels of life satisfaction (ˇ = −.133, p < .05) and poorer social functioning (ˇ = −.188, p < .01), but only in the real condition. Although the findings are by no means conclusive, they do suggest that classifications derived from “real” self-reported behaviors are more robust predictors of adaptation than “ideal” attitudinal preferences Tables 7 and 8 present the findings of regression analyses that test the core dimensions of acculturation and their interactions as predictors of adaptation. First, acculturation attitudes based on cultural maintenance and either contact or cultural adoption are examined. The findings converge for life satisfaction in that both contact (ˇ = .139, p < .05) and adoption (ˇ = .240, p < .001) predict positive adaptation; neither cultural maintenance nor the interaction the two dimensions do so. The results for social adaptation, however, reveal a somewhat different pattern of relationships. Cultural adoption exerts a positive influence on social functioning (ˇ = .155, p < .05) while contact interacts with cultural maintenance (ˇ = −.225, p < .01) to predict the adaptive outcome. The interaction is graphed in Fig. 1, and reveals that intercultural contact predicts better social

480


Table 6 Acculturation and adaptation: standardized betas for acculturation categories derived from real and ideal ethnic and national orientations. Life satisfaction

Social functioning

Real

1. Age Gender Years in NZ Education 2. Assimilation Separation Marginalization Constant R2 change R2 N * ** ***

Ideal

Real

Ideal

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

.011 −.075 .238** −.005

.012 −.084 .207** .008 .076 −.196** −.133* 3.477 .058** .127**

.035 −.084 .231** −.010

.073 −.088 .162* −.023 .058 −.265** −.066 3.415 .076** .148***

.141* −.030 .121 .224***

−.153* −.022 .125 .231*** .037 −.035 −.188** 3.635 .037* .090**

−.129 −.015 −.114 .237***

−.145** −.011 −.112 .245*** .000 −.031 −.110 3.504 .012 .070**

3.350 .069** .069** 266

3.343 .072** .072** 245

3.588 .053** .053** 268

3.456 .058** .058** 249

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

Table 7 Acculturation and adaptation: standardized betas for main and interaction effects of cultural maintenance and contact or adoption. Life satisfaction Cultural maintenance ×

1. Age Gender Years in NZ Education 2. Maintenance Contact Adoption 3. Interaction R2 change R2 * ** ***

Social functioning

Contact

Adoption

Contact

Adoption

1

2

3

2

3

1

2

3

2

3

.005 −.106 .243** −.016

.007 −.121* .243** −.021 −.082 .139* –

−.005 −.122* .220** −.002 −.057 – .240***

−.120 −.041 .099 .199*** .140* .105 –

.053** .053**

.035** .088***

−.112 −.047 .096 .196** .236** .201** – −.225** .028** .116***

−.128 −.040 .084 .210** .159** – .155*

.021* .097***

−.005 −.122* .222** −.005 −.049 – .301*** −.087 .004 .141***

−.151* −.047 .128 .212**

.076*** .076***

.009 −.123* .242** −.022 −.060 .161* – −.052 .002 .099***

−.128 −.040 .085 .209** .160** – .166* −.016 .00 .101***

.059*** .137***

.049** .101***

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

Table 8 Acculturation and adaptation: standardized betas for main and interaction effects of real and ideal ethnic and national orientations. Life satisfaction

Social functioning

Real

1. Age Gender Years in NZ Education 2. Ethnic (real) National (real) Ethnic (ideal) National (ideal) 3. Interaction R2 change R2 * ** ***

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

Ideal

Real

Ideal

1

2

3

2

3

1

2

3

2

3

.011 −.075 .238** −.005

.007 −.103 .190** −.014 −.036 .333*** – –

.029 −.104 .168* −.015 – – −.075 .312***

−.177* −.033 .128 .226*** .120* .141* – –

.053** .053**

.038** .091***

−.150* −.015 .107 .217*** .076 .350*** – – −.323*** .060*** .152***

−.149* −.009 .108 .241*** – – .104 .054

.105*** .173***

.029 −.104 .168* −.015 – – −.072 .320*** −.013 .000 .158***

−.141* −.030 .121 .224***

.069*** .069***

.004 −.096 .182** −.017 −.053 .415*** – – −.127 .009 .183***

−.149* −.009 .108 .243*** – – .115 .085 −.045 .001 .075**

.085*** .157***

.016 .074**


481

Social functioning 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 Cultural maintenance High

3.6 3.5

Cultural maintenance Medium

3.4

Cultural maintenance Low

3.3 3.2 3.1 3 Low

Medium

High

Contact Fig. 1. The interaction effects for social functioning: cultural maintenance × contact.

