Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment.

Abstract

The unidimensional model of acculturation posits that heritage and mainstream culture identifications have a strong inverse relation, whereas the bidimensional model posits that the 2 identifications are independent. The authors compared these models in 3 samples of ethnic Chinese (ns = 164, 150, and 204), 1 sample of non-Chinese East Asians (n = 70), and one diverse group of accultumting individuals (n = 140). Although the unidimensional measure showed a coherent pattern of external correlates, the bidimensional measure revealed independent dimensions corresponding to heritage and mainstream culture identification. These dimensions displayed patterns of noninverse correlations with personality, self-identity, and psychosocial adjustment. The authors conclude that the bidimensional model is a more valid and useful operationalization of acculturation. The culture in which people live plays an important role in shaping their sense of self. Indeed, one facet of people's selfidentity is that they belong to a certain cultural group. Thus, they have a sense of themselves as being, for example, Canadian, American, or Chinese. When an individual moves from one culture to another, many aspects of self-identity are modified to accommodate information about and experiences within the new culture. This process, generally referred to as acculturation, involves changes that take place as a result of continuous and direct contact between individuals having different cultural origins (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Such changes may be observed in a number of different domains, including attitudes, behaviors, values, and sense of cultural identity. At a fundamental level, then, acculturation involves alterations in the individual's sense of self. An examination of the extant literature on the acculturation process reveals two predominant formulations, which we term the Studies 1 and 2 were part of a master's thesis conducted by Andrew G. Ryder under the supervision of Lynn E. Alden. Preparation of this article was facilitated by research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank Luke Conway, Jennifer Ritsher, Bryan Sokol, Roger Tweed, and Michelle Yik for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article; John Berry and Richard Suinn for providing unpublished instruments that aided in the development of the

Migration and Multiculturalism

“…Studies find that integration (e.g., Berry, 1990;van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998) and separation (e.g., for Turks in Germany, Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzalek, 2000) are the preferred modes of acculturation for minorities. Majorities, in turn, expect migrants to endorse either Migration and multiculturalism 14 integration or assimilation strategies (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000;Zagefka & Brown, 2002;Roccas, Horenczyk, & Schwartz, 2000;Nesdale & Mak, 2000), though exceptions to these patterns are not uncommon. A number of factors have been shown to account for the endorsement of acculturation expectations by majorities, including strength of ethnic and national identification, ethnocentrism, social dominance orientation, political orientation, feelings of threat from the presence of migrant groups, individual networks of ethnic contacts, or perceptions of immigrant discrimination (e.g., Bourhis, Barrette, El-Geledi, & Schmidt, 2009;Montreuil, Bourhis, & Vanbeselaere, 2004).…”

The Adjustment of Asian American Families to the U.S. Context: The Ecology of Strengths and Stress

“…It depicts immigrants adopting and balancing the two cultures they live in. Furthermore, research on acculturation and cultural identity has more and more recognized that acculturation is not a static state but a process of negotiation and integration, for example, bidirectional model (Berry, 1980;Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000) and the developmental model of Asian identity development by Sue, Mak, and Sue (1998). However, research with Asian American samples need to take into account the social context, as the political realities of Asian Americans are different and the behavioral outcomes (e.g., academic achievements and help seeking) associated with these constructs are different (Bhatia, 2003;Okazaki, Lee, & Sue, 2007;Tanaca, Ebreo, Linn, & Morera, 1998).…”

n-Culturals, the next cross-cultural challenge

“…Attempts have been made to explore the notion of salience for biculturals (Ellemers et al, 2002;Liebkind, 2006;McGuire et al, 1978;Ryder et al, 2000); however, we suggest that investigation into how multiple cultures might be salient simultaneously in multicultural individuals is under-explored. Specifically, to what extent can an individual maintain commitment to multiple identities that requires active cognitions and the reconciliation of potentially conflicting assumptions, values, attitudes, and beliefs about appropriate behavior?…”