Berry, Context of Acculturation

P1: FXS/XXX P2: FXS/XXX QC: FXS/XXX T1: FXS

CUUK524-Sam & Berry January 16, 2006 12:10

3 Contexts of acculturationJohn W. Berry

3.1 Introduction

As we have seen in Chapter 2, acculturation is a process of cultural

and psychological change that results from the continuing contact between

people of different cultural backgrounds. Following initial contact, most of

these contact situations result in the development of societies that have more

than one cultural, linguistic or religious entity living in them. As a result, most

acculturation research has taken place in societies that are culturallyplural. In

this chapter, we consider the nature of these societies, and some of their salient

dimensions. Second, we provide a typology of the kinds of groups that make

up plural societies, including such groups as indigenous peoples, immigrants,

sojourners and ethnocultural communities. Third, we present one of the core

ideas that underlies much contemporary work on acculturation: there are large

group and individual differences in how people go about their lives during this

process, which we refer to as acculturation strategies.

3.2 Plural societies

A culturally plural society is one in which a number of different cul-

tural or ethnic groups reside together within a shared social and political frame-

work (Skelton & Allen, 1999). There are two key aspects to this concept:

the continuity (or not) of diverse cultural communities; and the participation

(or not) of these communities in the daily life of the plural society.

The first aspect conveys the idea that there could be a unicultural soci-

ety that has one culture and one people. While it used to be the case that such

unicultural societies actually existed, it is now obvious that there is no contem-

porary society in which one culture, one language, one religion and one single

identity characterizes the whole population. Despite this obvious fact, some

people continue to think and behave as if their societies were culturally uniform

(or if they are not now, they should be!). However, others know and accept that

there are usually many cultural groups trying to live together in their society,

and that there should not be attempts to forge a single culture, a single people

out of this diversity.

In a very stark and contrasting way, Figure 3.1 portrays two implicit models

of plural societies. In one (the mainstream–minority), there is a melting pot;

27



28 T H E O R I E S , C O N C E P T S A N D M E T H O D S

MELTING POT CULTURAL PLURALISM

MAINSTREAMSOCIETY

MINORITYGROUPS

LARGERSOCIETY

ETHNOCULTURALGROUPS

Figure 3.1 Two implicit models of culturally plural societies

here the view is of a single dominant or mainstream society, on the margins of

which are the various minority groups. The common assumption is that such

groups should be absorbed into the mainstream in such a way that they essen-

tially disappear. With respect to the two aspects noted above, their cultural

continuity is denied, and this absorption is the only acceptable basis for their

participation in the society. In this view, there is to be “one people, one culture,

one nation” as an overriding goal. It is reminiscent of early conceptions, such

as manifest destiny in the USAmerican tradition in the last century: “The whole

continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be

peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system

of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of

social usages and customs” (Quincy Adams, 1811). It is also reminiscent of

the colonial policy pursued earlier by the French, and attributed to the philoso-

pher Montaigne: “to gently polish and reclaim for humanity the savages of the

world.” If such incorporation into a uniform society is not achieved (for what-

ever reasons), then the groups on the margins literally become marginalized

(see below).

A second implicit model, shown on the right of Figure 3.1, is a multiculturalmodel, in which there is a mosaic of ethnocultural groups. In terms of the

two aspects noted above, in the multicultural model individuals and groups

retain their cultural continuity and a sense of their cultural identity, and, on

that basis, they participate in the social framework of the larger society. Such

a society is characterized by shared norms about how to live together (such

as legal, economic, political), but which permits institutions to evolve in order

to accommodate the different cultural interests of all groups. This notion of

a larger society is clearly different from that of the mainstream, where the

dominant group established the main features of the society.

These two contrasting models are not simply abstract notions, but represent

two of the main views in which people conceive of possible ways to arrange

themselves when confronting the increasing cultural diversity in their societies.



Contexts of acculturation 29

MOBILITY VOLUNTARINESS OF CONTACT

VOLUNTARY INVOLUNTARY

SEDENTARY

MIGRANT

permanent

temporary

ETHNOCULTURAL

GROUPS

INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES

IMMIGRANTS

SOJOURNERS

REFUGEES

ASYLUM

SEEKERS

Figure 3.2 Varieties of groups in plural societies

As a consequence, they serve as important contrasting contexts within which

individuals and groups engage the acculturation process.

