inmigration, aculturation, and adaptation

8/13/2019 Inmigration, Aculturation, And Adaptation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/inmigration-aculturation-and-adaptation 1/30

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY:A N INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 1997.46 1). 5-68

Lead Article

Immigration Acculturation and Adaptation

John W. BerryQueen’s University O ntario Canada

La psychologie interculturelle a mon trt qu’il existait des rapports ttr oi ts entrele contex te culture1 et le dkveloppement com portem ental de I’individu. Ce tterelation Ctablie, I’effort des recherches interculturelles a de plus en plus po rt tsur ce qu’il advenait d es individus quand ils tent aie nt de refaire leur vie dansune culture diffirente de leur culture d’origine. Les consCquencespsychologiques long terme de ce processus d’acculturation sont tresvariables, dependant de variables sociales et personnelles qui renvoient a lasocittC d e dCpart,i a soc iite d’accueil eta des phCnom tnes qui existent avant,mais qui Cmergent pendant la periode d’acculturation. Ce t article esquisseu n

schema conceptuel a partir duquel acculturation et adaptation peuvent CtreCtudites, puis presente quelques conclusions et resu ltats genCraux tires d’unCchantillon de travaux empiriques. O n envisage des applications possiblesa lapolitique et aux programmes d’insertion en pren ant en considthation les c o i het les bCnCfices sociaux et psychologiques Cmanant de I’adoprion d’uneorientation pluraliste et intkgrationniste.

Cross-cultural psychology has demonstrated impo rtant links between culturalcontext and individual behavioural development. Given this relationship,cross-cultural research has increasingly investigated what happens toindividuals who have developedin on e cultural context when they atte m pt to

re-establish their lives in another one. The long-term psychologicalconsequences of this process of acculturation are highly variable, dependingon social and personal variables that reside in the society of origin, the societyof settlement. and phenomena that both exist priorto, and arise during, thecourse of acculturation. This article outlines a conceptual framework withinwhich acculturation and adaptation can be investigated, and then presentssome general findings and conclusions based on a sam pleof empirical studies.

Requests for reprints shouldbe sent to John W . Berry. Departmentof Psychology. Queen’sUniversity, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6.

This article was drafted while the author was a Visiting Professor. Research CentreforHealth Promotion, and Department of Psychosocial Science, Universityof Bergen, Norwayand the Refugee Studies Programme, Universityof Oxford. UK.

1997 International Associationof Applied Psychology



6 BERRY

Applications to public policy a nd p rogram mes are propo sed. along with aconsideration of the social an d psychological costs and b enefitsof adopt ing apluralist and integrationist orientationto these issues.

INTRODUCTION

The central aim of the field of cross-cultural psychology has been todem ons trate the influence that cultural factors have on the development anddisplay of individual hum an behaviour. M any psychologists workingin thisfield have concluded that the re is now substantial evidence to docum ent theoutcome of this culture-behav iour relationsh ip: individuals generally actinways that correspond to cultural influences and expectations (Berry,

Poortinga. Segall, Da sen ,1992). The re are two mattersof obvious interestto applied psychologists stemming from the demonstrationof suchrelationships. One is to seek ways in which this knowledge may be appliedboth generally (e.g. Berry Lo nne r,1975; Brislin, 1990) and to specificpublic policy ar ea s such as multiculturalism (e.g. Berry ,1984), health (e.g.Dasen, Berry, Sartoriu s,1988) and education (e.g. El der ing Kloprogge,1989;Ogbu, 1990).

A second matte r of interest is the very practical question: Wh at ha ppe nsto individuals, who have developed in one cultural context, when they

attempt to live in a new c ultural contex t?If cultureis such a powerful shap erof behaviour. d o individuals continue to act in the new setting as they did inthe previous one, do they change their behavioural reperto ire to be m oreappropriate in the new setting, or is there some complex patternofcontinuity and cha nge in how peoplego ab ou t their lives in the new society?The answ er provided by cross-cultural psychology is very clearly supportiveof the last of these three alternatives.

How cross-cultural psychology arrived at this conclusion has involved asubstantial amount of research over the past decades. and now has

considerable potential for application in area sof social policy. T hi s articlehas thr ee main sections: the first defines the concepts. a nd displays the issues;the second outlines someof the empirical evidence; and the third indicatesthe most useful areas of potential application. The focus is on howindividuals who have developedin one cultural context m anage to adapt tonew contexts that result from migration. The conceptof acculturation isemployed to refer to the cultural changes resulting from these groupenc oun ters , while the con ceptsof psychological acculturation and adaptarionare em ployed to refer t o the psychological changes and e ventu al outcom es

that occur as a result of individuals experiencing acculturation. Threeinterrelated aspects of adaptation are identified: psychologicalsociocultural and economic. As this is a massive an d rapidly changing field,the coverage is necessarily selective, and possibly biased. in its content andperspectives. T he l itera ture s pertaining to m igrant peoples (including



IM M G RAT1ON, ACCU LTURAT1 , ADAPTATION 7

immigrants, sojourners, and refugees), especially in adaptation to NorthAm erica, Australia, and to a lesser extent to E uro pe a re emphasised; largely

abs ent are studies in Asian, African, and South A merican settings (wh ere, infact, most acculturation has ta ke n place). This bias reflects the availabilityofliterature for some peoplesof the world, but not for others.

SOME B ASIC CONCEPTS

Many theoretical perspectives have been advanced during the study ofcultural transitions. How ever, som e common meanings have em erged, andare now widely share d.

Accu Itu ra t ion

T he classical definition ofacculturation was presen ted by Redfield, Linton ,and Herskovits (1936, p.149): “acculturation comprehends thosephenomena which result when groups of individuals having differentcultures come into continuous first-hand contact with sub sequent changes inthe original culture patterns of either or both groups”. Althoughacculturation is a neutral te rmin principle (th at is, change may t ak e place ineither o r both groups),in practice acculturation tends to induce mo re change

in one of the groups (termed theacculturating gr oup in this article) than inthe o th er (Berry, 1990a).A later discussion (Social Science Resea rch Council, 1954) emphasised

that assimilation is no t the only kind of acculturation;it can also be reactive(triggering resistance to change in both groups),creative (stimulating newcultural forms, not found in either of the cultures in contact), anddelayed(initiating changes that app ear m or e fully years later).

A distinction has been made by G rav es(1967), between acculturation as acollective or group-level phe no m eno n, andpsychological acc ulturation. In

the form er, acculturation is a change in theculture of the group; in the la tter,acculturation isa change in thepsychology of the individual. This distinctionbetween levels is important for two reasons: first, in orderto examine thesystematic relationships between these two setsof variables; and second,because not all individuals participateto the same extent in the generalacculturation being experienced by their group. While the general changesmay b e profound in the gro up , individuals are known to vary greatly in thedegree to which they participate in these community changes (Berry, 1970;Furn ham Bochner, 1986).

Th e concept of acculturation has become widely used in cross-culturalpsychology and has also be en the subjectof criticism because of the gradualerosion of th e original meaningof the concept (as outlined earlier)so that itbecame synonymous with assimilation (e.g. Vasquez, 1984). A parallelconceptualisation has been developed, mainly among French-language



8 BERRY

scholars: interculturation (see Camilleri, 1990; Cl ane t, 1990). T he concept isdefined (Clanet. 1990, p.70; ou r translation) as “th e set of processes by which

individuals and groups interact when they identify themselves as culturallydistinct”. There are evident similarities between theacculfurafion andinterculturation approaches, and i t is often difficult in practice t o distinguishthe research don e, or th e conclusions drawn from the two approaches. O nedistinguishing feature, however, is the interest in the formationof newcultures in the interculturation, more than in the acculturation, approach.Given these rather broad similarities, this article will employ the termacculturation to refer to the ge neral processes and o utc om es (bo th culturaland psychological) of intercultural contact.

Plural Societies

As a result of imm igration, many societies becomeculturally plural. Th at is,people of many cultural backgrounds come tolive together in a diversesociety. In many cases they form cultural groups tha t are not equal in pow er(numerical, economic, o r political). Th ese po wer differences have given riseto popular and social science termssuch as “mainstream”, “minority”,“et hni c gro up” et c. In this article, while recognising the unequal influences

and changes that exist during acculturation,I employ the termculturalgroupto refer to all groups, and the termsdominant and non-dominant to refer totheir relative power where such a difference exists and is relevantto thediscussion. This is an attempt to avoid a host of political and socialassumptions that have distorted much of the work on psychologicalacculturation, in particular t he a ssumption th at “m inorities” a re inevitably(or should be in th e process o f) becoming partof the “ma instream” culture.Although this does occur in many plural societies,it doe s not always occur,and in some cases i t is resisted by either or both the dominant and

non-dominant cultural groups, resulting in the continuing cultural diversityof so many co nte m por ary societies (Kymlicka, 1995;UNESCO, 1985).Many kinds of cultural groups may exist in plural societies and their

variety is primarily due to three factors: voluntariness mobility andpermanence. Some groups have entered into the acculturation processvoluntarily (e.g. immigrants) while o th er s experience acculturation w ithouthaving sought it ou t (e.g. refugees, indigenous peoples). O th er groups a re incontact because they have m igratedto a new location (e.g. immigrants andrefugees), while others have had the new culture brought to them (e.g.

indigenous peoples and “national minorities”). And third, among thosewho have migrated, som e are relatively permane ntly settled into the process(e.g. immigrants), while for others the situation is a temporary one (e.g.sojourners such as international students and guest workers, or asylumseek ers who may eventually be depo rted ).



IMMIGRATION, A CCULTURATION, ADA PTATION 9

De spit e these variations in factors leadingto acculturation, oneof theconclusions tha t has been reached (Berry Sam,1996) is that the basic

process of adap tation appea rs to be comm on to all these groups. What variesis th e course, the level of difficulty, and to so m e extent t he eventual o utc om eof acculturation; the three factors of voluntariness, mobility, andperm anen ce, and oth ers to be reviewed later, all contribu teto this variation.Thus, although this article is mainly concerned with immigrants, many of thefindings and conclusions have some d egreeof generalisability to oth er kindsof acculturating groups.

