Rethinking Acculturation

8/18/2019 Rethinking Acculturation

1/15

Rethinking the Concept of Acculturation

Implications for Theory and Research

Seth J. Schwartz University of Miami

Jennifer B. Unger Claremont Graduate UniversityByron L. Zamboanga Smith CollegeJosé Szapocznik University of Miami

This article presents an expanded model of acculturationamong international migrants and their immediate descen-

dants. Acculturation is proposed as a multidimensional

process consisting of the confluence among heritage-cul-

tural and receiving-cultural practices, values, and identi-

fications. The implications of this reconceptualization for the acculturation construct, as well as for its relationship

to psychosocial and health outcomes, are discussed. In

particular, an expanded operationalization of accultura-

tion is needed to address the “immigrant paradox,”

whereby international migrants with more exposure to the

receiving cultural context report poorer mental and phys-ical health outcomes. We discuss the role of ethnicity,

cultural similarity, and discrimination in the acculturation

process, offer an operational definition for context of re-

ception, and call for studies on the role that context of

reception plays in the acculturation process. The new per-spective on acculturation presented in this article is in-

tended to yield a fuller understanding of complex accultur-

ation processes and their relationships to contextual and

individual functioning.

Keywords: acculturation, immigrant, cultural practices,cultural values, cultural identifications

Acculturation has become a well-recognized andimportant area of study (Berry, 1980, 2006b;Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009). Broadly, asapplied to individuals, acculturation refers to changes thattake place as a result of contact with culturally dissimilarpeople, groups, and social influences (Gibson, 2001). Al-though these changes can take place as a result of almostany intercultural contact (e.g., globalization; Arnett, 2002),acculturation is most often studied in individuals living incountries or regions other than where they were born—thatis, among immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and sojourners (e.g., international students, seasonal farm work-ers; Berry, 2006b). Acculturation research generally fo-cuses on immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, whoare assumed to be permanently settled in their new home-land—although these three groups may be quite differentfrom one another. As a result, we use the terms migrants orinternational migrants to refer to these three groups col-lectively, but where applicable, we discuss ways in whichour hypotheses or propositions differ by type of migrant.

Rates of international migration have reached unprec-edented levels in the United States and throughout theworld. The United States, for example, is experiencing amassive wave of immigration larger than the great immi-grant waves of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and incontrast to those earlier waves, the current wave is unlikelyto be cut off by restrictive legislation in the near term(Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Western Europe, Canada, andAustralia are also undergoing one of the largest immigrantflows in recent history. On a worldwide scale, migrants inthe current (post-1960s) wave, which occurred when manycountries opened their borders to a more diverse array of migrants, originate largely from Latin America, Asia, Af-rica, the Caribbean, and the Middle East—regions wherecollectivism (focus on the well-being of the family, clan,nation, or religion) is emphasized over individualism (fo-cus on the needs of the individual person; Triandis, 1995).These migrants are settling primarily in North America,Western Europe, and Oceania—regions where individual-ism is emphasized more than collectivism. As a result,there are gaps in cultural values between many migrants

and the societies that are receiving them.Not surprisingly, the large flow of migrants around the

world has prompted increased scholarly interest in accul-turation. At least three edited books on acculturation havebeen published since 2003 (e.g., Berry, Phinney, Sam, &Vedder, 2006; Chun, Organista, & Marı́n, 2003; Sam &Berry, 2006); and a cursory search of the PsycInfo litera-ture database seeking journal articles with the word accul-turation in the title returned 107 records from the 1980s,337 from the 1990s, and 727 from the 2000s. However,there remain a number of important challenges regardingoperational definitions, contextual forces, and relationships

Seth J. Schwartz and José Szapocznik, Department of Epidemiology andPublic Health, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami; Jennifer B. Unger, School of Community and Global Health,Claremont Graduate University; Byron L. Zamboanga, Department of Psychology, Smith College.

Preparation of this article was supported by Grants DA019409 andDA026550 (S. Schwartz, Prinicipal Investigator) from the National Insti-tute on Drug Abuse.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to SethJ. Schwartz, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Leonard M.Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, 1425 N.W. 10th Avenue,Miami, FL 33136. E-mail: [email protected]

237May–June 2010 ● American Psychologist

© 2010 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/10/$12.00Vol. 65, No. 4, 237–251 DOI: 10.1037/a0019330


2/15

to psychosocial and health outcomes that must be ad-dressed (Rudmin, 2003, 2009). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to raise some of these questions and issuesand to propose an expanded, multidimensional model of acculturation and of the demographic and contextual forcesthat can influence the acculturation process. As part of thisobjective, we draw on and integrate various streams of literature on cultural adaptation (specifically on culturalpractices, values, and identifications), on ethnicity, on dis-crimination and acculturative stress, and on context of

reception. Further, because the bulk of acculturation re-search focuses on mental or physical health indicators ascorrelates or outcomes of acculturation, we draw on theseprior studies to illustrate some of our points. Specifically,we use health outcomes as a way (a) to illustrate some of the limitations of the current acculturation literature, (b) tosuggest ways of circumventing these limitations, and (c) tohighlight potential ways to advance the conceptualizationof acculturation so that we can better understand the healthand well-being of international migrants.