3.2.1 Groups constituting plural societies

There are many different kinds of groups in plural societies, each one presenting

another set of contextual factors (see Figure 3.2). One way to conceive of this

variety is by looking at the underlying factors (historical and contemporary)

that explain why people of different cultural backgrounds are living together

in the same place. While not exhaustive, there are three reasons presented in

Figure 3.2. First, groups may find themselves together either because they have

sought out such an arrangement voluntarily, or alternatively because it has been

forced upon them. Second, some groups have remained on home ground, while

others have settled far from their ancestral territory (sedentary vs. migrant).And third, some people are settled into a plural society permanently, while

others are only temporary residents.Some of the more common terms used to refer to constituent groups in plural

societies have been placed in Figure 3.2 in relation to these three dimensions.

Starting with the longest-term residents, indigenous peoples are those who

have “always been there” in the sense that their roots go way back, and there is

no evidence of any earlier people whose descendants are still in the population

(see Chapter 15). There is considerable controversy in some countries about

the term “indigenous” (or “native,” or “aboriginal”) because of special rights

that may be claimed. A similar term, used in some European countries, is

national minority, such as Basque, Breton, Catalan, Frisian, and Sami. The

basic characteristic of many indigenous peoples is that their territories have




been forcefully incorporated into a larger nation-state, their residual lands are

often reduced in size and capacity to sustain life, and they have come to be

seen as just another minority group within the larger plural society. They are

clearly involuntary, as well as sedentary in Figure 3.2.

Other peoples who have a long history of settlement are the descendants of

earlier waves of immigrants who have settled into recognizable groups, often

with a sense of their own cultural heritage (common language, identity, etc.).

These ethnocultural groups can be found the world over, for example in French-

and Spanish-origin communities in the New World, in the groups descended

from indentured workers (such as Chinese and Indian communities in the

Caribbean), from those who were enslaved (such as African Americans), and

in Dutch and British immigrant groups in Southern Africa, Australia and New

Zealand. Such groups may be large or small, powerful or powerless, depending

on the overall history and the national context within which they live. Whatever

their histories, most are now voluntary participants in the national life of their

contemporary societies.

In contrast to these two sedentary constituents of plural societies, there

are others who have developed in other places and been socialized into other

cultures, who migrate to take up residence (either permanently or temporarily)

in another society. Among these groups are immigrants (see Chapter 11) who

usually move in order to achieve a better life elsewhere. For most, the “pull

factors” (those that attract them to a new society) are stronger than the “push

factors” (those that pressure them to leave). Hence, immigrants are generally

thought of as voluntary members of plural societies. The process of settling in

will be considered later in the discussion of acculturation and adaptation. For

the time being, it is important to note that not everyone becomes a member

of the new society in the same way: some jump in with both feet, seeking

rapid absorption, while others are more hesitant, seeking to retain a clear

sense of their own cultural heritage and identity, thereby revealing different

acculturation strategies (see below).

While immigrants are relatively permanent participants in their new society,

the group known as sojourners (see Chapter 12) are there only temporarily in a

variety of roles, and for a set purpose (e.g., as international students, diplomats,

business executives, aid workers or guest workers). In their case, the process of

becoming involved in the plural society is complicated by their knowledge that

they will eventually leave, and either return home or be posted to yet another

country. Thus there may be a hesitation to become fully involved, to establish

close relationships, or to begin to identify with the new society. Despite their

uncertain position, in some societies sojourners constitute a substantial element

in the resident population (e.g., the Gulf States, Germany, Belgium) and may

either hold substantial power, or be relatively powerless.

Among involuntary migrants, refugees and asylum seekers (now often called

collectively “forced migrants”; Ager, 1999) have the greatest hurdles to face:

they frequently don’t want to leave their homelands, and, if they do, it is not




always possible for them to be granted the right to stay and settle into the

new society (see Chapters 13 and 14). Those who arrive at the border of a

country that has signed the Geneva Convention on Refugees have a right to

be admitted and given sanctuary (as asylum seekers) until their claim is adju-

dicated; if granted permanent admission as refugees, much of the uncertainty

that surrounded their life during their flight is reduced. However, most live

with the knowledge that “push factors” (rather than “pull factors”) led them to

flee their homeland and settle in their new society; and, of course, most have

experienced traumatic events, and most have lost their material possessions.

There are a number of reasons why the six kinds of groups portrayed in

Figure 3.2 were organized according to three factors (voluntary–involuntary;

sedentary–migrant; and permanent–temporary), rather than simply listed. The

most important reason is that, as groups, they have differential size, power,

rights and resources; these factors have an important bearing on how they will

engage (as groups or as individuals) in the acculturation process. A second

important reason is that the attitudes, motives, values and abilities (all psycho-

logical characteristics of individuals in these groups) are also highly variable.