Acc u t u rat on Strategies

In all plural societies, cultural groups and their individual memb ers, in boththe d om ina nt and non-dom inant situations, must deal with the issue ofhowto accu lturate. Strateg ies with respect t o two ma jor issues are usually workedout by groups and individualsin their daily encounters with each other.Th ese issues are:culrural maintenance to what extent a re cultural identityand characteristics considered to be imp orta nt, and their maintenancestrived for); and contact and participation (to what extent should theybecome involved in other cultural groups, or remain primarily among

themselves).When these two underlying issues are considered simultaneously, aconceptual frame work (Fig.1) is generated which positsfour acculturationstrategies. Th ese two issues can be responded to on attitudinal dimensions,represented by bipolar arrows.For purposes of presentation, generallypositive o r negative (“yes” or “no ” responses)to these issues intersect todefine fo ur acculturation strategies. Th ese strategies carry different nam es,dep end ing on which group (the dom inant o r non-dominant) is beingconsidered. From the point of view of non-dominant groups, when

individuals do not wish t o maintain their cultural identity and see k dailyinteraction with other cultures, theAssimilation strategy is defined. Incontrast, when individuals place a value on holding onto their originalculture, and a t the sam e time wish to avoid interaction with othe rs, then theSeparation alternative is defined. When there is an interest in bothmaintaining one’s original culture, while in daily interactions with othergroups, Inregration is the option; here, there is some degreeof culturalintegrity maintained, while at the same time seeking to participate as anintegral part of the larger social network. Finally, when there islittle

possibility o r interest in cultural maintenance (often for reasons of enforcedcultural loss), and little interest in having relations with others (often forreasons of exclusion o r discrimination) thenMarginalisation is defined.

Th is presentation was based on the assumption tha t non-dominantgroups and their individual mem bers have the freedomto choose how they



want to acculturate. This,of course, is not always the case (Berry,1974).When the dominant group enforces certain forms of acculturation, or

constrains the choices of non-dominant groups o r individuals, then o therterms need to be used. Most clearly, people may sometimes choose theSeparation optio n; but wheni t is required of the m by the do m ina nt society,the situation is one of Segregation. Similarly, when people choose toAssimilate. the notion of theMelting Pot may b e appropriate; but whenforced to do so, i t becomes more like a Pressure Cooker. In the case ofMarginalisation, people rarely choosesuch an option; rather they usuallybecom e marginalised asa result of atte m pt s at forced assimilation (Pressu reCo oke r) combined with forced exclusion (Segregation); thus no othe r term

seems to be re quire d beyond the single notionof Marginalisation.Integration can only be "freely" chosen and successfully pursued bynon-do minan t g roups when the dom inant society is op en an d inclusive in itsorientation towards cultural diversity (Berry. 1991). Thus. a mutualaccommodation is required for integration to be attained. involving theacceptance by both groups of the right of all groupsto live as culturallydifferent peoples. This strategy requires non-dominan t g rou psto adopt the

ISSUE 2

YES

tIs it considered tobeof value to m int in

relationships with

larger society?

NO

Is it considered to be of value tomaintain one's identity and

characteristics?

I

INTEGRATION ASSIMILATION

SEPARATION/ MARGINALIZATIONSEGREGATION

FIG. 1. Acculturation strategies



IMMIGRATION, ACCULTURATION, ADAPTATION 11

basic valuesof the larger society, while at the same time the dom inant g rou pmust be prepared to adapt national institutions (e.g. education, health.

labour) to better meet the needs of all groups now living together in theplural society.Obviously, the integration strategy can only be pursuedin societies that

ar e explicitlymulticultural in which certain psychological pre-conditions areestablished (B erry Kalin, 1995). Th ese pre-conditions are: the widespreadaccep tance of the value to a society of cultural diversity (i.e. the presenceof apositive “multicultural ideology”); relatively low levelsof prejudice (i.e.minimal ethnocentrism, racism, and discrimination); positive mutualattitu des amon g cultural group s (i.e. no specific intergroup hatreds); and a

sense of attachm ent to,or identification with, the larger society by all grou ps(Kalin Berry, in press).Just a s obviously, integration (and s epa ratio n) can only be p ursued when

oth er mem bers of one’s ethnocultural gro up sharein the wish to maintainthe group’s cultural heritage. In this sense, these two strategies are“collective’’, whereas assimilation is more “individualistic” (LalondeCa m ero n, 1993; M oghaddam , 1988). O th er constraints on one’s choiceofacculturation strategy have also been noted. For example those whosephysical features se t them ap art from th e society of settlement (e.g. Koreans

in Canada, or Turks in Germany) may experience prejudice anddiscrimination, and thus be reluctant to pursue assimilation (Berry et al.,1989).

Individuals and groups may hold varyingattitudes towards these fourways of acculturating, and their actualbehaviours may vary correspondingly.To get her , these attitudes and behaviours comprise what we have calledacculturation strategies (Berry, 1990a). A ttitud es towards (preferences for)these four alternatives have been measured in numerous studies (reviewedin Berry et a]., 1989). National policies and programm es may also be

analysed in termsof these four approaches (Berry , 1990b): som e are clearlyassimilationist, expecting all immigrant and e thnocu ltural groups to becomelike those in the dominant society; others are integrationist, willing (evenpleased) to accept and incorporate all groups to a large extent on their owncultural terms; yet others have pursued segregationist policies; and othershave sought the marginalisationof unwanted groups.

O the r terms than those used her e have been propo sed by acculturationresearchers (e.g. Gordon, 1964). In particular, the term “bicultural” hasbeen employed to refer to acculturation that involves the individual

simultaneously in the tw o cultures that ar ein contact (Cam eron Lalonde,1994; LaF rom boise, Colem an, G er to n, 1963; Padilla, 1980; SzapocznikKu rtines, 1993); this concept co rresponds closelyto the integration strategyas defined here. Similarly, Gordon (1964) refers to two formsofincorporation: cultural assimilationand structural assimilation. In ou r terms,



12 B E R RY

when both forms occur, complete assimilation is likely to result; however,when structural assimilation is present (a high degreeof contact and

participation) combined with a low degree of cultural assimilation (a highdegree of cultural m ain tena nce ), then a n outcom e similar to integration islikely.

Three other issues require commentary before proceeding, aspreferences for on e acculturation strategy over others a re know nto vary,depending on context and time period (e.g. length of residence, orgenerational s tatu s). First, there is usually an overall coh eren t preference foron e particular strategy (as evidenced by C ronbach alpha coefficients in th e.70 to .80 range; see Berry et al., 1989). How ever, ther e can also be variation

according to one’s location: in m ore private spher es or d om ains (such as thehome, the extended family, the ethnic community) more culturalmaintenance may be sought than in more public spheres (such as theworkplace. or in politics): and the re may be less inte rgr ou p contact soug ht inprivate sp heres than in the more public ones. Second, the bro ade r nationalcontext may affect acculturation strategies. such that in explicitlymulticultural societies individuals may seek to match such a policy with apersonal preference for integration; or in assimilationist societies,acculturation m ay be easiest by ad op ting an assimilation strategy f or oneself

(Krishnan Berry, 1992). Th atis, individuals may well be constrained intheir choice of strategy , ev ento the point w here the re is a very limited rolefor personal preference. I nd eed , when personal preferences a rein conflictwith national policies, stress may well be the result (Horenczyk, 1996).Third. there is evidence that during the courseof developm ent, and over theperiod of major acculturation, individuals explore various strategies,eventually settling on o ne th at is m ore useful and satisfying than the o the rs(Kim, 1988): howev er, as far as is known, there is no set sequ enc e o r age atwhich different strategies are used (H o , 1995).

Psychological Acculturation

I t had been previously thought that acculturation inevitably brings socialand psychological problems (Malzberg Le e, 1956). How ever, such anegative and b road generalisationno longer appears to be valid (Murphy,1965;Berry Kim. 1988: Jayasuriya, Sang, Fielding, 1992; W este rm eye r,1986), with social and psychological outcomes now known to be highlyvariable. Three main points of view can be identified in acculturationresearch , each suggesting a different levelof difficulty for th e individual. T h efirst is one that considers psychological changes to be rather easy toaccomplish: this approach has been referredto variously as “behaviouralshifts“ by Berry (1980), “culture learning” by Brislin, Landis, an d B ran dt1 9 8 3 , and “social skills acquisition” by Furnham and Bochner (1986).



IMMIGRATION, ACCUL TURATION, ADAPTATION 13

Here, psychological adaptations to acculturation are considered to be am atter of learning a new behavioural repe rtoi re thatis appro priate for the

new cultural context. This also requires some “culture shedding” (Berry,1992) to occur (the unlearning of aspectsof one’s previous reperto ire thatare no longer appropriate); and it may be accompanied by som e m od erat e“culture conflict” (where incompatible behaviour s create difficulties fo r theindividual).

In cases where se rious conflict exists, then a second point of view is theapp ropriate one; here individuals may experience “culture shock” (O berg ,1960) o r “acculturative stress” (Berry, 1970; Berry, Kim, Minde, Mo k,1987) if they cannot easily change their repertoire. Although the “culture

shock” concept is older and has wide popular acceptance,I prefer the“acculturative stress” conceptualisation, for thre e reasons. O ne is thatit isclosely linked to psychological models of stress (e.g. Lazarus Folkman,1984) as a respo nse to environm ental stressors (which, in the present case,reside in the experienceof acculturation), and thus has some theoreticalfoundation. The second is that “shock” suggests the presence of onlynegative experiences and outcomes of intercultural contact (cf. the “shellshock” notion popular earlier as a psychological outcome of warexperiences). How ever, during acculturation only m od era te difficulties are

usually experienced (such as some psychosomatic problems), as otherpsychological processes (such as problem appraisal and coping strategies)ar e usually available to the acculturating individual (Vega Ru m bau t,1991). Third, the source of th e problems tha t d o arise ar e not cultural, butintercu ltural, residing in th e process of acculturation.