There are many aspects of the acculturation literaturethat may require rethinking, and we focus on some of thosehere. First, we review and contrast major acculturation

models that have been developed within cultural psychol-ogy, and we outline some of the strengths and weaknessesof these approaches. Second, we discuss the roles of eth-nicity, and of similarity between heritage culture and re-ceiving culture, in acculturation. Third, we delineate theways in which acculturation is more or less salient, andmay operate differently, for different groups or types of migrants. Fourth, we discuss the immigrant paradox, inwhich acculturation has been examined simplistically inrelation to health outcomes, and we suggest addressing theimmigrant paradox by expanding the conceptualization of

acculturation. Fifth, we introduce such an expanded modelof acculturation—including cultural practices, values, andidentifications—that has the potential to synthesize severalexisting literatures and to increase the theoretical, empiri-cal, and practical utility of the acculturation construct.Finally, we delineate context of reception as the ways inwhich the receiving society constrains and directs the ac-culturation options available to migrants, and we frame

acculturative stress and discrimination under the heading of an unfavorable context of reception.

Before we embark on our review and expansion of theacculturation literature, we should note that the issues weraise in this article may not apply to groups who experienceinvoluntary subjugation, either on their own land (e.g.,Native Americans) or after their ancestors were forced tomigrate to another nation (e.g., African Americans). Inthese groups, acculturation likely interacts with a complexset of grievances that generally do not apply to immigrants,refugees, asylum seekers, and sojourners (e.g., Forman,2006). As such, a discussion of involuntarily subjugatedgroups is beyond the scope of the present article.

Rethinking Models of Acculturation:Dimensions and Categories

Acculturation was originally conceptualized as a uni-dimensional process in which retention of the heritageculture and acquisition of the receiving culture were cast asopposing ends of a single continuum (Gordon, 1964). Ac-cording to this unidimensional model, as migrants acquiredthe values, practices, and beliefs of their new homelands,they were expected to discard those from their culturalheritage. Indeed, many Americans assume that earlierwaves of European immigrants to the United States fol-lowed this type of straight-line assimilation (Schildkraut,

2007), and newer migrants are often criticized for not doingso (Huntington, 2004).

Since the early 1980s, cultural psychologists haverecognized that acquiring the beliefs, values, and practicesof the receiving country does not automatically imply thatan immigrant will discard (or stop endorsing) the beliefs,values, and practices of her or his country of origin (e.g.,Berry, 1980). Berry developed a model of acculturation inwhich receiving-culture acquisition and heritage-cultureretention are cast as independent dimensions. Within Ber-ry’s model, these two dimensions intersect to create fouracculturation categories—assimilation (adopts the receiv-ing culture and discards the heritage culture), separation

(rejects the receiving culture and retains the heritage cul-ture), integration (adopts the receiving culture and retainsthe heritage culture), and marginalization (rejects both theheritage and receiving cultures).

Some recent research has suggested that Berry’s inte-gration category (also referred to as biculturalism; Benet-Martı́nez & Haritatos, 2005) is often associated with themost favorable psychosocial outcomes, especially amongyoung immigrants (e.g., Coatsworth, Maldonado-Molina,Pantin, & Szapocznik, 2005; David, Okazaki, & Saw,2009). Bicultural individuals tend to be better adjusted

Seth J.

Schwartz

238 May–June 2010 ● American Psychologist


3/15

(e.g., show higher self-esteem, lower depression, prosocialbehaviors; Chen, Benet-Martı́nez, & Bond, 2008;Schwartz, Zamboanga, & Jarvis, 2007; Szapocznik, Kur-tines, & Fernandez, 1980) and are better able to integratecompeting tenets from the different cultures to which theyare exposed (Benet-Martı́nez & Haritatos, 2005; Tadmor etal., 2009). Of course, the degree of ease versus difficultyinvolved in integrating one’s heritage and receiving cul-tures is, at least in part, determined by the degree of similarity (actual or perceived) between the heritage and

receiving cultures (Rudmin, 2003). For example, whenethnicity is held constant, migrants coming from English-speaking countries, or who are otherwise proficient inEnglish, may encounter less stress and resistance in theUnited States than may migrants who are not familiar withthe English language. Among Black Caribbean immi-grants, for instance, many Jamaicans might experience lessdiscrimination and acculturative stress than might manyHaitians.

The bidimensional approach to acculturation, and ourexpansion of this approach, subsumes similar constructssuch as assimilation and enculturation. Assimilation refersto one of Berry’s (1980) categories—namely, adopting

receiving-culture practices, values, and identifications anddiscarding those from the culture of origin. Enculturationhas been used to refer to the process of selectively acquir-ing or retaining elements of one’s heritage culture whilealso selectively acquiring some elements from the receiv-ing cultural context (Weinreich, 2009). Within the con-straints imposed by demographic and contextual factors,individuals are able to purposefully decide which culturalelements they wish to acquire or retain and which elementsthey wish to discard or reject (Huynh, Nguyen, & Benet-Martı́nez, in press).