Social functioning 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 Real national orientation High

3.6 3.5

Real national orientation Medium

3.4

Real national orientation Low

3.3 3.2 3.1 3 Low

Medium

High

Real ethnic orientation Fig. 2. The interaction effects for social functioning: real ethnic × national orientations.

functioning, but only when cultural maintenance is low; low slope = .274, t (264) = 3.444, p < .001.6 The graph also suggests that marginalized immigrants are disadvantaged compared to other groups, and this is consistent with the results of the categorical analysis reported in Table 5. Finally, ethnic and national cultural orientations are examined as predictors of adaptation across real and ideal conditions in Table 8. The findings converge for life satisfaction. A stronger national cultural orientation is associated with greater subjective well-being whether arising from real descriptions (ˇ = .333, p < .001) or ideal preferences (ˇ = .312, p < .001). In neither case does an ethnic orientation predict the adaptive outcome nor is there a significant interaction effect. A different pattern of results is found for social adaptation. Both ethnic (ˇ = .120, p < .05) and national (ˇ = .141, p < .05) cultural orientations predict better social functioning when defined by self-reported behaviors, while neither is associated with the adaptive outcome when defined by ideal preferences. Furthermore, a significant interaction (ˇ = −.323, p < .001) between real ethnic and national orientations was found. Fig. 2 indicates that a strong ethnic orientation predicts better social functioning

6 Although Rudmin (2003) advocates the use of centering on scalar midpoints, our analyses revealed the same significant interaction effects when the scores were centered on the sample mean.

482


only when the national cultural orientation is weak (low slope = .186, t (264) = 3.106, p < .01). Again the graph suggests that marginalized immigrants fare poorly compared to other groups, and this is consistent with the findings presented in Table 6. 5. Discussion The research compared Berry’s (1980, 1984a,b) original cultural maintenance–cultural contact conceptualization of acculturation with the cultural maintenance–cultural adoption formulation. It also contrasted assessments of real and ideal acculturation in first generation migrants in New Zealand. The overarching objective was to examine the different classifications of integration, separation, assimilation and marginalization as a function of the core dimensions of acculturation and to explore the associated implications for the relationship between acculturation and adaptation. The findings provided strong and consistent support for our three hypotheses. First, integration was the modal response across all assessment techniques. Second, the maintenance–contact measure resulted in a significantly greater proportion of integrated responses than the maintenance-adoption model. Third, the ideal/attitudinal measure of acculturation produced a greater proportion of integrated responses than the real/self-reported behavioral measure. Support for the first of these hypotheses bears out the importance of cultural context. New Zealand is a culturally diverse country, and the diversity is widely supported by multicultural programs and policies. Along with Canada and Australia it was classified as one of only three countries in the 13-nation International Comparative Study of Ethno-cultural Youth to have a high level of diversity policies (Berry, Westin, et al., 2006). National surveys have shown that New Zealanders hold a strong multicultural ideology and receptive attitudes toward immigrants, particularly when compared to their European counterparts (Ward & Masgoret, 2008). Moreover, using multiple methods and conducting research with both adolescents and adults, Ward has shown that New Zealand nationals and immigrants most strongly endorse integration (Ward & Lin, 2005; Ward & Masgoret, 2008; Ward, 2009). All of this converges with integration emerging as the modal acculturation category across assessment methods in this study. It is important to point out, however, that neither Snauwaert et al. (2003) in Belgium nor Berry and Sabatier (2011) in Canada and France found integration to be the modal category across multiple acculturation assessments. For example, Snauwaert et al. (2003) found that integration was the modal category when derived from maintenance and contact (82%) for Turkish immigrants but that separation (56%) was the modal response when maintenance was combined with adoption. Berry and Sabatier (2011) found the same pattern in Canada (59% and 49%, respectively). In France, by contrast, integration was the modal acculturation classification (63% and 48%) in both conditions, but in only three of the remaining seven classification methods based on crossing maintenance/adoption, contact, and identity. There now appears to be consistent findings that integration is more likely to emerge when Berry’s original second dimension of contact is used in contrast to adoption of national culture. On this count our New Zealand findings are in accordance with research from Belgium, France and Canada. This pattern can be understood in terms of the relative amount of commitment required to the national society. Snauwaert et al.’s (2003, p. 237) describe adoption as more “psychologically demanding;” Berry and Sabatier (2011, p. 667) discuss adoption as a “deeper” psychological phenomenon. As predicted, our findings also indicate that integration is more likely to occur on the basis of ideal descriptions or attitudes, as emphasized in Berry’s early theory and research, than on the basis of self-reported behaviors. This is not surprising in that actual acculturation strategies are constrained by a range of factors, including the attitudes of the receiving society (Bourhis et al., 1997; Navas et al., 2005), the cultural distance between the dominant society and the migrating group (Ward, 1999) and the personality and cognitive processes of the individual immigrant (Schmitz, 2001; Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006). The evidence indicates that integration is the ideal for first generation migrants in New Zealand, but it is not achieved to the extent it is desired. This trend bears some resemblance to research by Navas et al. (2007) that demonstrated integration was perceived as an ideal in selected acculturation domains (e.g., social relations and economics) by Maghrebis and SubSaharan immigrants in Spain, but that it was not believed to be achieved in terms of actual behaviors. It would be interesting to examine behavioral changes in acculturation in longitudinal research as studies have shown that culture-specific skills increase over time in short and long term migrants (Ward & Kennedy, 1996; Ward, Okura, Kennedy, & Kojima, 1998), suggesting a possible shift from separation to integration. Our findings also demonstrate that the conceptualization and operationalization of acculturation have implications for the empirical relationship between acculturation and adaptation. There are discernible differences: (1) in the adaptation across integrated, assimilated, separated and marginalized immigrants as a function of the classification technique; and (2) between the predictive power of the two underlying components of acculturation when comparisons are made: (a) between contact and adoption and (b) between real and ideal cultural orientations. However, the patterns are not well-defined and are somewhat difficult to interpret. The difficulties are compounded by the inclusion of both psychological and social adaptation as dependent measures. The findings tentatively suggest that measures derived from self-reported acculturation behaviors may be more reliable predictors of adaptation than acculturation attitudes. More specifically, integrated immigrants report better social functioning than their marginalized peers and greater life satisfaction than both their separated and marginalized counterparts when the classifications are made on the basis of self-reported behaviors. In contrast, when attitudes form the basis of the classification, separated immigrants report lower levels of life satisfaction than those who are integrated, but no significant differences occur between the integrated and other groups in terms of social functioning. The asymmetry is also found in the analysis of the underlying dimensions. Self-reported ethnic and national cultural orientations exert positive main effects