These factors, too, impact on how their acculturation is likely to take place.

3.2.2 Cultural dimensions of plural societies

Societies differ from one another in a variety of ways. In those societies that

are plural, there are some variations that are particularly salient. These include

economic, historical, and political contexts that can influence how groups and

individuals will relate to each other during acculturation. In this section, how-

ever, we focus on those differences that are generally cultural in nature. This

is important because evidence shows that the greater the cultural differences

between the groups of people in contact during acculturation, then the greater

will be the difficulties in experiencing acculturation that is relatively free from

stress (see Chapter 4) in achieving successful adaptation and in establishing

harmonious relationships (Ward, Bochner & Furnham, 2001). Many dimen-

sions of cultural variation have been proposed by various authors, and have

been summarized by Berry (2004): Table 3.1 identifies six of the more impor-

tant ones.

These six dimensions can be described more fully:

1. Diversity Some cultures are fairly homogeneous in terms of what people

do, and how they think of themselves. Another aspect of diversity is whether

most people share a common regional, or ethnic, identity. For example, in

Japan and Iceland, there is minimal variation, whereas in countries such as

Australia and Canada, people have rather divergent senses of themselves.

2. Equality When differences do occur, they can be treated equally or dif-

ferentially, in terms of rewards and status. In some societies, there are rigid

hierarchies in civic, military and religious spheres (e.g., Pope, cardinals, bish-

ops, priests, monks, believers and heretics). In others there may even be no




Table 3.1 Dimensions of cultural variation in plural societies that are important in acculturation

Dimension Brief description

1. Diversity How many different positions, roles, and institutions are there? Are there othervariations within culture (e.g. regional, ethnic)?

2. Equality Are these differences arranged in horizontal (egalitarian) or vertical(hierarchical) social structures?

3. Conformity How tightly structured are the various parts; how much are individualsenmeshed in the social order?

4. Wealth What is the average level of wealth (GDP per person) available to supportnecessities of life?

5. Space How do individuals use space during interpersonal relationships? Are eye andbody contact frequent?

6. Time Are people concerned about promptness and schedules; do they engage eachother one-on-one, or have multiple interactions at one time?

permanent authority or leadership; coordination of action is by consensus, or

by the use of temporary leaders for specific activities. These first two dimen-

sions often interact, with some cultural groups occupying different status levels

(eg., indigenous peoples in the Americas, Roma in Eastern Europe, Koreans

in Japan).

3. Conformity In some societies, people are tightly enmeshed in a system

of norms and social obligations to the ingroup, while in others, people are

relatively free to “do their own thing.” During acculturation, opportunities

for independence from one’s own group often differ between the members of

the larger society and acculturating individuals. Such differences may gen-

erate social conflict, both within the cultural community and the family, and

psychological conflict within individuals. Such conflict has been observed

among Turkish immigrants in western societies (e.g., Ataca & Berry, 2002).

4. Wealth This is perhaps the dimension of cultural variation that is most obv-

ious since it is most concrete: money, possessions, leisure time can be seen by

all observers. However, there are other aspects to this dimension that may

be less obvious. One of these is the distribution of wealth (is it relatively

equally distributed, or are most resources in the hands of a few ethnic or fam-

ily groups?). Moreover, a number of other features vary with wealth, including

education, access to communications and information, health and personal

values.

5. Space How individuals use space (housing, public places), and how

they orient themselves during interpersonal encounters, has one of the largest

research literatures, as well as a rich anecdotal base (see Hall, 1959). Close

interpersonal distances, and touching, are more common in some cultures than

in others, leading to discomfort and misunderstandings.

6. Time Similar to the space dimension, cultural variation in the meaning

and use of time is not obvious to those having limited intercultural experiences.




However, both empirical studies and personal encounters attest to the impor-

tance of these dimensions. Punctuality and personal engagement are some-

times very different on this dimension; it can be one of the main sources of

intercultural difficulty.

Emphasis been placed on these six dimensions of cultural variation because,

in addition to variations in language and religion, differences between cultural

groups on these dimensions are likely to have an important influence on how

individuals interact during acculturation. As noted above, it is now well estab-

lished that the cultural distance between the two groups in contact makes it

more difficult for them to adapt to each other. In the area of intercultural rela-

tions, one of the most powerful factors affecting mutual attitudes is the degree

of similarity of the two groups. And in the domain of intercultural communi-

cation, both the verbal (language) and nonverbal (e.g., gestures, use of space)

aspects are rendered more difficult when there is greater dissimilarity between

the cultures.