The acculturation categories model, however, hasbeen criticized on at least two fronts (Rudmin, 2003, 2009).First, creating the 2 2 matrix of acculturation categoriesrequires classifying individuals as high or low on receiv-ing-culture acquisition and on heritage-culture retention.The primary methods of classifying individuals as high orlow in categories have involved using a priori values, suchas the sample median (e.g., Giang & Wittig, 2006) or the

midpoint on the range of possible scores (e.g., Coatsworthet al., 2005), as cut points. The use of a priori cut pointsincreases the likelihood that equal numbers of participantswill be classified as high and low on each dimension, andtherefore that all four of Berry’s categories will be wellrepresented in the sample. However, the cut point betweenhigh and low is arbitrary and will differ across samples,making comparisons across studies difficult. The use of apriori classification rules assumes that all four categoriesexist and are equally valid (Rudmin, 2003). Indeed, re-search suggests that more empirically rigorous ways of classifying individuals (e.g., cluster analysis, latent classanalysis) may not extract all of the categories or may

extract multiple variants of one or more of the categories(e.g., Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008). This seems to sug-gest that not all of Berry’s categories may exist in a givensample or population, and that some categories may havemultiple subtypes.

Second, the validity of marginalization as an approachto acculturation has been questioned (Del Pilar & Udasco,2004). The likelihood that a person will develop a culturalsense of self without drawing on either the heritage orreceiving cultural contexts is likely low. The marginaliza-tion approach may be viable only for the small segment of migrants who reject (or feel rejected by) both their heritageand receiving cultures (Berry, 2006b). Indeed, studies us-

ing empirically based clustering methods have found smallor nonexistent marginalization groups (Schwartz & Zam-boanga, 2008; Szapocznik et al., 1980; Unger et al., 2002),and scales that attempt to measure marginalization typi-cally have poor reliability and validity compared withscales for the other categories (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldo-nado, 1995; Unger et al., 2002).

Research has begun to address these criticisms, andsome degree of validity for the acculturation categoriesmodel has been reported (e.g., Schwartz & Zamboanga,2008). Using latent class analysis (DiStefano & Kam-phaus, 2006) and a sample of Hispanic young adults inMiami, Schwartz and Zamboanga (2008) found that

classes resembling three of Berry’s four categories—integration, separation, and assimilation— emerged fromanalysis, along with two additional variants of bicultur-alism and an extremely small class resembling the mar-ginalization category. Consistent with Rudmin’s (2003)criticisms, the categories were not as well differentiatedas would be expected given Berry’s model, and multipletypes of biculturalism were extracted, but three of thefour categories proposed by Berry (1980) were wellrepresented in the sample.

Jennifer B.

Unger



4/15

Rethinking the “One Size Fits All” Approach: The Roles of Migrant Type,Ethnicity, and Cultural Similarity in

Acculturation

A further criticism of the acculturation literature is that itadopts a “one size fits all” approach (Rudmin, 2003). Thatis, according to Berry’s (1980) model, and other similarapproaches, the same two acculturation processes, and thesame four acculturation categories, characterize all mi-

grants equally—regardless of the type of migrant, the coun-tries of origin and settlement, and the ethnic group inquestion (Berry et al., 2006). Many psychological ap-proaches to acculturation (e.g., Berry, 1980; Phinney,2003) have examined migrants in isolation and used termssuch as acculturation strategies, implying that individualdifferences in acculturation outcomes are the result of specific choices made by migrants. Although migrantslikely are at choice regarding some aspects of their accul-turation, other aspects are constrained by demographic orcontextual factors. A more nuanced approach—based onBerry’s model but adjusting for the many variations amongmigrants and among their circumstances—may have more

explanatory power and broader applicability than a “onesize fits all” perspective (Chirkov, 2009).Indeed, to understand acculturation, one must under-

stand the interactional context in which it occurs (e.g.,Rohmann, Piontkowski, & van Randenborgh, 2008; cf.Crockett & Zamboanga, 2009). This context includes thecharacteristics of the migrants themselves, the groups orcountries from which they originate, their socioeconomicstatus and resources, the country and local community inwhich they settle, and their fluency in the language of thecountry of settlement. Two acculturation-relevant terms

that may require some definition and clarification are eth-nicity and culture. Because so many contemporary mi-grants to the United States and to other Western countriesare from non-European backgrounds (Steiner, 2009; C.Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008), eth-nicity has become an integral aspect of the process of acculturation and migrant reception—where ethnicity re-fers to membership in a group that holds a specific heritage

and set of values, beliefs, and customs (Phinney, 1996).1Because acculturation refers to cultural change, it is

essential to specify how culture is defined. Culture refers toshared meanings, understandings, or referents held by agroup of people (Shore, 2002; Triandis, 1995). Rudmin(2003) contended that the similarity between the receivingculture and the migrant’s heritage culture can help to de-termine how much acculturation is needed to adapt to thereceiving culture. Culture is sometimes, but not always,synonymous with nations and national boundaries.