W hen major difficulties are experienced, then the “psychopathology” or“m ent al disease” perspective is most app rop riate (Malzberg Le e, 1956;Mu rphy, 1965; W H O , 1991). H ere , changes in th e cultural con text exceedthe individual’s capacity to cope, because of th e magn itude, spe ed , o r someother aspect of the change, leading to serious psychological disturbances,such as clinical depre ssion, and incapacitating anxiety (Berry Kim, 1988;Jayasuriya et al., 1992).

Ada ptatio n

In its most general sense,adupfurion refers to changes that take place inindividuals or groups in response to environmental demands. Theseadaptations can occur imm ediately, or they can be ex tended o ver the longerterm. S hort-term changes during acculturation a re sometimes negative andoften disruptive in character. However, for most acculturating individuals,after a period of time, some long-term positive adaptation to the newcultural context usually takes place (Beiser et al., 1988). Depending on avariety of factors, these adaptations can take many different forms.



14 BERRY

Som etim es the re is increased “fit” betw een the acculturating individual andthe new contex t (e.g . when the assimilationor integration strategies are

pursued, and when attitudes in the dominant society are accepting of theacculturating individual and group). Sometimes, however. a“ f i t ” is notachieved (as in separation/segregation and marginalisation) and the groupssettle into a pattern of conflict, with resultant acculturative stress orpsychopathology.

In the recent literature on psychological adaptation to acculturation, adistinction has been drawn between psychological and socioculturaladaptation (Searle W ard, 1990). T h e first refersto a set of internalpsychological outcomes including a clear sense of personal and cultural

identity, good men tal health, and th e achievement of perso nal satisfactioninthe new cultural context; the second is a set of external psychologicalou tco mes that link individualsto their new con text, including their ability t odeal with daily problems, particularly in the areas of family life. work andschool. Although these two forms of adaptation are usually relatedempirically. there are two reasons for keeping them conceptually distinct.One is that factors predicting these two types of adaptation are oftendifferent (W ard. 1996); the o the r is tha t psychological a dapta tion may bestbe analysed within the context of the stress and psychopathology

approaches, while sociocultural adaptation is more closely linked to thesocial skills framework (Wa rd Ke nne dy, 1993a). A third adap tiveoutcome has recently been introduced:economic aduptarion (AycanBe rry , 1996). This refersto the d egree to which w ork is ob tain ed, is satisfyingand is effective in the new culture.

ACCULTURAT ION FRAMEWORK

Th e complex literature on acculturation has been the subject of nu mero us

conceptual frameworks: these have attem ptedto systematise the processofacculturation and to illustrate the main factors that affect an individual’sadap tation . In Fig.2, one such fram ewo rk (cf. Berry, 1992) is presented (seealso Berry. 1976; Berry, Trimb le Olm edo .1986; Ol m ed o, 1979; Rogler,1994; W ard . 1996).

On the left of Fig. 2 are grou p- or cultural-level ph eno me na, which aremainly situational variables; while to the right are individual- orpsychological-level phenomena which are predominantlyperson variables.Along the top are features that exist prior to acculturation taking place,

while along the bottom are those that arise during the proccss ofacculturation. Throug h the middle of the framewo rk are the m ain group andpsychological acculturation phenomena; these flow from leftto rightbeginning with the cultural groups in contact bringing about changes inmany of their collective featu res (e.g. political, economic, social stru ctu res) ,



IMMIGRA TION, ACCULTURATION, ADA PTATION 15

Societv of OdeinPolitical Context

-Economic SituationDemographic Facrors

Modera t i ngk twd’ r io r to Accultura(ionAge. Gender. Education. Pn-acculturaion

* Status. Migration Motivation. Expectations* Cullunl Dislana Language. Religion. etc)

’

FIG. 2. A framework for acculturation research.

then affecting the individual who is experiencing acc ulturation (resulting in anumber of possible psychological experiences and changes, leading finally toa person’s adaptation. T he framework in Fig.2 combines bot hstructural andprocess features: the central portion flowing from group acculturationthrough individual acculturation to adaptation is clearly a process takingplace o ve r time; factors in th e upper and low er levels influencing this processprovide the broad structurein which acculturation takes place.

Co nte m por ary reviews of the literature (B erry Sam , 1996; W ard , 1996)

show that this central flow is highly variable: the nature of a person’spsychological acculturation and eventual adaptation dependson specificfeatures of the group-level factors (on the left) and of the moderatinginfluence (shown by the dotted lines)of individual factors tha t exist prior to.or arise during, acculturation (at the to p and bottom).

With respect t o the structuring of relationships, the model includes bothmediating and moderating variables (B aro n Kenny, 1986); some variablesmay serve a s both. F or example, coping strategies serve a s a mediator whenthey link stressors to the stress reaction, an d as a m ode rato r when they affect

the deg ree of relationship between stressors and stress (Frese, 1986).T he ma in point of the framew ork is to show the key variables that shouldbe attend ed t o when carrying out studiesof psychological acculturation . It iscontended tha t any study that ignores any of these broad classesof variableswill be incom plete, and will be unableto comprehend individuals who are

Societv of

Settlement

- MC Ideology- Eihnic AttitudesSocial Suppon

h g c r Socie yhnic Society

Anitudcs

-e Factors Durine AcculturationPhase (length of rimAcculturation Strategies: Anitudcs Behaviours

* Coping: Strategies Resources* sonal Suppon* Socictal Anituda: h ju d ic e Discriminnlion



16 BERRY

experiencing acculturation.For exam ple, research that do es not a ttendtothe cultural and psychological characteristics that individuals bringto the

process. merely characterising them by name (e.g. as “Vietnamese”,or“Somali”,or even less helpfully as “minorities” or “ imm igran ts”), cann othope to understand their acculturation or adaptation. Similarly. researchthai ignores key features of the dominant society (such as demography,immigration policies, and attitu des tow ards immigrants) is also inco mp lete.However, i t is important to note that there is no single study that hasincorporated or verified all aspects of the framework in Fig.2; it is acomposite framework, assembling concepts and findings from numeroussmaller-scale studies.

To expand on Fig. 2, we consider in detail the various situational andpersonal factors that are now widely believed to influence psychologicalacculturation.

Socie ty of Or ig in

A complete study of acculturation would need to start with a fairlycom prehensiv e examination of the two societal contexts: thatof origin andthat of settlement. In the societyof origin, the cultural characteristics t ha taccompany individuals into the acculturation process need description,inpart t o unde rstan d (literally) where the person is coming from . and in part toestablish cultural fea tures for comparison with the society of settle me nt as abasis for estimating an imp ortant factor to be discussed later, thatof culturald i s r a r ~ e . The combination of political, economic. and demographicconditions being faced by individuals in their societyof origin also nee ds tobe studied as a basis for understanding the degree of \ dun ta r iness in theniigrarion motivation of acculturating individuals. Recent arguments byRichmond 1993) suggest that migrants can be ranged on a continuumbetween reactive and proacri\.e. with t he fo rm er being m otivated by factorsthat are constraining or exclusionary, and generally negative in character,while the lat ter ar e motivated by factors th at ar e facilitatingor enabling, andgenerally positive in character; these contrasting factors have also beenreferred to as piishlpull factors in the earlier literature on migrationmotivation.

Soc ie ty of Set t lement

In the society of settlement. a num berof factors have im portance. First th ere

are the general orientations a society and its citizens have towardsimmigration and pluralism. So m e have b een built by immigration ov er thecen turies , and this process may be a continuing o ne , guided by a delib erateimmigration policy (Sa batie r Ber ry, 1994). The important issue tounderstand for the process of acculturation is both the historical and




attitudinal situation faced by migrants in the society of settlement. Somesocieties are accepting of cultural pluralism resulting from immigration,

taking steps to supp ort the continuation of cultural diversity as a sharedcommunal resource; this position represents a positivemulticufturafideology (Berry Kalin, 1995) and corresponds to the integration strategyin Fig. 1. Oth ers seek to eliminate diversity through policies andprogrammes of assimilation, while others attempt to segregate ormarginalise diverse popu lations in their societies. Murphy (1965) has arguedthat societies supportive of cultural pluralism (that is, with a positivemulticultural ideology) provide a more positive settlement context for tworeasons: they are less likely to enforce cultural change (assimilation) or

exclusion (segregation and marginalisation) on immigrants; and they aremore likely to provide social sup po rt bo th from the institutionsof the largersociety (e.g. culturally sensitive health care, and multicultural curricula inschools), and from the con tinuing and evolving ethnocultural comm unitiestha t usually mak e u p pluralistic societies. However, even where pluralism isaccepted, there are well-known variations in the relative acceptance ofspecific cultural, racial, an d religious groups (e.g. Berry Kalin, 1995;Hagendoorn, 1993). Those groups that are less well accepted experiencehostility, rejection, and discrimination, o ne factor tha t is predictiveof poor

long-term adaptation (Beiser et al., 1988; Fe rna nd o, 1993).

Group -level Accu lturation

With respect to group acculturation, migrant groups usually changesubstantially as a result of living with these two sets of cultural influences.Physical changes are oft en profound, frequently involving urban isation, andincreased population density. Biological changes include new dietary int ak eand exposureto new diseases, both of which have implications for the healthstatus of the w hole group . Econ omic changes can involve a general loss ofstatu s or new em ployment opportunities for the group. Social changes rangefrom disrupted communities to new and important friendships. Finally,cultural changes (which ar e at the cor e of th e notion of acculturation) rangefrom relatively superficial changes in what is eate n o r worn, to d ee pe r onesinvolving language shifts, religious conversions, and fundam ental alterationsto value systems.