483

on social functioning; ideal preferences are not significantly related to this adaptive outcome. In the case of life satisfaction, however, both real and ideal national cultural orientations predict more positive psychological outcomes. Discerning patterns in the comparisons of attitude measures derived from contact versus adoption is even more difficult. Taxonomies based on cultural maintenance and adoption reliably distinguish separated from integrated immigrants; specifically, those who endorse a separatist strategy report lower life satisfaction and poorer social functioning than those who prefer integration. In contrast, derivations based on attitudes toward maintenance and contact produce mixed results. Under these conditions, those classified as marginalized report poorer outcomes than the integrated, but only for social functioning. Delving deeper, the analysis of the underlying components reveals both similarity and differences in the operation of contact and adoption. Both are positively associated with life satisfaction, but differences emerge for social functioning. More specifically, endorsement of cultural adoption exerts a positive main effect on social functioning, but endorsement of contact does not; however, contact interacts with cultural maintenance, indicating it does predict better social functioning, but only when cultural maintenance is not deemed important. The ambiguity with respect to contact–adoption comparisons may arise from the use of single-item measures, an obvious limitation of the current research. Although single item measures of cultural maintenance and contact for the classification of integration, separation, assimilation and marginalization have been used previously in acculturation research (Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzálek, 2000), multi-item scales are more robust, have greater content validity and less error. It would be worthwhile to examine the utility of single versus multi-item scales in a more systematic fashion in future research. In conclusion, why are our findings important? Research on acculturation is increasing rapidly. A search of the PsycINFO database for the keyword acculturation generated 273 hits for 1990–1991; 20 years later (2010–2011) the number was 1027. Celenk and van de Vijver’s (in press) critical review of acculturation measurements yielded 99 assessment instruments; 47 of which were in the public domain. Amongst these, the authors identified measures of acculturation conditions (i.e.; background conditions, such as characteristics of the immigrant group or receiving society); acculturation orientations (relationships to heritage and mainstream cultures); acculturation outcomes (e.g., acquisition of socio-cultural skills; management of acculturative stress); acculturation attitudes (preferences) and self-reported acculturation behaviors. They also reported that 37% of the measures included items to assess orientations; 63% to assess attitudes; 85% to assess behaviors and 51% to assess both attitudes and behaviors. In contrast to the centrality of attitudes in Berry’s initial formulations of acculturation; Celenk and van de Vijver conclude that behaviors are now viewed as the most “central carriers” of acculturation. With shifts in acculturation theory and measurement it becomes all the more important to be clear about the conceptualization and operationalization of the key constructs. Only then will we be able to synthesize research findings in a coherent manner. Going back to and beyond Berry’s basics, we note the changes from the early concentration of cultural maintenance and intercultural contact and the extensions to cultural adoption and identity; we also note the move from focus on acculturation attitudes to include behaviors and identity. We end in agreement with Berry and Sabatier’s (2011) recent conclusion that to advance acculturation theory and research it important to specify which operationalization of acculturation is used, which aspect of adaptation is investigated, and in which society immigrants have settled. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Royal Society of New Zealand’s James Cook Fellowship and the Building Research Capacity in the Social Sciences Summer Internship Programme. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the XIX International Congress of the International Association for Cross-cultural Psychology, Bremen, Germany, in August 2008. References Arends-Tóth, 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. 142–162). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Arends-Tóth, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2006). The influence of method factors on the relation between attitudes and self-reported behaviors in the assessment of acculturation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 4–12. Berry, J. W. (1970). Marginality, stress and identification in an acculturated aboriginal community. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1, 239–252. Berry, J. W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism: Unity and identity reconsidered. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 17–22. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theories, models and findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder, CO: Westview. Berry, J. W. (1984a). Multicultural policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 16, 353–370. Berry, J. W. (1984b). Cultural relations in plural societies: Alternatives to segregation and their socio-psychological implications. In N. Miller, & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact (pp. 11–27). New York: Academic Press. Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving between cultures. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 232–253). Newbury Park: Sage. Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 625–631. Berry, J. W. (2002). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marín (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement and applied research (pp. 17–38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712. Berry, J. W. (2006). Contexts of acculturation. In D. L. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 27–42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Berry, J. W. (2009). A critique of critical acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 361–371. Berry, J. W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