In addition to economic differences, religious differences also appear to be

relevant. Recent analyses (Georgas, van de Vijver & Berry, 2004) show that

many psychological characteristics of groups vary according to their place-

ment on two group dimensions: Affluence and Religion. Evidence is that those

most different on these two dimensions are most different psychologically,

and are most likely to engage in conflictual relations (e.g., Afghanistan and

USA; Israel and Palestine). In the field of cross-cultural psychology, it is a

basic proposition that individuals develop psychological characteristics that

have been nurtured by their cultural backgrounds (Berry, Poortinga, Segall &

Dasen, 2002). During intercultural contact, these different cultural and psy-

chological features encounter each other. Hence it is no surprise that greater

variations in these cultural and psychological characteristics are predictors

of relatively more difficult acculturation, less successful adaptation, and of

conflictual, rather than more harmonious, intercultural relationships in plural

societies.

3.3 Acculturation strategies

Having set this general stage by looking at variations in contexts of

acculturation, we turn now to the concept of acculturation strategies (Berry,

1997), which is relevant to all components of the general acculturation frame-

work presented in Chapter 2 (see Figure 2.1). These strategies consist of two

components: attitudes and behaviors (that is, the preferences and actual prac-

tices) that are exhibited in day-to-day intercultural encounters. Of course, there

is rarely a one-to-one match between what an individual prefers and seeks

(attitudes) and what one is actually able to do (behaviors). This discrepancy is

widely studied in social psychology and is usually explained as being the result

of social constraints on behaviors (such as norms, opportunities, etc.). Never-

theless, there is often a significant positive correlation between acculturation




attitudes and behaviors, permitting the use of an overall assessment of individ-

ual strategies (see Chapter 9, for a review of how to assess these strategies).

The centrality of the concept of acculturation strategies can be illustrated

by reference to each component of the general acculturation framework

(Figure 2.1). At the cultural level, the two groups in contact (whether dominant

or non-dominant) usually have some notion about what they are attempting to

do (e.g., colonial policies, or motivations for migration), or what is being done

to them, during the contact. Similarly, the goals of the emergent ethnocultural

groups will influence their strategies. At the individual level, both the behav-

ioral shifts and acculturative stress phenomena are now known to be a function,

at least to some extent, of what people try to do during their acculturation; and

the longer term outcomes (both psychological and socio-cultural adaptations)

often correspond to the strategic goals set by the groups of which they are

members.

As we have seen, the original definitions of acculturation foresaw that

domination was not the only relationship, and that cultural and psychologi-

cal homogenization would not be the only possible outcome of intercultural

contact. Why not? An answer to this question lies in the observation that peo-

ple hold different views about how they want to live following contact: not

everyone seeks out such contact, and, even among those who do, not everyone

seeks to change their culture and behavior to be more like the other (often

dominant) group. These two points are those that we identified earlier in this

chapter as being characteristics of the distinction between the melting pot and

the multi-cultural societies.

In the 1936 statement on acculturation by Redfield, Linton and Herskovits,

it was noted that assimilation is not the only form of acculturation; there are

other ways of going about it. Taking this assertion as a starting point, Berry

(1970; Sommerlad & Berry, 1970) first distinguished between the strategies of

assimilation and integration, and later between separation and marginalizationas various ways in which acculturation (both of groups and of individuals)

could take place. As noted, these distinctions involve two dimensions, and

are rooted in the distinction between orientations towards one’s own group,

and those towards other groups (Berry, 1970, 1974, 1980). This distinction is

rendered as a relative preference for cultural continuity (Issue 1: maintaining

one’s heritage culture and identity) or contact (Issue 2: a relative preference

for having contact with and participating in the larger society along with other

ethnocultural groups). This formulation is presented in Figure 3.3 for both the

ethnocultural groups (on the left)and the larger society (on the right). As we

shall see, these strategies vary across individuals, groups and societies; they

also vary because of the interaction between the strategies of the two groups

in contact.