Psyc holog ca I Accu Itu ration Phenomena

T he central line in Fig.2 represents t h e five main phenom ena included in theprocess of psychological acculturation beginning with group acculturationand individual acculturation experience and ending with some long-termadupration. This process is highly variable for two main reasons. First is theop era tio n of moderating factors (shown in Fig.2 above and below t he



18 BERRY

central line. and with do tted lines indicating mod eratin g effects).For policyreasons i t is useful to distinguish between those moderating factors that

existed prior to ma jor acculturation taking place (an d hence which cannot bemuch changed by public policies in the society of sett lem en t), and thos e thatmay arise durin g the processof acculturation (and which ar e con trollable, tosome exten t) . These moderating factors at tach bo thto groups and toindividuals. and can be seen as both risk factors and protective factors,depending on their degreeor level. Because they influence the course ofevents along the central line in Fig.2 they will be discussed followingpresentation of this course. Secon d, variability in psychologicalacculturation exists because of the three differing views about the degree

of difficulty that is thoughtto exist durin g acculturation , which were out-lined earlier (“behavioural shifts”, “acculturative stress”, and”psychopathology”).

T h e five main fe atu res of psychological acculturation have received manydifferent namesin both the genera and acculturation literatures. How ever.there is broa d agre em ent ( see e.g. Aldwin, 1994: Lazarus. 1990 ,1993) thatt he process of dealing with life events begins with som e causal ag ent thatplaces a load or demand on the organism. In the acculturation literature.these dem ands stem from theexperience of having to dea l with two culture s

in cont act, and having to pa rticip ate to various ex tents in bothof them; theseintercultural contact exper ienc es ar ethe com mo n starting point for allof thethree conceptual approaches. In some cases these experiences representchallenges that can e nh an ce one‘s life opp ortu nities . In oth er cases they mayseriously undermine one‘s life chances.

Second, individuals consider the meaning of these experiences,evaluating and appraising themas a sou rce of difficulty (i.e. as stre sso rs),oras benign, sometime s even as o pportun ities. Th e ou tcome of this appraisal isvariable across the three ap proa che s: when acculturation exp erien ces are

judged to pose no problem for th e individual, cha nge s ar e likelyto he rathereasy and behavioural sliifis will follow smoothly. Th is process encom passesthree sub-processes:culture shedd ing; culture learning: and culture c onflict(B err y, 1992). Th e first two involve the accidentalor deliberate loss ofbehaviours, and their re place m ent by beh avio urs that allow the individual abetter *‘fit’‘with the society of settlement. Most often this process has beentermed adjustrnenf (W ard Ke nne dy, 1993a). because the adaptive chang esall take place in the acculturating individual. with few changes occurringamong m emb ers of the larger society. Th ese adjustm ents are typically m ade

with minimal difficulty, in keeping with the appraisal of the acculturationexperiences as non-problematic. However, some degree of conflict mayoccur. which is usually resolved by the acculturatin g person yielding t o thebehavioural norms of the dominant groups;in this case assimilation is themost likely outcome.




W hen gre ater levels of conflict are ex perienced, and the experiences arejudged to be problematic, but controllable and surmountable, then the

accuftu rative stress paradigm is t h e app rop riate conceptualisation. In thiscase, individuals understand that they are facing problems resulting fromintercultural contact that cannot be dealt with easily or quickly by simplyadjusting or assimilating to them. Drawing onthe broader stress andada ptati on paradigms (e.g. Lazarus Folkm an, 1984), this approachadvocates the studyof the process of how individuals dea l with acculturativeproblems on first encountering them, and over time. In this sense,acculturative stress is a stress reaction in response to life events that arerooted in the experience of acculturation.

When acculturation experiences overwhelm the individual, creatingproblems that cannot be controlled o r su rm ou nted , then thepsychopathology paradigm is the ap prop riate one .In this case, the re is littlesuccess in dealing with acculturation, sometimes resulting in withdrawal(sep arati on ), but sometimes involving culture shedd ing without culturelearning (resulting in marginalisation).

Th ird, as we have no ted, individuals engage in strategies that attem pttodeal with the experiences that are appraised as problematic. These basiccoping strategies can be understood in relationto the four acculturation

strategies outlined earlier. Within the general stress and adaptationapp roa ch, oth er strategies have been proposed, and a re linked to the notionof coping. Laza rus and Fo lkman (1984) have identified two major functions:problem-focused coping (attempting to change o r solve the problem); andemotion-focused coping (attemptingto regulate the emotions associatedwith the problem ). M ore recently, Endler a nd P ark er (1990) have identifieda third: avoidance-oriented coping.

Th ese analyses of coping may o r may not be valid cross-culturally; Aldwin(1994) and Lazaru s (1991) suggest that cross-cultural variations are likely to

be p resent in these distinctions, and in which on es are preferred. O ne keydistinction, made by Diaz-Guerrero (1979), is betweenactive and passivecoping. T he former seeks to alter the situation, and hence may be similar toprob lem-fo cused coping. It may have only limited success if the prob lem liesin the dom inant society, especiallyif there is little interest in the dominantgroup in accommodating the needs of acculturating individuals. Passivecoping reflects patience and self-modification, and resembles theassimilation acculturation strategy. These strategies arelikely to besuccessful onlyif the dom inant society has positive a ttitu de s towards, and is

willing to accept, mem bers of the acculturating groups. If attit ud es arehostile, the passive cop ing strategy may well lead t o unacceptab le levels ofexclusion o r dom ination.

The fourth aspect of psychological acculturation is a complex setofimm ediate effects, including physiological and emotional reactions, coming



20 BERRY

closest to the no tion ofstress, asa “re act ion to conditions of living“ (Lazarus,1990 p.5). In term s of the three con ceptu al approa ches (shifts, stress,

psychopathology), when behavioural shifts have taken place, withoutdifficulty, stress is likely to be minimal an d personal consequences ar egenerally positive. W he n acculturative pr oble ms (stresso rs) d o arise, buthave been successfully coped with, stress will be similarly low and theimmediate effects positive; but when stressors are not completelysurmounted. stress will be higher and effects more negative. And whenacculturative problems have been overwhelming, and have not beensuccessfully dealt with, im med iate effects will be substantially n egative andstress levels debilitating. including personal crises, and commonly anxiety

and depression.The last of the five main features of psychological acculturationis thelong-term adaptation that m ay be achieved.As we saw earlier, adaptationrefers to the relatively stable changes that take place in an individual orgroup in responseto environmental demands. Moreover, adaptation may ormay not improve th e“fit” between individuals an d the ir environ me nts. It isthus not a term tha t necessarily implies that ind ividualsor groups change tobecome more like their environments (i.e. adjustment), but may involveresistance and a ttem pts to change their env ironmen tsor moving away from

them altogether.In this usage, adap tation is an ou tcom e that may o r may notbe positive in valence (i.e. meaning only well-adapted). This bi-polar senseof the concept of adap tation is used in this fram ew ork; long-term ad aptatio nto acculturation is highly variable ranging from well adapted to poorlyad ap ted , varying from a situation where individuals can m anag e their newlives very well, to on e where they are unable t o carry on in th e new society.

Ad aptatio n is also multifaceted (Ayca n Berr y, 1995). T he initialdistinction between psychological and sociocultural adaptation has beenpro pose d and validated by Ward and colleagues (Sea rle W ard , 1990;

Ward. 1996; W ard Ke nned y, 1993a).As

noted previously psychologicaladaptation largely involves one‘s psychological and physical well-being(Schmitz, 1992a). while sociocultural adaptation refersto how well anacculturating individual is able to manage daily life in the new culturalcontext. Althou gh conceptually distinct, they ar e empirically related t o som eextent (correlations between the two mea sures are in the+.4 o +.5 range).However, they are also empirically distinct in the sense that they usuallyhave different tim e cour ses and different experiential predictors.Psychological problems often increase soon after contact, followed by a

general (but variable) decrease over time: sociocultural adaptation,however, has a linear improvement with time. Analyses of the factorsaffecting adaptation (to be discussed in the next two section s) reveal agenerally consistent pattern: good psychological adaptation is predicted bypersonality variables, life change events and social support, while good



IMMIGRA TION, ACCULTURATION, A DAPTATION 21

sociocultural adaptation is predicted by cultural knowledge, degreeofcontact, and intergroup attitudes; both aspects of adaptation are usually

predicted by the successful pursu itof the integration acculturation strategy,and by minimal cultural distance (W ard , 1996; W ard Kenn edy, 1993b).With respect to economic adaptation Aycan an d Berry (1996) showed th atpsychological and sociocultural ada pta tion were predicted by much thesame set of variables as in W ard’s studies, while economic ad ap tat ion waspredicted by migration motivation, perception of relative deprivation, andstatus loss on first entry into the work w orld. Furth er studies are n eed ed toelab ora te this economic aspect of ada ptat ion , and how it relates to the o the rtwo (see also Hauff Vaglum,1993).

W e a re now in a position to consider the moderating fac tors that existprior to and those that arise during the process of acculturation. As n otedearlier, although termed “moderating” (i.e. influencing the relationshipbetween the m ain events in Fig. 2), they som etimes serve as “mediating”variables (i.e. intervene directly between the main events). Differentempirical studies assign differen t roles t o these factors; it is not possible atthis point in acculturation researchto unambiguously claim th em to be on eor th e other.