An additional factor that must be considered is lan-guage. Commentators (e.g., Huntington, 2004) and empir-ical studies (e.g., Barker et al., 2001; Schildkraut, 2005)

contend that a shared language is part of the fabric of national identity and that migrants who speak other lan-guages (or cannot speak the language of the country orregion in which they are settling) are considered a threat tonational unity. Permutations among language, ethnicity,and cultural similarity, among other factors, affect the easeor difficulty associated with the acculturation process. Forexample, a White, English-speaking Canadian person whomoves to the United States will likely have much lessacculturating to do than an indigenous migrant from Mex-ico or Central America. This is due not only to the commonlanguage shared by the United States and Canada but alsoto other cultural similarities (e.g., similar orientations to-

ward individualism over collectivism) and to the ability of White migrants to blend into the American mainstream.Another important nuance that must be considered

when studying acculturation is the types of migrants underconsideration. Indeed, the acculturation options available toa migrant may vary according to the circumstances sur-rounding her or his migration (Steiner, 2009). Berry(2006b) enumerated four categories of migrants: voluntaryimmigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and sojourners. Vol-untary immigrants are those individuals who leave theirhomelands by choice in search of employment, economicopportunities, marriage, or to join family members whohave immigrated previously. Refugees are those who areinvoluntarily displaced by war, persecution, or natural di-

sasters and are resettled in a new country, usually by virtueof agreements between international aid agencies and thegovernments of those countries that have agreed to acceptthe refugees. Asylum seekers are those who, by their ownchoice, seek sanctuary in a new country because of fear of

1 Panethnic groups, such as Black, Asian, or Middle Eastern, canserve either as racial or ethnic categories depending on the criteria used toassign group memberships to individuals (i.e., physical or cultural; Phin-ney, 1996).

Byron L.

Zamboanga



5/15

persecution or violence. Sojourners relocate to a newcountry on a time-limited basis and for a specific pur-pose, with full intentions to return to their countries of origin after that period of time is over. Examples of sojourners include international students, seasonal work-ers, and corporate executives who are sent overseas forprofessional reasons. Migrants who are seen as contrib-uting to the receiving country’s economy or culture—such as voluntary immigrants who work as doctors,engineers, or other professionals—may be welcomed

with open arms, whereas refugees and asylum seekers,as well as immigrants from lower socioeconomic brack-ets and those who immigrate illegally, may be viewed asa drain on the receiving country’s resources (Steiner,2009) and may be more likely to face discrimination(Louis, Duck, Terry, Schuller, & Lalonde, 2007). Mi-grants who are rejected or discriminated against in thereceiving society may have more trouble adapting fol-lowing migration (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006) andmay resist adopting the practices, values, and identifi-cations of the receiving culture (Rumbaut, 2008). More-over, asylum seekers and refugees are likely to haveexperienced considerable trauma in their homelands,

which may influence their ability to adapt after they havearrived in the receiving country (Akhtar, 1999). Even thechildren of ethnic minority migrants may not be ac-cepted as full members of the receiving society, whichsuggests that acculturative stressors and discriminationmay remain salient beyond the first generation (C. Su-árez-Orozco et al., 2008).

Migration does not occur at random, and the sociologyof international migration has much to tell us about thereceiving contexts in which migrants find themselves. Forvoluntary migrants—immigrants and asylum seekers—mi-

gration occurs because of the confluence of two generalfactors: (a) The desire or need to leave the country of origin(the “push”) is stronger than the desire to stay there (the“pull”; Sabates-Wheeler, Sabates, & Castaldo, 2008), and(b) the receiving country is in need of the type and class of labor that the migrants have to offer. For example, in theUnited States, the need for landscapers and domestic work-ers has attracted migrants—many of them undocumented—

from Mexico and Central America (Hondagneu-Sotelo,2007; Ramirez & Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2009). Further, theneed for specific types of labor, such as computer scientistsin Silicon Valley or agricultural workers in the southeasternUnited States, can play a role in determining which mi-grants will settle in specific regions of the receiving coun-try. In some cases, countries may actually compete forcertain types of migrants, such as doctors, scientists, andengineers, whereas immigrants, asylum seekers, and refu-gees from low socioeconomic and educational backgroundsmay encounter the opposite problem, that is, they may havedifficulty finding countries that will accept them (Steiner,2009).

As we alluded to earlier, the cultural and/or ethnicbackground of newcomers is another important determi-nant of how the acculturation process will unfold. Forexample, a public opinion poll conducted in the UnitedStates in the early 2000s (Cornelius, 2002) indicated thatnative-born Americans regarded Hispanic migrants morenegatively than migrants from other ethnic backgroundsand regarded European and Canadian migrants (most of whom are White) the most favorably. Another poll,conducted across a range of Western countries, alsoindicated that ethnic minority migrants tend to be re-garded less favorably than White migrants (Simon &Lynch, 1999). Not surprisingly, in many countries that

receive migrants, those from ethnic minority groups maybe more likely than White migrants to experience (orperceive) discrimination and hostility from members of the receiving society (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Perhapsnot coincidentally, in the United States, despite the rapidpopulation growth among minority groups, Whites haveremained economically advantaged compared with otherethnic groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 764, p.481), and health disparities have persisted betweenWhites and other ethnic groups regarding a number of health problems, including HIV/AIDS, heart disease,cancer, diabetes, and drug and alcohol abuse (see theWeb page of the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services’ Office of Minority Health, http://minority-health.hhs.gov). When migrants—especially those fromethnic minority groups—experience discrimination, theresult is often what Rumbaut (2008) has termed reactiveethnicity. Reactive ethnicity refers to holding even morestrongly onto one’s cultural heritage and resisting adop-tion of the receiving culture. In other words, from Ber-ry’s (1980) perspective, discrimination encourages eth-nic minority migrants and their descendants to remainseparated from the mainstream receiving culture.