Orientations to the two issues can vary along dimensions, represented by

bipolar arrows. Generally positive or negative views about these issues inter-

sect to define four strategies of intercultural relations. These strategies carry




ISSUE 1:

ISSUE 2:

MAINTENANCE OF HERITAGE CULTURE AND IDENTITY

RELATIONSHIPS

SOUGHT

AMONG

GROUPS INTEGRATION ASSIMILATION

SEPARATION MARGINALIZATION

MULTICULTURALISM

SEGREGATION

MELTINGPOT

EXCLUSION

STRATEGIES OF

ETHNOCULTURAL

GROUPS

STRATEGIES OF

LARGER SOCIETY

Figure 3.3 Acculturation strategies in ethnocultural groups and the largersociety

different names, depending on which group (the dominant or non-dominant)

is being considered. From the point of view of non-dominant ethnocultural

groups, when individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and

seek daily interaction with other cultures, the assimilation strategy is defined.

In contrast, when individuals place a value on holding on to their original

culture, and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others, then the

separation alternative is defined. When there is an interest in both maintaining

one’s original culture, and having daily interactions with other groups, integra-tion is the option; here, there is some degree of cultural integrity maintained,

while at the same time the individual seeks, as a member of an ethnocultural

group, to participate as an integral part of the larger social network. Finally,

when there is little possibility of, or interest in, cultural maintenance (often for

reasons of enforced cultural loss), and little interest in having relations with

others (often for reasons of exclusion or discrimination) then marginalizationis defined.

This presentation was based on the assumption that non-dominant groups

and their individual members have the freedom to choose how they want

to engage in intercultural relations. This, of course, is not always the case

(Berry, 1974). When the dominant group enforces certain kinds of relations,

or constrains the choices of non-dominant groups or individuals, then other

terms need to be used. This is most clearly so in the case of integration, which

can only be freely chosen and successfully pursued by non-dominant groups

when the dominant society is open and inclusive in its orientation towards

cultural diversity (Berry, 1991). Thus a mutual accommodation is required

for integration to be attained, involving the acceptance by both dominant and




non-dominant groups of the right of all groups to live as culturally different

peoples within the same society. This strategy requires non-dominant groups to

adopt the basic values of the larger society, while at the same time the dominant

group must be prepared to adapt national institutions (e.g., education, health,

labor) to meet better the needs of all groups now living together in the plural

society. This latter arrangement was portrayed in Figure 3.3 and was called

multiculturalism.

Obviously, the integration strategy can only be pursued in societies that

are explicitly multi-cultural, in which certain psychological pre-conditions are

established (Berry & Kalin, 1995). These pre-conditions are: the widespread

acceptance of the value to a society of cultural diversity (i.e., the presence

of a positive multi-cultural ideology); relatively low levels of prejudice (i.e.,

minimal ethnocentrism, racism and discrimination); positive mutual attitudes

among ethnocultural groups (i.e., no specific intergroup hatreds); and a sense

of attachment to, or identification with, the larger society by all individuals

and groups.

Just as obviously, integration (and separation) can only be pursued when

other members of one’s ethnocultural group share in the wish to maintain the

group’s cultural heritage. In this sense, these two strategies are “collectivistic,”

whereas assimilation is more “individualistic” (Lalonde & Cameron, 1993;

Moghaddam, 1988). Other constraints on one’s choice of acculturation strategy

have also been noted. For example, those whose physical features set them apart

from the society of settlement (e.g., Koreans in Canada, or Turks in Germany)

may experience prejudice and discrimination, and thus be reluctant to pursue

assimilation in order to avoid being rejected (Berry et al., 1989).

These two basic issues were initially approached from the point of view of

the non-dominant ethnocultural groups only (as on the left side of Figure 3.3).

However, the original definitions clearly established that both groups in contact

would become acculturated. Hence, in 1974, a third dimension was added:

that of the powerful role played by the dominant group in influencing the

way in which mutual acculturation would take place (Berry, 1974, 1980). The

addition of this third dimension produced a duplicate framework (right side of

Figure 3.3). Assimilation, when sought by the dominant group, can be termed

the melting pot (as depicted earlier, in Figure 3.1); and when strongly enforced,

it becomes a Pressure Cooker. When separation is demanded and enforced by

the dominant group, it is segregation. For marginalization, when imposed by

the dominant group it is a form of exclusion. Finally, for integration, when

cultural diversity is an objective of the society as a whole, it represents the

strategy of mutual accommodation now widely called multiculturalism.

There are many studies that have examined these acculturation strategies

in non-dominant acculturating groups (see Berry & Sam, 1997, for a par-

tial review). Assessment is carried out in a variety of ways (see Chapter 10).

Usually, each of the four strategies is assessed with a scale (e.g., Horenczyk,

1996; van de Vijver et al., 1999). Sometimes the two underlying dimensions




(Issues 1 and 2) are measured (e.g., Dona & Berry, 1994; Nguyen, Messe &

Stollak, 1999; Ryder, Alden & Paulhus, 2000; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999).