Factors Exis t ing Pr ior to Acc ul tura t ion

Individuals begin the acculturation process with a numberof personalcharacteristics of both a demo graphic and social nature . In particular one’sage has a known relationship t othe way acculturation will proceed. Whenacculturation starts early (e.g. prior to entry into primary school), theprocess is generally smooth (Beiser e t al., 1988). T he reasons for this are notclear; perhap s full enculturation into one’s parents’ culture is not sufficientlyadvanced to require much culture shedding orto create any serious cultureconflict;or perhap s personal flexibility and adaptab ility are maximal duringthese early years. However, older youth do often experience substantialproblems (Aronow itz, 1992; Carlin, 1990; G hu m an, 1991; Sam Berry,1995) particularly during ad olescence. It is possible that conflicts betweendemands of parents and peers are maximal at this period, or that theproblems of life transitions between childhood and adulthood arecompo unded by cultural transitions. For example, developmental issues ofidentity come to the fore a t this time (P hinney, 1990) an d interact w ithquestions of ethnic identity, thus m ultiplying the questions abo ut who o n ereally is.

If acculturation begins in later life (e.g. on retirement. or when olderparents migrate to join their adult offspring under family reunificationprogrammes) there appears to be increased risk (Beiser et al., 1988;Eb rah im , 1992). Perhaps the sa me factors of length of enculturation an d



22 BERRY

adaptability suggested for children ar e also at work h ere : a whole life in on ecultural setting cannot easily be ignored when one is attempting to live in a

new setting.Gender has variable influence on the acculturation process. There issubstantial evidence that females may be more at riskfor problems thanmales (e.g. Beiser e t al., 1988; Carballo. 1994). Ho weve r, this generalisationprobably itself de pe nd son the relative statu s and differential t rea tm en t offemales in the two cultures: where there is a substantial difference. attem ptsby fem ales to ta ke on new roles available in the society of settle me nt maybring them into conflict with their heritage cultu re (e.g. Mog hadd am , Ditto,

Taylor, 1990; Na ido o 1992: Na ido o Davis, 1988), placing them at risk.

Education appears as a consistent factor associated with positiveadaptations: higher education is predictive of lower stress (Beiser et al.,1988; Jayasuriya e t al..1992).A number of reasons hav e been suggestedforthis relationship. First. education is a personal resource in itself: problemanalysis and problem solving are usually instilled by formal education andlikely contributeto bette r adaptation. Seco nd, education is a correlate ofoth er resources, such as incom e, occupational sta tus, supp ort n etwo rks etc.,all of which are themselves protective factors (see la ter) . Thir d,for manymigrants, education may attune them to features of the society into which

they settle; it is a kind of pre-acculturationto the language. history, values,and norms of the new cultu re.Rel ated t o education is on e's place in the economic world. Alth oug h high

status (like educatio n) is a reso urce, a com mo n ex perie nce for migrants is acombination of status loss and limited status mobility (Ay can Ber ry,1996). O ne's "d epar ture status" is frequently higher th an one's "entrystatus"; credentials (educational and work experience) are frequentlydevalued on arrival (Cum ming, Lee, Ore opo ulos, 1989). Som etimes this isdue to real differences in qualifications,but it may also be due to ignorance

and /or prejudice in the society of settlement, leading to statusloss, and therisk of stress.For similar reasons. t he usual main goalof migration (u pwardstatus mobility) is thw arted . leading again to riskfor various diso rder s, suchas depression (Beiser, John son, Tur ner, 1993). In a sense, these problem slie in personal qualities brought to the acculturation process, but they alsoreside in the interaction between the migrant and the institutionsof thesociety of settlem ent; hence, problems of statu s loss an d limited mobility c anusually be addressed during the courseof acculturation.

Reasons for migrating have long been studied using the conceptsof

picsWpitll motivat ions and expectat ions. As w e noted earl ier, Richmond1993) has prop osed tha t a reactive-proactive con tinuu m of migration

motivation be employed. in which push motives (including involuntaryorforced migration, and negative expectations) characterise the reactive endof the dimension, while pull motives (including voluntary migration and



IMMIGRA TION, ACCULTURATION, ADA PTATION 23

positive expectations) cluster at th e proactive end. Such a single dimensionallows for more concise conceptualisation and ease of empirical analysis.

Viewing previous research in this light perm its some generalisations ab ou tthe relationship between motives and stress and adap tation . Fo r example,Kim (1988) found tha t, as usual, those w ith high “push” motivation had m orepsychological a dap tatio n problems. H owever, those with high “pull”motivation had almost as great a numberof problems. It a pp ears that thosewho are reactive are more at risk, butso too are those who are highlyproactive; it is likely that these latter migrants had extremely intense orexcessively high (even unrealistic) expectations abou t their life in the newsociety, which were not m et, leading to g reate r stress.

Cultural distance (how dissimilar the two cultures are in language,religion etc.), too, lies no t uniquely in th e background of the accu lturatingindividual but in the dissimilarity between the two cultures in contact. Thegenera l and consistent finding is that the grea ter the cultural differences, theless positive is the adaptation. This is the case for sojourne rs and immigrants(Ward Kennedy , 1992; W ard Searle, 1991) and for indigenous peop le(Berry, 1976). G reate r cultural distance implies the need for grea ter cultureshedding and culture learning, and perhaps large differences triggernegative intergroup attitudes, and induce g reater culture conflict leading to

poorer adaptation.Personal factors have also been shown to affect the course of

acculturation. In the personality domain, a numberof traits have beenpropo sed as both risk an d protective factors, including locusof control and,introversion/extraversion (Ward Kennedy, 1992), and self-efficacy(Schwarzer, H ah n, Schro der, 1994). However, consistent findings havebeen rare, possibly because, once again,it is not so much the tra it by itself butits “fit” with the new cultural setting that matters. Kealey (1989) hasadvocated such a person X situation approach to studying sojourneradaptation.

O ne finding (Schmitz, 1994), am on g a group of immigrants to German y, istha t stress reaction styles ar e related to a person’s preferred acculturationstrategy. Using the Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck (1990) Psycho-SocialStress Inventory, the “Approach” style was positively related to apreference for Assimilation, “Avoidance” to Separation, “Flexible” toIntegration, and “Psych opathology”to Marginalisation.

Factors Ar is ing Du r in g Accul tura t ionIt is now clear that th ephase of acculturation needsto be taken into accountif stress and ad aptation are to be understood. Th at is, how long a person hasbeen experiencing acculturation strongly affects the kind and extent ofproblems. T he classical description of positive adaptation in relation to time



24 BERRY

has been in terms of a U-curve: Only a few problems are present early,followed by more serious problems later, and finally a more positive

long-term a da pta tio n is achieved. How ever, there is little empirical evidencefor such a stan dar d course, nor for fixed times (in term s of m on ths or years)when such variations will occur. Church (1982, p.452) has concluded thatsupport for the U-curve is "weak, inconclusive and overgeneralized",although there are occasional longitudinal stud ies suggesting fluctuations instress over time ( e.g.Beise r, 1994;H ur h Kim, 1990; Klineberg, 1980; Ward

Kenned y. 1995; Zh en g Berry. 1991).An alternative to a fixed, stage-like con ceptualisation of the relationsh ip

between lengthof acculturation and problems experienced is to consider the

specific natu re of the experiences and problems en cou ntered as they changeover time (e.g. initially learning a language, obtaining employment andhousing, followed by establishing social relationships and recreationalopportunities) and the relationship of such problems to the personalresources of the m igrant and t o opp ortun ities in the societyof settlementHo, 1995). This app roa ch emph asises the high d egr ee of variability to be

expected over the time course from initial contactto eventual long-termadaptation.

Acculturation strategies have been shown to have substantial

relationships with positive a dap tatio n: integration is usually the mostsuccessful; marginalisation is the least; and assimilation and separationstrategies are intermediate. This patt ern has been found in virtually everystudy, and is present for all types of acculturating groups (Berry, 1990a;Berry Sam, 1996). Why this shou ld beso. however, is not clear. In oneinterpretation, the integration strategy incorporates manyof the otherprotective factors: a willingness for mutual accommodation (i.e. thepresence of mutual positive atti tud es, and ab sence of prejudice anddiscrimination-see later); invo lvem ent in two cultural com munities (i.e.

having two social su pp or t systems-see lat er ); an d being flexibleinpersonality. In sharp contrast, marginalisation involves rejection by thedom inant society, comb ined with own-cultureloss; this means th e presenceof hostility and much reduced social support. Assimilation involves own-culture shedding (even though it may be voluntary), and se par atio n involvesrejection of the dominant culture (perhaps reciprocated by them). In thesimplest version of this explanation, in termsof Fig. 1, integration involvestwo positive orienta tions, m arginalisation involves two negative ones, whileassimilation and separation involve one positive and one negative

relationship.Another possible reason for the finding that Integration is the mostadaptive strategy is that most studies of the relationship betweenacculturation strategies and adaptation have been carried ou t inmulticultural societies. Th at is. the re could b e benefits to persons matching



IMMIGRA TION, ACCULTURATION, ADAPTATION 25

their accu lturation strategies to that generally advocated and accepted in thelarge r society. How ever, in recent studies in societies that ar e more “Melting

Po t” o r assimilationist in orientation, the Integration strategy remained t hemost adaptive (and conversely marginalisation was the least adaptive)strategy. For example this was the case among Indian immigrants to theU SA (Krishnan Berry, 1992), and Third World immigrant youth inNorw ay (Sam Berry, 1995); an d Schmitz (1992b, p.368), workingwith avariety of immigrant groups in Germany, concluded that “The findingssuggest that integration seems to be the most effective strategy if we takelong ter m hea lth and well-being as indicators”.

Related to acculturation strategies are the coping strategies discussed

earlier. Some empirical evidence supports the relationship between copingan d acculturation strategies. For example,in the same study Schmitz (1992b)found , using the thre e coping styles identified by En dler a nd Parke r (1990)that integ ration is positively correlated with task orien tation , segregation ispositively correlated with emotion and avoidance orientation, andassimilation is positively correlated with both task and emotion orien tation ,but negatively with avoidance orienta tion. A nd , as we have just noted , thesestrategies were relatedto health outcom es for imm igrantsto Germany.