José

Szapocznik



6/15

Focus on the United States as aReceiving Society

We should note that most of the examples we use in thisarticle refer to the United States as a context for interna-tional migration and acculturation. We adopt this approachfor consistency, focus, and clarity, although we do includeoccasional examples from other receiving countries.

Within the acculturation literature, patterns and correlatesof acculturative processes tend to be largely consistentacross receiving countries (Berry et al., 2006), althoughsome exceptions and discrepancies have emerged (e.g.,Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003).As a result, some caution should be taken when generaliz-ing patterns of acculturation observed in the United Statesto other countries of settlement.

To understand patterns of migration among variousethnic groups in the United States, one must consider thehistory of immigration in the country. The United Stateswas founded by English-speaking Europeans, and the dom-inant cultural practices and values in the country (e.g.,

individualism, interpersonal distance) are largely drawnfrom Great Britain. Since the founding of the originalBritish colonies, the United States has attracted successivewaves of migrants from various parts of the world, startingwith the Irish in the mid-18th century and continuingthrough the Germans and Scandinavians in the late 18thand 19th centuries, the Southern and Eastern Europeans inthe late 19th and 20th centuries, and the “new” immigration(consisting largely of Latin Americans and Asians) thatstarted when restrictive immigration quotas were lifted in1965 (see Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006, and Sterba,2003, for more comprehensive reviews). In each case, theexisting U.S. population was generally less than recep-tive—and in some cases overtly hostile—to the new cohort

of immigrants, which suggests that discrimination againstmigrants perceived as different from the mainstream pop-ulation is not a new phenomenon. For example, in the 18thand 19th centuries, Irish immigrants in Boston were mar-ginalized from the largely British-descent population of thecity (Galenson, 1997). During his presidency, TheodoreRoosevelt directed a number of stern warnings towardGerman-speaking immigrants and demanded that theylearn English (Schildkraut, 2005). During and after WorldWar I, Polish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were labeledas unassimilable and were subject to widespread discrimi-nation (Sterba, 2003). The children of these waves of immigrants, however, looked and sounded like other Amer-

icans—so ethnicity largely tended to disappear after thefirst generation. However, this pattern has changed in thecurrent wave of immigration, in which the majority of newcomers are from non-European backgrounds (Portes &Rumbaut, 2001, 2006). In the “new” wave of internationalmigration, ethnicity continues to matter beyond the firstgeneration.

Migrants from non-European backgrounds also mustcome to terms with their own ethnicity after arriving in theUnited States or other Western countries. Individuals whobelonged to the majority ethnic group in their countries of

origin—such as those from China, India, and other Asiancountries—may suddenly be cast in the role of ethnicminorities. For another example, the label Hispanic wasinvented by the U.S. Census to refer to individuals of Spanish-speaking Latin American descent, and this term isgenerally not used in Latin America. Indeed, individualsfrom 21 different countries are grouped under a single labeland regarded as a monolithic group by many Americans

(M. M. Suárez-Orozco & Páez, 2002). As a result, newmigrants from Latin America are suddenly faced with thetask of deciding what it means to be Hispanic.

Theories of ethnic identity (e.g., Phinney & Ong,2007) and of racial identity (e.g., Helms, 1994) may help tounderstand how migrants of color are challenged with, andadapt to, their new status as minority group members.Experiences of discrimination introduce the migrant to heror his role as a minority group member and to the realitythat her or his ethnic group is regarded as unwanted,inferior, or unfairly stereotyped in the receiving society.Migrants of color therefore face the task of integratingthemselves into a society that may never fully accept them

(or their children).Rethinking the “One Size Fits All”

Assumption: To Whom Does Acculturation Apply?

Beyond ethnicity and cultural similarity, other factors mayalso determine which subgroups of migrants may facedifferent types (and degrees) of acculturative challenges(Zane & Mak, 2003). Although there are countless permu-tations of factors that affect the degree of acculturativechange that a migrant may face or experience, we canhighlight several general patterns here.