In a few studies, four vignettes, each portraying one of the four strategies, are

used (e.g., Georgas & Papastylianou, 1998; Pruegger, 1993). In most studies,

preferences for integration are expressed over the other three strategies, with

marginalization being the least preferred. One of the more common excep-

tions is that of Turks in Germany (Piontkowski et al., 2000), and lower socio-

economic status Turks in Canada (Ataca & Berry, 2002), who prefer separa-

tion over integration. A similar result has been obtained for some indigenous

peoples in various parts of the world (e.g., Berry, 1999); but in other places,

integration is preferred (e.g., Mishra, Sinha & Berry, 1996). In recent work

(Berry, Phinney, Sam & Vedder, 2006) with immigrant youth in thirteen coun-

tries, these four acculturation attitudes were closely linked with acculturation

behaviors, cultural identities and language knowledge and use, yielding four

clusters of individuals (termed acculturation profiles) that correspond to the

four acculturation strategies outlined here.

It is important to note that when all four strategies are assessed, it is possible

to have variable degrees of preference for each strategy. For example one could

logically have a positive orientation towards both integration and separation,

since both strategies involve a preference for the maintenance of one’s cultural

heritage and identity. Two points arise from this: first, it is not possible to refer

to the “degree” or “level” of acculturation (e.g., as in “highly acculturated”),

only degree or level of support for each of the four strategies. When “level of

acculturation” is used in the literature, it is often intended as “level of assim-

ilation” only (see also the discussion in Chapter 2). Second, however, if one

is referring to length or frequency of contact, or to the degree of participation

in the larger society, then the notion of “level” is appropriate; this usage has

been conceptualized as contact acculturation (e.g., Berry et al., 1986; Mishra

et al., 1996).

While the original definition of acculturation identified it as a mutual pro-

cess, fewer studies of acculturation preferences in the larger society have been

carried out. One continuing program in Canada (Berry, Kalin & Taylor, 1977;

Berry & Kalin, 1995) has employed a scale (termed multi-cultural ideology)

in national surveys. This scale represents items supporting integration at its

positive pole, and items supporting the other three strategies at its negative

pole. These views held by members of the larger society have been termed

acculturation expectations (Berry, 2003). Since the early 19980s, the prefer-

ence for multiculturalism (integration) has risen from about 65 percent to about

70 percent, indicating a general and increasing acceptance of the multi-cultural

model of a plural society presented in Figure 3.1.

In another approach to this side of the coin, Horenczyk (1996) asked Russian

immigrants to Israel about their perception of the acculturation ideologies of

Israeli society (in addition to their own views). Integration was the most fre-

quently expected way for immigrants to acculturate, followed by assimilation




and separation. This pattern was interpreted as representing a major shift away

from the earlier Israeli “absorption” or assimilationist ideology, and as present-

ing a better match with the immigrants’ own acculturation strategies, which

were largely integrationist.. Bourhis and colleagues (Bourhis et al., 1997) have

recently begun a series of studies using an interactive acculturation model that

examines attitudes of both groups in contact. They find that there are individual

differences in these preferences, and, most importantly, differences between

the non-dominant and dominant groups studied (see Chapters 17 and 19, for

more detail).

A study in Europe (see Chapter 20) of views in the larger society

(Piontkowski et al., 2000) employed samples in Germany, Switzerland and

Slovakia, using measures of the two basic issues, rather than the four attitudes.

Members of non-dominant groups (Hungarians, Turks and former Yugosla-

vians) living in Germany and Switzerland were also studied. Overall, integra-

tion was preferred, although the pattern varied across dominant/ non-dominant

pairs. For example, in dominant samples in both Germany and Switzerland, a

preference for integration was followed by assimilation; however, there was

“remarkable support for separation and marginalization” (p. 11) among the

Swiss with respect to Yugoslavians. And in Slovakia, there was roughly similar

support (around 30 percent each) for integration, assimilation and marginal-

ization with respect to Hungarians living there. (As already noted, the non-

dominant groups in this study preferred integration, with the exception of

Turks in Germany, who preferred separation.) There is a very clear mismatch

between these two sets of acculturation strategies, especially for Turks in

Germany (integration vs. separation) for Yugoslavians in Switzerland (inte-

gration vs. marginalization) and for Hungarians in Slovakia (also integration

vs. arginalization).