In the field of psychological well-being generally,the variable of social

su pp or t has been widely studied (Lin, D ea n, Ensel, 1986). Its role inadaptation to acculturation has also been supported (e.g. FurnhamAlibhai, 1985; Furn ham Shiekh, 1993; Jayasuriya et al., 1992; VegaRumbaut, 1991). For some, links to one’s heritage culture (i.e. withco-na tiona ls) are associated with lower stress (e.g. Vega, Kolody, Valle,Weir, 1991; W ard Kennedy, 1993b), for ot he rs links to members of thesociety of settlement are more helpful, particularly if relationships matchone’s expectations (e.g. Berry Kostovcik, 1990); but in most studies,supp ortive relationships with both cu ltures are m ost predictive of successful

adap tation (Berry e t al., 1987; Kealey , 1989). Th is latter finding correspondsto observations made earlier about the advantages of the integrationstrategy.

It has been widely reported that the experience of prejudice anddiscrimination has a significant negative effect on a person’s well-being (e.g.Fen ton, 1989; Ha lpern , 1993). In groups experiencing acculturation this canbe an a dd ed risk factor (Beiser et al.,1988). Murphy (1965) has argued thatsuch prejudice is likely to be less preva lent in culturally plu ral societies, but itis by n o means abse nt (e.g. Berry Kalin, 1995). Indeed Fe rnan do (1993)

has designated racism as the most serious problem and risk factor facingimm igrants and their mental health.



26 BERRY

SUMMARY

Research in the domains of immigration. acculturation, and a dap tati on, assampled and outlinedin this article, has provided som e rathe r consistent andpotentially applica ble findings. This consistency is re m arka ble , asacculturation is on e of the m ost complex areasof research in cross-culturalpsychology. It is complex, in part. because the process involves more thanone culture. in two distinct senses: acculturation phenomena result fromcontact between two or more cultures: and research on acc ulturation hastobe comparative (like all cross-cultural psychology) in order to understandvariations in psychological outcom es that ar e the result of cultura l variations

in the two groups in contact. This complexity has ma de th e reviewing of thefield both difficult and selective. The framing of the field( in Figs. 1 and 2)was an attem pt to provide a structure tha t could identify the m ain feat ure sofacculturation phe nom ena ( th e “sk ele ton ”), and in to which illustrativestudies could be inserted (bits of “flesh”). T he que stions naturally arise: towhat extent are these findings generalisable to other cultures; and whatresearch still needs to be accomplished in orderto apply them?

The empirical studies available do seem to point to some consistentfindings. First, psychological acculturation is influenced by numerous

group-level factors in th e society of origin and in the society of se ttl em en t.What led the acc ulturating group to begin the process (w het her voluntary,whether on their own lands or elsewhere) app ears to be an imp ortant sourceof variation in out com e. How ever. oth er factors have also been identified ascontributing: national immigration and acculturation policies, ideologiesand att i tudesin the d om ina nt society, and social supp ort. Th ese population-level variables seem to be im po rta nt in many stud ies, across many societies.How ever. their relative con tributions will be likely to vary accord ingto thespecific acculturative context being considered. That is. they may be

examples of a set of universal factors, ones that operate everywhere, butwhose specific influence will vary in relation to features of the particularcultures in contact.

What is still needed are systematic comparative studies that will takethese population-level factors into account in a research design (s ee Berry etal.. 1987, for such a proposed design). For example, a single acculturatinggroup (e.g. Chinese ) who experience acculturation as mem bersof refugee,imm igrant, sojo urn er. and ethnocultural groups, could be studied insocieties with assimilationist. integra tionist. and segregationist policies; and

within these settings, variations in eth nic attitu des and social sup port couldbe incorporated. Until now. we have had t o rely mostly upon sp orad ic (‘*onesho t”) studiesof single accu lturating groups, in single societies of se ttl em en t,with no control over o th er possibly important factors contrib utin g topsychological accultu ration.



IMMIGRATION, A CCULTURATION, ADA PTATION 27

Second, psychological acculturation is influenced by numerousindividual-level factors. In particular, the integrationist or bi-cultural

acculturation strategy appe ars to be a consistent predictor of mo re positiveoutcomes than the three alternatives of assimilation, separation, orespecially marginalisation. The availability and successof such a dualadaptation strategy, of course, de pen ds on the willingness of the dominantsociety to allow it, and the wish of co-ethnics to pursue it. Thu s, the re is anapparent interaction between population-level and individual-level factorsin contribu ting to psychological adaptations. B ut even in societies tha t tendtowards assimilation policies, there was evidence that immigrants andethnocultural gro up membe rs generally prefer integration, and when they

do, they tend t o ma ke m ore positive adaptations. W het her such a finding isvalid for all groups acculturating to all dominant societies is an importantquestion for researchers, policy makers, and those involved in counsellingacculturating individuals. Once again, systematic comparative studies areessential to answer this question.

Third, how are th e personal outcome s of the acculturation process to beinte rpre ted ? A re they a m atte r of acquiring essential social skills (makingsome rath er easy behavioural shifts),of coping with stressors in order toavoid acculturative stress, or of succumbing to problemsso serious that

psychopathology will result?In this review, the re is evidence that all threeconceptualisations are valid, but that they may constitute a sequence orhierarchy of outcom es: if sufficient behavioural shifts (involving new cu lturelearning and former culture shedding) are demanded, but do not occur,stressors may appear in the daily intercultural encounters that requireappraisal and coping in ord er to prevent acculturative stress; andif thesedifficulties prove to be in surm ountab le, then psychopathologies may result.Because of the differing theoretical approaches taken by differentresearchers in their studies, such a conclusion has not been possible to draw

fro m any o ne study. W hat is required are large-scale, longitudinal studies,carried out comparatively, in which all three conceptualisations arecombined. In the m eantime,it is possible to sayon the basis of this reviewthat most acculturating individuals make rather positive adaptations (i.e.there is not widespread psychopathology in evidence), but that theacculturative transition is not always an easy on e (i.e. changing one’s culturepresents challenges that are not easy to overcome). Immigration andacculturation are a risk, bu t risk is not destiny (Beiser e t al.,1988).

APPLICATIONS

As virtually all of the factors identified in this review are under humancontrol, they should be am enab le t o change, guided by informed policy andprogramme development. The contribution by cross-cultural psychologists



28 BERRY

to understanding these fac tors has bee n substantial, but much w ork remainsto be done . both with respectto research, and to comm unicating ou r findings

and conclusions to acculturation policy and programm e developers. andtoacculturating groups and individuals themselves. There are a numberofpoints of entry, and hen ce of application. using the findings reviewed in thisarticle. Th ese points reside in both the societyof origin and the societyofsettlement, and at both t he gr ou p and individual levels.

In the society of origin, little can be do ne a t the g rou p level. However, a tt h e individual level, som e pro gra m m es involving pr e-d epa rtur e counsellingand training, as well as realistic goal setting ar e possible in ma ny cases ( A ro n,1992). Considerable evidence is now available to support the

implem entation of such prevention program mes (Tousignant, 1992), bothprior to and after migration.Most action can be taken, and most successes can be realised, in the

society of settlement. At the group level, there is now sufficientpsychological evidence to support t h e developm ent of national policies thatneither force culture shedding (assimilation), nor ghettoisation(segregation), or som e combinationof them (leading to marginalisation).Instead a policy “balancing act” between these alternatives (the policyop tion termed “in teg rati on ” he re) can be sought (B erry, 1984, 1991). In

addition, public education and social legislation can promote anappreciation of the benefits of pluralism, and of the societal and personalcosts of prejudice and discrimination to everyone. National studiesofknowledge about and attitudes towards multiculturalism and specificethnocultural groups am ong all residents can assist in monitoring p rogresstowards these goals (e.g. Berry Kalin, 1995). Institutional change,involving increased diversity in ed uc at ion , health , and social services, hasalso been advocated. particularly for teachers and physicians (e.g. Karmi,1992).

At the individual level, information about the protective benefitsofcultural maintenance and social support can be disseminated throughethnocultural com munity inte raction , thereby reducing th e stressesassociated with assimilation. At the same time, the benefits of seekingtoparticipate in the national institutions (educational, work. judicial)to theextent desired, can reduce the stresses associated with separation. Andadvocacy of b oth can be conveyed to acculturating individuals, accompan iedby information about the dangersof marginalisation that are likely whenneither cultural maintenance nor participationin the larger society are

achieved.Perhaps most important is the advocacyof the view that acculturation

involves mutual accornnzodation (i.e. integration as defined h ere ). T he re areobvious costs to both sides: to the dominant society in changing schoolcurricula and health services: tot h e acculturating grou p in she ddin g som e




aspects of the ir culture that a re valued but not adaptive. However, the costsof not adop ting integrationist policies ar e likely to be even grea te r, especially

if segregation and marginalisation ar e th e end result (B erry,1991; Roosens,1988). The evidence presented in this article,I believe, clearly show s thatpeople without a sense of themselves (i.e. a cultural identity of their own,rooted in some degreeof cultural maintenance), and who feel rejected byothers (facing daily experiences of prejudice and discrimination) areexposed to significant psychological costsin their own comm unities. Such asituation also imposes costson the dominant society (in terms of socialconflict and social contro l). Similarly, membersof ethnocultural groups whod o not a ttem pt to understand and accept the core values and basicnorms of

the society of se ttlement risk irritating m em be rs of the large r society, againstimulating social conflict. Th e ma nagem ent of pluralism dep en ds bo tho n itsacceptance a s a conte mporary fact of life, ando n the mutual willingnesstochange.

Less negatively, the benefits of pluralism, maintained in part throughintegration, a re num erous. Diversity in society is one of t he spices of life, aswell as providing competitive advantages in international diplomacy andtrade. Perhaps most important is that from a social systems perspective,cultural diversity enhances society’s adaptability: alte rnative waysof living

are available in the social system when attempting to meet changingcircumstances, due t o changes ina society’s ecological, or political, contex t.