First, individuals who migrate as young children are

more likely to acquire receiving-culture practices, values,and identifications easily and fluidly than those who mi-grate at older ages. Portes and Rumbaut (2001) referred tomigrants who arrive as young children as the “1.5 genera-tion” and noted that these individuals are, in many ways,more similar to second-generation migrants (i.e., individu-als born in the receiving country and raised by foreign-bornparents) than to those who migrate as adolescents or asadults. Whereas individuals who migrate as adolescents oradults likely have vivid memories of life prior to migration,this may not be the case for those who migrated as youngchildren (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Second, individualswho migrate as adults—and especially those who arrive as

older adults—may experience the most difficulty (or un-willingness) in adopting the practices, values, and identi-fications of the receiving society (Schwartz, Pantin, Sulli-van, Prado, & Szapocznik, 2006). Recent migrants (andthose who arrived as adults) likely have had the most directcontact with their countries of origin—which may shapethe ways in which they approach their interactions with thereceiving culture and with other heritage-culture individu-als. Their recognizable foreign accents, or inability to speak the receiving country’s language, identify them as mi-grants—and this may invite discrimination and scorn from



7/15

native-born individuals (Yoo, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2009). Theunwillingness or inability of some migrants to learn thelanguage of the receiving country or region may be viewedas disrespectful in the eyes of many receiving-societymembers (e.g., the “English Only” movement in the UnitedStates; Barker et al., 2001). In some cases, such discrimi-nation may be associated with chronic health problems,such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and stroke

(Williams & Mohammed, 2009).Third, acculturation is an issue for some, but not all,

second-generation migrants. By definition, second-genera-tion migrants are born in the country of settlement, and atleast some of the problems and issues related to migra-tion—such as premigration trauma, being undocumented,and not knowing the receiving country’s language—likelydo not apply (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Moreover, ethnicidentity and other aspects of acculturation may be optionalfor second-generation (and 1.5 generation) individuals whocan “pass as White” (Devos & Banaji, 2005)—even if theywere raised by Canadian, Italian, or Polish parents. Someindividuals from other ethnic backgrounds may also fall

into this category if they are light-skinned or if their eth-nicity is difficult to pinpoint. However, for visible-minorityindividuals, acculturation issues may continue to be impor-tant beyond even the second generation. For example, someHispanic or Asian Americans may be asked, “Where areyou from?” or complimented on their English fluency eventhough they were born in the United States and may speak English as a first language—and these statements can beperceived as discriminatory (Lee, 2005). Visible-minorityindividuals may therefore be compelled to consider whattheir ethnicity means to them (Phinney, 1996).

Fourth, acculturation may be important for later-gen-eration immigrants who reside in ethnic enclaves—areaswhere the vast majority of residents are from the same

ethnic group. Examples include Miami, the South Bronx,East Los Angeles, and the Chinatown neighborhoods invarious U.S. cities. In some of these enclaves, the heritageculture is preserved such that migrants—especially thosewho arrive as adults and have not attended formal school-ing in the society of settlement—can function in theirday-to-day lives without interacting with, or acquiring thepractices, values, or identifications of, the receiving society(Schwartz, Pantin, et al., 2006). The presence of a large andinfluential heritage-culture community may also encourageyoung people to retain the heritage language, values, andidentity at least into the second generation, if not beyond(Stepick, Grenier, Castro, & Dunn, 2003). So, indeed,

acculturation—especially heritage-culture retention—mayunfold differently in ethnic enclaves than in other types of contexts.

Rethinking Acculturation and Health:The Immigrant Paradox

Many studies on acculturation include some form of mentalor physical health outcome, such as self-esteem, distress,drug and alcohol use, and chronic diseases. However, de-spite clear empirical evidence favoring bidimensional ap-

proaches to acculturation over unidimensional approaches(e.g., Phinney, 2003; Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000),many of the studies associating acculturation with healthoutcomes continue to utilize unidimensional models. Manylarge epidemiological studies, for example, used unidimen-sional markers of acculturation, such as nativity (Corral &Landrine, 2008), years spent in the United States (Alegrı́aet al., 2007), and language use (Allen et al., 2008; Caetano,

Ramisetty-Mikler, Wallisch, McGrath, & Spence, 2008).Many of those health studies that used validated measuresof acculturation utilized unidimensional measures (e.g.,Unger et al., 2004). Most of these studies reported that“greater” degrees of acculturation were associated withproblematic health outcomes—a phenomenon known asthe immigrant paradox (Alegrı́a et al., 2008). For example,Hispanics born in the United States, or who have spent aconsiderable amount of time in the United States, are morelikely to be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders than areHispanics born abroad or who arrived more recently (Ale-grı́a et al., 2007, 2008). Hispanic adolescents who speak mostly Spanish, associate primarily with Spanish speakers,

and engage in Hispanic cultural practices are less likely touse drugs and alcohol (Allen et al., 2008), more likely to bephysically active (Corral & Landrine, 2008), less likely toconsume fast food (Unger et al., 2004), and more likely toadhere to prescribed health regimens (e.g., in the case of individuals with diabetes; Mainous, Diaz, & Geesey, 2008)than their more acculturated peers. The message, more orless, is that acculturation may be hazardous to one’s health.

Because of their reliance on unidimensional concep-tions of acculturation, most studies on acculturation andhealth outcomes are limited in that it is not clear whetherthe immigrant paradox is due to immigrants’ acquisition of receiving-culture practices, loss of heritage-culture prac-tices, or both. When overlain onto Berry’s bidimensional

acculturation categories model, the endpoints of the unidi-mensional model of acculturation represent separation andassimilation. Comparing assimilation and separation im-plies comparing categories that differ both on receiving-culture acquisition and on heritage-culture retention. As aresult, it is not clear which dimension is responsible for theincrease in risk for health-compromising behavior andwhether the practical implication is that immigrants andtheir children should (a) be discouraged from acquiring thepractices of their new homelands, (b) be encouraged topreserve practices and social ties from their countries of origin, or (c) both.

