The psychology of intercultural adaptation was first discussed by Plato. Many modern enculturation theories claim that ethnic minorities (including aboriginal natives, immigrants, refugees, and sojourners) can favor either the dominant culture, or their own minority culture, or both, or neither. Between 1918 and 1984, 68 such theories showed varied and inconsistent terminology, poor citation of earlier research, conflicting and poorly tested predictions of acculturative stress, and lack of logic, for example, 2 cultures in contact logically allow 16 types of acculturation, not just 4. Logic explains why assimilation = negative chauvinism = marginality, why measures of incompatible acculturative attitudes can be positively correlated, and why bicultural integration and marginalisation are confounded constructs. There is no robust evidence that biculturalism is most adaptive.

No abstract

The presumptions, terminology, psychometrics, statistical analyses, and ethics of the fourfold acculturation paradigm are criticized in detail. Illustrative data came from Iranian refugees in Norway (N = 80) answering: 1) the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), 2) Zung's Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSRDS), 3) ipsative fourfold scales of Integration, Assimilation, Separation, and Marginalization, 4) orthogonal scales of attitudes towards Norwegian and Iranian cultures, measured independently and using balanced reverse-keying, and 5) ipsative forced-choice preferences for cultural practices of Norway, Iran, both, or from other societies as well. Iranians in Norway favored global multiculturalism and, as a group. did not show distress. The SWLS and ZSRDS were correlated, but the measures of acculturation failed to replicate one another. As unconstrained ipsative measures, the fourfold scales showed acquiescence response bias contamination and doubtful operationalization of scale constructs. Recommendations are discussed for improving acculturation research.

No abstract

No abstract