Manuscript received May 1995Revised manuscript received March 1996

REFERENCES

Aldwin. C. (1994). Stress coping and development.New York: Guilford Press.Aron. A. (1992). Applicationsof psychology to the assessment of refugees seeking political

asylum. Applied Psychology:A n Internationnl Re view. 41.77-91.Aronowitz. M. (1992). Adjustmentof immigrant children as a functionof parental attitudes

to change. Internntional Migration Review. 26.86-110.Aycan, Z. Berry, J.W . (19%). Impact of employment-related experienceson immigrants’

well-being and adaptation to Canada. Canadian Journal of Eehavioiiral Science. 28.240-251.

Aycan, Z. Berry, J.W. (1995). Cross-cultural adaptation as a multifaceted ph enomen on.Paper presented at 4th European Congressof Psychology, Athens.

Baron. R.M. Kenny. D.A. (1986). Themoderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology. 51.1173-1 182.

Beiser, M. (1994). Longitudinal study of Viernamese refugee adnpiation. Toronto: ClarkeInstitute of Psychiatry.

Beiser. M.. Barwick,C . .Berry, J.W.. da Costa.G . .Fantino, A ., Ganesan. S., Lee. C.. Milne.W..Naidoo. J.. Prince, R., Tousignant. M.. Vela, E. (1988). Menial health issues affectingimmigrants and refugees. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.



30 BERRY

Beiser. M., Johnson. P. . Turner. J . (1993). Unemployment. underemployment anddepressive affect am ong S outhe ast Asia n refugees.Psychological Medicine. 23,731-743.

Berry, J .W . (197 0). Marginality, stress and ethn ic identification in an ac cultura ted Aboriginal

community. Journa l of Cross-Ciilrural Psychology, I 239-252.Berry, J.W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism: Unity and identity

reconsidered. Topics in Ciilriire Learning. 2. 17-22.Berry. J.W. (1976). H um an ecology and cognirive sryle: C ornpararive stiidies in culrirral an d

psychological adaprarion. New Y ork: SageiHaIsted.Berry. J.W. (1980). Social and cultural chan ge. In H. C. Trian dis R. Brislin (Ed s.),

Handbook of cross-cirlrural ps),chology, Vol . 5. Social (pp.211-279). Boston: AllynBacon.

Berry. J .W . (19 84 ). Mu lticultural policy in Ca na da : A social psychological analysis.CanadianJoiirnol of Behavioural Science. 16. 353-370.

Berry. J.W. (1990a). Psychology of acculturation. In J Berman (Ed.) , Cross-cidruralperspectives: Nebraska Syniposiiirn on Morivarion (pp.?OI-234). Lincoln: Univ ersityofNebraska Press.

Berry. J.W. (199Oh). Th e role of psychology in ethnic studies.Canadian Erhnic Studies. 22.8-21.

Berry. J .W. (1991). Lnderstanding and managing multiculturalism. Psychology andDeve loping Socieries. 3. 17-49.

Berry, J.W. (1992). Acculturation and adap tationi n a new society. Inrernarional Migrarion .

Berry. J .W . Kalin. R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitude s in Ca nad a.CanadianJoiirnal of Behavioural Science. 27. 301-320.

Berry. J .W. Kim. L'. (1988). Acculturation and mental health. In P.R. Dasen. J .W. Berry.&N. ar torius (Eds . ) .Healrh and cross -culriiral psycho logy: TouBards applications (pp.207-238). Newbury Park. C A : Sage.

Berry. J.W.. Kim. U.. Minde. T., Mok. D. (1987). Com parative studiesof acculturativestress. Inrernarional M igrarion Review. 21.491-51 1.

Berry. J.W.. Kim. U.. Power. S.. Young. M.. Bujaki. M. (1989). Acc ultura tion attitude s inplural societies.Applied Psychology: A n lniernarional Rei , iew.38. 185-206.

Berry. J.W . Kostovcik. N. (1990). Psychological adaptation of Malaysian students inCanada. In A. H. Othman W.R.A. Rahm an (Eds . ) .Psychology and socio-economicdevelopmenr (pp.155-162). Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Berry. J .W . Lonncr. W.J. (E ds .) (1975). Ap plied cross-culrural psychology. Amsterdam:

Swets Zeitl inger.Berry. J .W.. Poortinga. Y.H .. Segall. M.H .. Dasen. P.R. (1992).Cross-crtlturalpsychology:Research and applicarions. New York: C ambridge University Press.

Berry, J .W. Sam. D . (1996). Acculturation and adaptation. In J.W. Berry.M.H. Segall.C. Kagitcibasi (E ds.).Handbook of Cross-Cu lriiral P sychology. Vol. 3 Social Beha iior andApplicarions. Bos ton: Allyn Bacon.

Berry. J .W.. Trimble. J . . Olmed o. E. (1986). T he assessmentof acculturation. In W.J.Lonner J .W . Berry (Eds . ) .Field merhods in cross -ciilrural research. h'ewbury Park.C A :Sage.

30. 69-85.

Brislin. R. (Ed.) (1990) . Ap plied cross-culiural psychology. Newbury Park. CA:Sage.Brislin. R.. Landis. D.. Bra ndt. M. (1983). Co ncep tualizatio nsof intercultural behaviour

and training. In D. Lan dis R. Brislin (Ed s.).Handbook of inferciilriiral training(Vol . 1,pp.1-35). N ew Y ork: Pergamon.

Cameron , J . Lalonde. R. (1993). Self. ethnicity and social group memberships in twogenerations of Italian Canadians.Personaliry and Social Psychology Bullerin. 20. 514-520.

Camilleri. C. (1990). Introduction. In C. Clanet (E d. ) .L infercidrurel: lnrrodircrion aiix



IMMIGR A TION, ACCULTURA TION, ADA PTATION 31

approaches interculturelles en education er en sciences humaines. Toulouse: PressesUnivesitaires du Mirail.

Carballo, M. (1994). ScienriFc consrrlration on [h e social and health impacr of migration:

Priorities for research. Geneva: International Organizationfor Migration.Carlin, J (1990). Refugee and immigrant populations at special risk: W omen, children and

:he elderly. In W.H. Holtzman T. Bornemann (Eds.).Mental hea /th of im migrants andrefugees. Austin: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health.

Church. A. (1982). S ojourner adjustment.Psychological Bulletin 91.540-572.Clanet. C. 1 990). L’interculturel: Intro ductio n aux app roac hes interc~clrurelles n education er

en sciences hum aines. Toulouse: Presses Univesitaires du Mirail.Cumming, P., Lee. E., Oreopoulos, D . (1989). Access to trades andprofessions. Toronto:

Ontario Ministry of Citizenship.Dasen. P.R., Berry, J.W .. Sartorius, N. (Eds.). (1988). Health and cross-crclrilral

psychology: Towa rds applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Diaz-Guerrero. R. (1979). Th e developmentof coping style. Human Development. 22,

320-33 1.Ebrahim. S. (1992). Social and medical problems of elderly migrants. International

Migration 30. 179-197.Eldering. L. Kloprogge, J (Eds.). (1989). Differenr cultures .same school: Ethnic mino rity

children in Europe. Am sterdam: Swets Zeitlinger.Endler. N. Parker, J. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping. Journal of

Personaliry and Social Psychology. 58. 844-854.Fenton. C. (1989). Racism and mental health.I n J. Cox S. Bostock (Eds.). Racial

discrimination in health services. Keele. UK: University Press.

Fernando, S. (1993). Racism and xenophobia.Innovation in Social Sciences Research

(Special Issue on Migration and Health). 6,9-19.Frese. M. (1986). Coping as a moderator and mediator between stress at work and

psychosomatic complaints. In M.H . Appley R. Trumbull (Eds.).Dynamics of stress(pp.183-206). New York: Plenum.

Furnham. A. Alibhai,N. (1985). The friendship netwo rks of foreign students.lnrernarionalJournal of Psychology. 9.365-375.

Fdrnham. A. Bochner. S (1986). Culntre shock: Psychological reactions to unfamiliarenvironmenn. London: Methuen.

Furnham, A Shiekh, S. (1993). Gender, generation. and social support correlates ofmental health in Asian immigrants.Inrernational Journal of Social Psyc hintry 39 22-33.

Ghuman, P.A.S. (1991). Best or worst of two worlds? A study of Asian adolescents.Educarional Review 33, 121-132.

Gordon, M .M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.Graves, T. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community.South-Western

Journnl of Anthropology. 23.337-350.Grossarth-Maticek, R. Eysenck. H.J. (1990). Personality. stress and disease: Description

and validity of a new inventory. Psychological Reports. 66. 355-373.Hagendoo rn. L. (1993). Ethnic categorization and ou tgrou p exclusion: The roleof cultural

values and social stereotypes in the constructionof ethnic hierarchies. Efh nic and RacialSrudies 16. 26-51.

Halpern. D. (1993). Minorities and men tal health.Social Science and M edicine.36,597-607.Hauff, E. Vaglum, P. (1993). Integration of Vietnamese refugees into the Norwegian

labour market: The impact of war trauma.lnrernarional Migration Review. 27 ,388405 .Ho. E . (1995). Th e challenge of cultrire change: The cross-culrural adaptatio n of Hong Kong

Chinesead olescent irnmigranrs in New Zcaland. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University ofWaikato. New Zealand.



32 BERRY

Horenczyk. G. 1996). Migrant identities in conflict: Acc ulturatio n attitudes and perceivedacculturation ideologies. InG . Breakwell E. Lyons (Eds.).Chang ing Eu rop ean idenrir ies .London: Pergamon

Hurh. W.M. Kim. K.C. (1990). Ada ptation stages and mental healthof Korean maleimmigrants in the L'nired Stares.ln re rnaf iona l Migrarion Review. 2 4 , 4 5 6 4 7 9 .

Jayasuriya. L.. ang. D.. Fielding. A . (1992). E i h n i c i r y, i m m i g r a r i o nand menia l i l l n e s s Acrirical review of Aiisrral ian researrh. Canberra: Bureau of Immigration Research.