Studies using smaller, convenience-based samples and

psychosocial or mental health outcomes may be morelikely than large epidemiological studies to utilize bidimen-sional conceptualizations of acculturation (e.g., Chen et al.,2008; David et al., 2009; Sullivan et al., 2007). For exam-ple, Wang, Schwartz, and Zamboanga (in press) found thatamong a sample of Cuban American college students,Hispanic and American cultural practices were both linkedwith more favorable outcomes (e.g., higher self-esteem,lower depression and anxiety). Results of such studiesgenerally suggest biculturalism as the most adaptive ap-proach to acculturation. Given that biculturalism is not



8/15

acknowledged within unidimensional views of accultura-tion (Phinney, 2003), it would be advisable for research—both social science and epidemiological—to utilize accul-turation models and measures consistent with the mostup-to-date research in cultural psychology. Following thisrecommendation may help researchers more clearly ascer-tain the associations between acculturation and health out-comes—and therefore better understand the immigrant par-

adox. It may also be helpful to consider acculturation as amultidimensional construct, as we discuss in the next sec-tion.

Rethinking the Multidimensionality of Acculturation: Practices, Values, andIdentifications

Acculturation is multidimensional not only in terms of theindependence of heritage-culture and receiving-culture ori-entations but also with respect to the components that areassumed to change (e.g., Berry et al., 2006). There areseparate literatures on cultural practices (language use,

media preferences, social affiliations, and cultural customsand traditions), cultural values (belief systems associatedwith a specific context or group, such as the value placedon the individual person versus the value placed on thefamily or other group), and cultural identifications (attach-ments to cultural groups, and the positive esteem drawnfrom these attachments). Given that cultural practices, val-ues, and identifications are both conceptually (Chirkov,2009; Rudmin, 2009) and empirically (Schwartz, Zambo-anga, Rodriguez, & Wang, 2007) related, an expandedperspective on acculturation might be derived by integrat-ing the literatures on these three constructs. Although somespecific research questions may require the use of only oneacculturation domain (e.g., studying language use patterns;

Kang, 2006), we argue that, in these cases, what is beingstudied is only part of the whole. In these cases, theconstruct should be labeled appropriately—such as “behav-ioral acculturation,” “value acculturation,” or “identity-based acculturation.”

The vast majority of studies in the acculturation liter-ature have focused on behavioral acculturation. Indeed,most widely used acculturation measures include primarily(or only) items assessing language use and other culturalpractices (e.g., Cuellar et al., 1995; Stephenson, 2000;Szapocznik et al., 1980). However, cultural practices mayprovide only a fair proxy for cultural adaptation. For ex-ample, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) reported that many

Asian American adolescents in their sample were not pro-ficient in (or otherwise did not use) their families’ nativelanguages, even though they still identified strongly withtheir countries of familial origin and retained many of theirheritage values. Schwartz, Zamboanga, and Jarvis (2007)found that many Hispanic adolescents who spoke little orno Spanish nonetheless strongly endorsed items assessingHispanic ethnic identity. Similarly, Unger, Ritt-Olson,Wagner, Soto, and Baezconde-Garbanati (2007) found thatlanguage use explained less than 20% of variability inbehavioral and value-based indices of acculturation. So

measuring only language use and other cultural practicesmay provide a misleading picture of acculturation.

Cultural Identifications

A largely separate literature has developed around ethnicidentity (see Phinney & Ong, 2007, for a recent review). Asconceptualized by Phinney (1990), ethnic identity refers tothe extent to which the person (a) has explored what her or

his ethnic group means to her or him (exploration) and (b)values and feels attached to her/his ethnic group (affirma-tion). Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, and Bámaca-Gómez(2004) added an additional component, resolution—havingdecided what one’s ethnic group means following a periodof exploration.

Ethnic identity has been associated largely with pos-itive psychosocial outcomes, such as self-esteem (Umaña-Taylor, Gonzales-Backen, & Guimond, 2009) and subjec-tive well-being (Rivas-Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2009)among ethnic minority adolescents. Ethnic identity mayalso be protective against delinquency (Bruce & Waelde,2008), drug and alcohol use (Marsiglia, Kulis, Hecht, &

Sills, 2004), and sexual risk taking (Beadnell et al., 2003).A smaller number of studies have found ethnic identity tobe associated with increased risk for drug and alcohol use,unsafe sexual behavior, and other negative outcomes (e.g.,Raffaelli, Zamboanga, & Carlo, 2005; Zamboanga, Raf-faelli, & Horton, 2006)—a finding that has been difficult toexplain.

However, far less work has been done on Americanidentity—the “bicultural-model” counterpart to ethnicidentity. American identity refers to the extent to which theperson feels attached and committed to the United Statesand its history and traditions (Schildkraut, 2007). It shouldbe recognized that, similar to ethnic identity, this constructis inherently subjective and will carry different meanings

for different individuals. For example, research has foundthat, for some individuals, American identity may refer tophysical characteristics such as being blond-haired andblue-eyed, whereas for others, it may refer to abstract andideological characteristics such as freedom and bravery (L.Rodriguez, Schwartz, & Whitbourne, 2010).