484


Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 185–206. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (Eds.). (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 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. Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2011). Variations in the assessment of acculturation attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 658–669. Berry, J. W., Westin, C., Virta, E., Vedder, P., Rooney, R., & Sang, D. (2006). Design of the study: Selecting societies of settlement. In J. W. Berry, J. Phinney, D. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts (pp. 15–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Birman, D., Trickett, E., & Vinokurov, A. (2002). Acculturation and adaptation of Soviet Jewish refugee adolescents: Predictors of adjustment across life domains. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 585–607. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. Celenk, Ö., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (in press). Assessment of acculturation and multiculturalism: An overview of measures in the public domain. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y. Hong (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multicultural identity: Basic and applied psychological perspectives. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. Chung, R. H., Kim, B. S., & Abreu, J. M. (2004). Asian American multidimensional acculturation scale: Development, factor analysis, reliability and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 66–80. Cuéllar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican-Americans normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2, 199–217. Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the trail of the golden standard for subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179–200. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, A. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Donà, G., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of Central American refugees. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 57–70. Goldberg, D. P., Gater, R., Sartorius, N., Ustan, T. B., Piccinelli, M., Gureje, O., et al. (1997). The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychological Medicine, 27, 191–197. Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F. (1979). A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 9, 139–141. Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. Oxford, UK: Claredon. Huynh, Q.-L., Howell, R. T., & Benet-Martínez, V. B. (2009). Reliability of bidimensional acculturation scores: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 40, 256–274. Jose, P. E. (2008). ModGraph-I: A programme to compute cell means for the graphical display of moderational analyses: The Internet version, version 2. 0. Retrieved 20 December, 2011, from Victoria University of Wellington, School of Psychology Website:. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/psyc/staff/paul-josefiles/modgraph/modgraph.php Kim, B. S. K., & Abreu, J. M. (2001). Acculturation measurement: Theory, current instruments and future directions. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counselling (2nd ed., pp. 394–424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kosic, A. (2002). Acculturation attitudes, need for cognitive closure and adaptation of immigrants. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 179–201. Krishnan, A., & Berry, J. W. (1992). Acculturative stress and acculturation attitudes among Indian migrants to the United States. Psychology and Developing Societies, 4, 187–212. Lim, K. V., Heiby, E., Brislin, R., & Griffin, B. (2002). The development of the Khmer acculturation scale. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 653–678. Liebkind, K. (2001). Acculturation. In R. Brown, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 386–406). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Matsudaira, T. (2006). Measures of psychological acculturation: A review. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43, 462–487. Ministry of Social Development. (2008). Diverse communities: Exploring the refugee and migrant experience in New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Social Development. Navas, M., García, M. C., Sánchez, J., Rojas, A. J., Pumares, P., & Fernández, J. S. (2005). Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM): New contributions with regard to the study of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 21–37. Navas, M., Rojas, A. J., Garcia, M., & Pumares, P. (2007). Acculturation strategies and attitudes according to the Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM): The perspectives of natives versus immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(1), 67–86. Nyugen, H. H., & von Eye, A. (2002). The acculturation scale for Vietnamese adolescents (ASVA): A bidimensional perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 202–213. Oetting, E. R., & Beauvais, F. (1991). Orthogonal cultural identification theory: The cultural identity of minority adolescents. International Journal of Addictions, 25, 655–685. Oishi, S., Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (2009). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. In E. Diener (Ed.), Culture and well-being—The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 19–128). New York: Springer. Olmeda, E. L. (1979). Acculturation: A psychometric perspective. American Psychologist, 34, 1061–1070. Phinney, J., Berry, J. W., Vedder, P., & Liebkind, K. (2006). The acculturation experience: Attitudes, identities and behaviors of immigrant youth. In J. W. Berry, J. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts (pp. 71–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzálek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1–26. Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3–37. Rudmin, F. W. (2006). Debate in science: The case of acculturation. AnthroGlobe Journal. Retrieved December 15, 2011 from www.anthroglobe.info/docs/rudminf acculturation 061204.pdf. Rudmin, F. W. (2009). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 106–123. Rudmin, F. W., & Ahmadzadeh, V. (2001). Psychometric critique of acculturation psychology: The case of Iranian migrants in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 41–56. Ryder, A., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (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. Sam, D. L. (1995). Acculturation attitudes among young immigrants as a function of perceived parental attitudes toward cultural change. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 238–258. Sands, E., & Berry, J. W. (1993). Acculturation and mental health among Greek Canadians. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 12, 117–124. Sayegh, L., & Lasry, J.-C. (1993). Immigrants’ adaptation to Canada: Assimilation, acculturation and orthogonal cultural identification. Canadian Psychology, 34, 98–109. Schmitz, P. (2001). Psychological aspects of integration. In L. L. Adler, & U. Gielen (Eds.), Cross-cultural topics in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 229–243). Westport, CT: Praeger.