Kalin. R Berry. J. W . (in press) . Ethn ic and civic self-identity in Can ada .C a n ad i a n E i h n i cSrudies.

Karmi. G . (1992). Edu cating docto rs in migration and health.In re rnaf iona l Migrarion. 30131-140.

Kealey. D.J. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues. practicalapplications. l n r e r n ar i o n a l J o u r n a l of Inferculrural Relations. I S . 3 8 7 4 2 8 .

Kim. U. (1988). Accri l rurar ion of Korean inimigranrs fo Canada . Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, Queen's University. Can ada.Klineberg, 0 . (1980). Stressful expe rience sof foreign students at various stagesof sojourn:

Counselling and policy implications.In G . V. Coelho P.I. Ahmed (Eds. ), L proofing anddevelopmenr diletnmas of coping w ~ r h odern iza r ion . New Y ork: Plenum Press.

Krishnan, A Berry. J .W . (1992). Acculturative stress and acculturation atti tudes amon gIndian imm igrantsto the United States.Psychology a n d Develop ing Socier ies . 4. 187-212.

Kymlicka. W. (1995). .Mulriculricral ciiizensh ip.Oxford: Clarendon Press.LaFromboise. T.. Coleman. H . , Gerton. J (1993). Psychological impactof biculturalism:

Evidence and theory.Ps?.chological Birl lerin, 144. 39.5412.Lalonde. R . C a m e r o n .J . (1993). A n intergroup perspectiveon immigrant acculturation

uith a focus on collective strategies. ln re rnar iono l Journ a l of Psychology. 28.57-74.

Lazarus. R.S. (1990j. Theo ry-ba sed stress mea surem ent.P s y c h o l o g i c d I n q u i r y, I 3-13.Lazarus. R.S. (1991 . Psychological stress in the wo rkplac e.Journa l of Social Behavior and

Lazarus, R.S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing

Lazarus. R.S. Folkman. S. (1984). Srress, apprnisal and coping. New York: Springer.Lin. N.. Dean. A R Ensel. N. (Eds . ) (1986). Socials icpporr. life evenfs and depression. New

York: Academ ic Press.Malzberg. B. : Lee, E. (1956). .I . l grarion and menral disease. New York: Social Science

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

immigrants.In J . W. Berry R.C. Annis (Eds.) .E r h n i c p s y c h o l o g y (pp.69-79). Am sterdam :Swets Zeitlinger.

Vog hadd am. F.M.. Ditto. B.. Taylor. D . (1990). A tti tudes and attributions relatedto5ymptomatology i n Indian immigrant women.J o u r n a l of Cross -Cul r i r ra l Psychology, ?I

335-350.Murphy. H.B.M. (1965). Migration an d the major mental disorders. In M. Kantor (Ed .),

AIohilirv and mental healrh (p p 221-249). Springfield: Thoma s.Sa idoo . J .C . (1992). T h e mental h ealth of visible ethnic minorities in Ca nad a.Psychology

and Develop ing Socier ies . 4 . 165-186.Said oo. J . Davis. J .C (1988). Can adian So uth Asian women in transition: A dualistic view

of life J o u r n a l of C o m p a r a r i w F a m i l y Srudies. 19. 31 1-327.

Oberg. K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments.PracricalA n r h r o p o l o g y. 7. 377-182.

Ogbu. J (1990). Cultu ral models. identity and literacy.In J. Stigler. R. Shweder. G. Herdt(Eds.) .Culrura lpsyc holo gy: Essays on co mp araf i w h trmnn deve lopmenr (p p. 52Cb541). NewYork: Cambridge University Press,

Pvrsonahfy. 6. 1-13,

outlooks.Annual Rer>rcwof P s y h o l o g y. 44. 1-21,



IMMIGRA TION, ACCULTURATION, ADAPTA TION 33

Olm edo, E.L. (1979). Acculturation: A psychometric perspective.American Psychologist

Padilla, A. (1980). Th e role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyaltyin acculturation. In A.Padilla (Ed.). Acculturation: Theory models and some new findings (pp.47-84). Boulder:Westview Press.

Phinney, J (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A reviewof research.Psychological Bulletin 108.499-514.

Redfield, R.. Linton , R., Herskovits. M. (1936). Memo randum on the studyofacculturation. American Anthropologist.38. 149-152.

Richm ond. A. (1993). Reac tive migration: Sociological perspectives on refugee movem ents,Journal of Refugee Studies.6-7-24.

Rog ler, L. (1994). International migrations: A framework for directing research.AmericanPsychologist 49,701-708.

Roosens, E. (1988). Migration and caste formation in Eu rop e: Th e Belgian case.Ethnic andRacial Studies. 11, 207-217.

Sabatier, C. Berry, J.W. (1994). Immigration et acculturation. In R. Bourhis J.-P. Leyens(Eds.). Stirk oiyp es discrimination et relations iniergroupes.Liege: Mardaga.

Sam. D.L. Berry, J.W. (1995). Acculturative stress among young imm igrants in Norw ay.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 36. 10-24.

Schmitz, P. (1992a). Imm igrant mental and physical health.Psychology and DevelopingSocieties 4. 117-131.

Schmitz, P. (1992b). Acculturation styles and health. InS. Iwawaki.Y. Kashima, K. h u n g(Eds.).Innovations in cross-cultural psychology. Am sterdam: Swets Zeitlinger.

Schmitz, P.G. (1994). Acculturation and adaptation process among immigrants in Germ any.

In A.-M. Bouvy, F.J.R.van

de Vijver. P. Schmitz (Eds.),Journeys into cross-culiuralpsychology (pp.142-157). Am sterdam : Swets Zeitlinger.Schwarzer, R.. Hah n, A., Schro der, H. (1994). Social integration and social supportin a life

crisis: Effects of macrosocial change in East Germany. American Journal of Community

Searle, W. W ard,C. (1990). Th e predictionof psychological and sociocultural adjustm entduring cross-cultural transitions. lnternational Journal of Inrercultural Relations 14449464.

Social Science Research Council (1954). Acculturation: An exploratory formulation.American Anthropologist 56,973-1002.

Szapocznik, J Kurtines. W. (1993). Family psychology and cultural diversity.American

Psychologist 48 ,400407 .Tousignant, M. (1992). Migration and men tal health: Some preven tion guidelines.

lnternaiional Migration. 30. 167-177.UNESCO (1985). Cultural pluralism and cultural identity. Paris: UNESCO.Vasquez, A. (1984). Les implications ideologiques du concept d'acculturation.Cahiers de

Sociologie Economique et Culturelle I 83-121.Vega. W., Kolody. B.. Valle, R., Weir.J (1991). Social networks, social support. and their

relationship to depression among immigrant Mexican women.Human Organizatron 50,154-162.

Vega, W. Rum baut, R. (1991). Ethnic minorities and mental health.Annual Review of

Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. InD. Land is& R. Bhagat(Eds.) ,Han dbook ofinierculruraltraining (2nd Edn). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ward. C. Kennedy, A (1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance and social difficultyduring cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of lnrerculrural Relations. 16,

34 1061-1070.

Psychology.22.685-706.

Sociology 1 7 , 5 6 8 9 .

175-1 94.



34 BERRY

Ward, C. Kennedy. A (1993a). Psychological and sociocultural adjustment duringcross-cut~ural ransitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home.lnternarionnl Journal if f‘s~chology.28. 129-147.

Ward. C. Kennedy. PI (1993b). Where‘s the “culture“ in cross-cultural transition‘?Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment.Journal of Cross-Culrural Psychology. 24.221-249.

Ward. C. Kennedy. A (1995). Crossing cultures: The relationship betw een psychologicaland sociocultural dimensionsof cross-cultural adjustment. In J Pandey. D. Sinha.P. Bhawuk (Eds.) .Asian confrihutionsf o ross-culrural psychology. New D elhi: Sage.

Ward. C. Searle. W . (1991). Th e impact of value discrepancies and cultural identityonpsychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. lnrernational Journal ofInrerculrural Relniions. 15. 209-225.

Westermeyer. J (1986). Migration and psychopathology. InC.L.Williams J Westermeyer(Eds.) . Refugee menrnl healih in reserrlemenr cortniries. Washington: Hem isphere.

U’orld Hea lth Org aniza tion (1991). The menial healthproblems of migranrs Reporrfrom sirEuropean counrrie.c. Geneva: WHO.

Zheng. X. Berry, J .W. (1991). Psychological adap tationof Chinese sojourners in Cana da.lnrernarional Journ al of Psychology. 26 . 451410.

Immigrants’ Perceptions of Host A ttitudes and Their

Reconstructionof

Cultural GroupsGabriel Hore nczyk The Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem Israel

Com mentary on “Immigration, Acculturation, and A daptatio n”by John W . Berry

Th e acculturationof immigrants does not ta ke place in a social vacuum;i toccurs and unfolds itself within the context of intragroup and intergrouprelations that provide at times the supp ort a nd a t times the challenge for the

reconstructionof selves and identities. In his com prehensive and integrativereview, Joh n Berry pointsto the importanceof contextual “societal” factors(subsumed under the “group-level” category in his acculturationframe work ) and their effects on individual ada ptat ion.I t is on an importantcomponent of this category of factors. namely the attitudesof the host (ormajority) society towards imm igrants and im migration, thatI would like toelab ora te in th e first partof this c omme ntary.

The examination of att i tudes held by membersof the majority culturetowards acculturating groups has received relatively little empirical

at tention (Ward, 1996). It has been noted , however that host attitudes canexert strong effects on im migrant adjustm ent.I t is likely that p ublic attitu destowa rds immigra tion affect policies dealing with the allocationof resourcesto newcomers. Berry refers to Murphy who suggested that societ iessupportive of cultural pluralism are more likelyto provide social suppo rt

inmigration, aculturation, and adaptation

Documents