3.3.1 Locus of strategies

As just discussed, these various strategies can be used by individuals and

groups in both the ethnocultural groups and the larger society (Figure 3.3);

they can also be used by institutions within the larger society. One way to view

the locus of intercultural strategies is presented in Figure 3.4. This shows six

places in which these various orientations can be found. On the right are the

views held by the various ethnocultural (or “minority”) groups (who usually

are non-dominant in the contact situation); on the left are the views held by

the larger (or ‘mainstream’) society. There are three levels, with the most

encompassing group level (the national society or ethnocultural groups) at

the top; in the middle are the least encompassing (the individuals who are

members of these groups); and at the bottom are various social groupings

(called “institutions”), which can be governmental agencies, and educational,

justice and health systems.




LEVELS DOMINANT NON-DOMINANT

NATIONAL

INDIVIDUAL

INSTITUTIONAL

• Mainstream

• Larger society

• Minority group

• Cultural group

National policies

Multicultural

ideology

Uniform

or plural

Group goals

Acculturation

strategies

Diversity

and equity

Figure 3.4 Locus of acculturation strategies

At the first level, we can examine national policies and the stated goals

of particular ethnocultural groups within the larger plural society. For exam-

ple, the Canadian and Australian national policies of multiculturalism corre-

spond to the integration strategy (Berry, 1984) by which both heritage cultural

maintenance and full participation in the larger society by all groups are pro-

moted. Many ethnocultural groups also express their preferences in formal

statements: some seek integration into the larger society (e.g., Maori in New

Zealand), while some others seek separation (e.g., Scottish National Party or

Parti Quebecois, who seek full independence for their groups). At the individ-

ual level, as we have seen, we can measure acculturation expectations (Berry,

2003) in the larger society; this concept was discussed earlier as multi-culturalideology. At the institutional level (which is now introduced as a third place in

which to examine these acculturation orientations), competing visions rooted

in these alternative strategies confront and even conflict with each other daily.

Most frequently, non-dominant ethnocultural groups seek the joint goals of

diversity and equity. This involves, first, the recognition of the group’s cultural

uniqueness and specific needs, and, second, having their groups’ needs be met

with the same level of understanding, acceptance and support as those of the

dominant group. The dominant society, however, may often prefer more uni-

form programs and standards (based on their own cultural views) in such core

institutions as education, health, justice and defence. The goals of diversity

and equity correspond closely to the integration and multiculturalism strate-

gies (combining cultural maintenance with inclusive participation), whereas

the push for uniformity resembles the assimilation and melting pot approach

(see Berry, 1984).

With the use of the framework in Figure 3.4, comparisons of acculturation

strategies can be made between individuals and their groups, and between

non-dominant peoples and the larger societies within which they are accultur-

ating. The ideologies and policies of the dominant group constitute an impor-

tant element of acculturation research (see Berry et al., 1977; Bourhis et al.,




1997), while preferences of non-dominant peoples are a core feature in under-

standing the process of acculturation in non-dominant groups (Berry, 2000).

Inconsistencies and conflicts between these various acculturation preferences

are sometimes sources of difficulty for acculturating individuals. Generally,

when acculturation experiences cause problems for acculturating individuals,

we observe the phenomenon of acculturative stress (see Chapter 4).

3.4 Conclusions

This chapter has identified a number of characteristics of societies in

which many different cultural groups have come to live. These plural soci-

eties vary in numerous ways, including their general ideological orientation

to diversity, the types of constituent groups, their attitudes and strategies for

dealing with acculturation, and the locations where all these aspects can be

found and studied. These variations all provide differential contexts within

which the process of acculturation can take place. Research clearly shows that

acculturation is not a uniform process, with a single outcome. Earlier views that

non-dominant cultural groups and their individual members would inevitably

disappear by being absorbed into a dominant society have proven to be a false

assumption. Instead, the research provides support for the alternative view of

acculturation as a highly variable process; these variations are rooted in the

many contextual differences outlined in this chapter. A similar perspective

will be taken in Chapter 4, where an earlier assumption that acculturation is

inevitably conflict-ridden for groups and stressful for individuals will be ques-

tioned. In its place, we find, once again, large variation in adaptation outcomes,

rooted in many of the contextual factors outlined in this chapter.

3.5 References

Ager, A. (ed.) (1999). Refugees: perspectives on the experience of forced migration.

London: Cassell.

Ataca, B. & Berry, J. W. (2002). Sociocultural, psychological and marital adaptation of

Turkish immigrant couples in Canada. International Journal of Psychology,

37, 13–26.