485

Snauwaert, B., Soenens, B., Vanbeselaere, N., & Boen, F. (2003). When integration does not necessarily imply integration: Different conceptualizations of acculturation orientations lead to different classifications. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34, 231–239. Sommerlad, E. A., & Berry, J. W. (1970). The role of ethnic identification in distinguishing between attitudes of assimilation and integration of a minority racial group. Human Relations, 23, 23–29. SPSS Library. (n.d.). MANOVA and GLM. Adapted by UCLA: Academic Technology Services, Statistical Consulting Group. Retrieved 30 December, 2011 from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/library/manglm.htm. Statistics New Zealand. (2007). Quick stats about culture and identity: 2006 census on population and dwellings. Retrieved 20 April, 2009 from. http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-culture-identity/quickstats-about-culture-and-identity.htm Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12, 77–88. Tadmor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. (2006). Biculturalism: A model of the effects of second-culture exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 37, 173–190. Tsai-Chae, A., & Nagata, D. K. (2008). Asian values and perceptions of intergenerational family conflict among Asian American students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 205–214. Ward, C. (1999). Models and measurements of acculturation. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, D. K. Forgays, & S. A. Hayes (Eds.), Merging past, present and future (pp. 221–229). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Ward, C. (2009). Acculturation and social cohesion: Emerging issues for Asian immigrants in New Zealand. In C.-H. Leong, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Intercultural relations in Asia: Migration and work effectiveness (pp. 3–24). Singapore: World Scientific. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment and socio-cultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–343. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1996). Crossing cultures: Psychological and socio-cultural dimensions of cross-cultural adjustment. In J. Pandey, D. Sinha, & D. P. S. Bhawuk (Eds.), Asian contributions to cross-cultural psychology (pp. 289–306). New Delhi: Sage. Ward, C., & Lin, E.-Y. (2005). Immigration, acculturation and national identity in New Zealand. In J. Liu, T. McCreanor, T. McIntosh, & T. Teaiwa (Eds.), New Zealand identities: Departures and destinations (pp. 155–173). Wellington: Victoria University Press. Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2008). Attitudes toward immigrants, immigration and multiculturalism in New Zealand: A social psychological analysis. International Migration Review, 42, 222–243. Ward, C., Okura, Y., Kennedy, A., & Kojima, T. (1998). The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 277–291. Ward, C., & Rana-Deuba, A. (1999). Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 422–442.