Berry, J. W. (1970). Marginality, stress and ethnic identification in an acculturated

Aboriginal community. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 239–252.

(1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism: unity and identity reconsidered.

Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 17–22.

(1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (ed.), Acculturation:theory, models and findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder: Westview.

(1984). Multicultural policy in Canada: a social psychological analysis. CanadianJournal of Behavioural Science, 16, 353–370.

(1991). Understanding and managing multiculturalism. Journal of Psychology andDeveloping Societies, 3, 17–49.




(1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. (Lead article with commentary.)

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68.

(1999). Intercultural relations in plural societies. Canadian Psychology, 40, 12–21.

(2000). Sociopsychological costs and benefits of multiculturalism. In J. Dacyl & C.

Westin (eds.), Governance of cultural diversity (pp. 297–354). Stockholm:

UNESCO.

(2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chun, P. Balls-Organista &

G. Marin (eds.), Acculturation: theory, method and applications (pp.17–37).

Washington: APA Press.

(2004). Fundamental psychological processes in intercultural relations. In D. Landis

and J. Bennett (eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Research. 3rd edn. (pp. 166–

184). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Berry, J. W. & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada. CanadianJournal of Behavioural Science, 27, 310–320.

Berry, J. W., Kalin, R. & Taylor, D. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes inCanada. Ottawa: Supply & Services.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M. & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation

attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology, 38, 185–206.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J., Sam, D. & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in culturaltransition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H. & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-culturalpsychology: research and applications. 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Berry, J. W. & Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry,

M. H. Segall & C. Kagitcibasi (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychol-ogy, Vol. III: Social behavior and applications (pp. 291–326). Boston: Allyn

& Bacon.

Berry, J. W., van de Koppel, J., Annis, R. C., et al. (1986). On the edge of the for-est: ecology, acculturaltion and psychological adaptation in Central Africa.Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Bourhis, R., Moıse, C. Perrault, S. & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive accul-

turation model: a social psychological approach. International Journal ofPsychology, 32, 369–386.

Dona, G. & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of

Central American refugees in Canada. International Journal of Psychology,

29, 57–70.

Georgas, J. & Papastylianou, D. (1998). Acculturation and ethnic identity: the rem-

igration of ethnic Greeks to Greece. In H. Grad, A. Blanco & J. Georgas

(eds.), Key issues in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 114–127). Lisse: Swets

& Zeitlinger.

Georgas, J., van de Vijver, F. & Berry, J. W. (2004). The ecocultural framework, ecoso-

cial indices and psychological variables in cross-cultural research. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 74–96.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday.

Horenczyk, G. (1996). Migrant identities in conflict: acculturation attitudes and per-

ceived acculturation ideologies. In G. Breakwell & E. Lyons (eds.), ChangingEuropean identities (pp. 241–250). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.




Lalonde, R. & Cameron, J. (1993). An intergroup perspective on immigrant accultura-

tion with a focus on collective strategies. International Journal of Psychology,

28, 57–74.

Mishra, R. C., Sinha, D. & Berry, J. W. (1996). Ecology, acculturation and psycholog-ical adaptation among Adivasi in India. Delhi: Sage.

Moghaddam, F. M. (1988). Individualistic and collective integration strategies among

immigrants. In J. W. Berry & R.C. Annis (eds.), Ethnic psychology (pp. 69–

79). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Nguyen, H., Messe, L. & Stollak, G. (1999). Toward a more complex understanding

of acculturation and adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30,

5–31.

Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P. & Obdrzalek, P. (2000). Predicting accultur-

ation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 24, 1–26.

Pruegger, V. (1993). Aboriginal and non-aboriginal work values. Unpublished doctoral

thesis: Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.

Redfield, R., Linton, R. & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of accul-

turation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149–152.

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

bi-dimensional? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49–65.

Skelton, T. & Allen, T. (eds.) (1999). Culture and global change. London: Routledge.

Sommerlad, E. & Berry, J. W. (1970). The role of ethnic identification in distinguishing

between attitudes towards assimilation and integration of a minority racial

group. Human Relations, 23, 2329.

Van de Vijver, F., Helms-Lorenz, M. & Feltzer, M. (1999). Acculturation and cognitive

performance of migrant children in the Netherlands. International Journal ofPsychology, 34, 149–162.

Ward, C., Bochner, S. & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Hove:

Routledge.

Ward, C. & Rana-Deuba, A. (1999). Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 422–442.

Documents

Berry, Context of Acculturation