Phinney, Cantu, and Kurtz (1997), using a single-itemindex of American identity, found that American identitywas associated with self-esteem only for non-HispanicWhites, but not for African Americans or Hispanics. Kiang,Yip, and Fuligni (2008) found that among a multi-ethnicsample of young adults, American identity was modestlyrelated to self-esteem but was not significantly related to

either positive or negative affect. In both of these studies,ethnic identity and American identity were positively in-terrelated, suggesting a type of biculturalism.

More research is needed, however, concerning therelationship of American identity (or other receiving-cul-ture identities—such as Canadian, Australian, etc.) tohealth outcomes. Ethnic identity appears to be protective inmost (but not all) cases, but we do not yet understand thefunctions of receiving-culture identity vis-à-vis mental andphysical health outcomes. One finding that has been repli-cated a number of times, however, in the United States is



9/15

that self-identification as American is markedly higher innon-Hispanic Whites than in ethnic minority groups (e.g.,Devos & Banaji, 2005; Tsai, Mortensen, Wong, & Hess,2002). Indeed, many White Americans do not view them-selves as members of an ethnic group (L. Rodriguez et al.,2010; Schildkraut, 2007). It is possible, however, thatWhites who reside in or near ethnic enclaves, or whootherwise associate with many minority group members,

may be more likely to be conscious of their own ethnicity.The role of national, ethnic, and local contexts on accul-turation processes and their relationships to psychosocialand health outcomes cannot be ignored—and we revisit theissue of context later in this article.

Cultural Values

Cultural values are also assumed to change as a result of acculturation (Schwartz, Montgomery, & Briones, 2006).These values include those that generalize across ethnicgroups—such as individualism and collectivism (and sim-ilar constructs such as self-construal; Singelis, 1994)—aswell as collectivist-type values thought to apply largely to

specific ethnic groups. Such group-specific values includecommunalism in some African-descent contexts (Boykin,Jagers, Ellison, & Albury, 1997); familism, machismo,marianismo, respeto,and simpatı́a in many Hispanic con-texts (Galanti, 2003); and filial piety, conformity, familyrecognition, emotional self-control, and humility in manyAsian contexts (Park & Kim, 2008).

The effects of cultural values on health outcomes havereceived some empirical attention. Le and Kato (2006)found that among Asian Americans, individualism servedas a risk factor for unprotected sex. Nasim, Corona, Bel-grave, Utsey, and Fallah (2007) found that among AfricanAmericans, collectivist attitudes toward the family wereprotective against marijuana use. Oetzel, De Vargas, Gi-

nossar, and Sanchez (2007) found that in adult Hispanicwomen, interdependent self-construal was associated withseeking breast health information. In an analysis of 64countries on six continents, Johnson (2007) found that

national-level individualism ratings (provided by Hofstede,2001) were significantly and positively associated with percapita alcohol and drug use among adolescents and adults.Rudmin, Ferrada-Noli, and Skolbekken (2003) found asimilar positive association between national-level individ-ualism ratings and suicide rates among 33 European, NorthAmerican, South American, and Asian countries. So itappears that individualistic attitudes and values may place

the person at risk for health-compromising behaviors,whereas collectivist attitudes and values may be protective.

An Integrative Perspective

Some researchers (e.g., Chirkov, 2009) have proposed thatcultural practices, identifications, and values can all begrouped under the heading of “what changes during theprocess of acculturation.” Indeed, although it has been clearthat something is assumed to change as immigrants andtheir children adapt to life in the receiving cultural context(or straddle both their heritage and receiving cultures),exactly what that something is has been difficult to pindown. We contend that at least among voluntary immi-

grants, asylum seekers, and refugees, acculturation repre-sents changes in cultural identity (Schwartz, Montgomery,& Briones, 2006), where cultural identity represents one’scultural practices, values, and identifications. Moreover, if acculturation comprises distinct components—both interms of heritage and receiving cultural dimensions and interms of practices, values, and identifications—accultura-tion is likely not a singular process that occurs at a singlepace. To say that a person is, or is not, “acculturated” islikely an oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.One would have to specify what one means by “accultur-ated” and to identify the dimensions in which this accul-turation has, or has not, occurred.

Given the literature and arguments reviewed above,

we propose six components of acculturation—includingthe practices, values, and identifications of the heritageculture as well as those of the receiving culture (see Figure1). These processes may all change at different rates, and

Figure 1Multidimensionality of Acculturation

Heritage language

Heritage-culture foodsPRACTICES

Receiving-society language

Receiving-culture foods

Collectivism

Interdependence

Familism

Individualism

IndependenceVALUES

HERITAGE RECEIVING

IDENTIFICATIONS Receiving countryCountry of origin



10/15

for some migrants, some of these processes may not changeat all. Changes in one dimension of acculturation may notmean that other dimensions are changing at the same rate orin the same direction, and the fact that one dimension ischanging does not guarantee that others will change aswell. For example, Hispanic and Asian migrants arriving inlargely monocultural areas, such as the American Midwest,may have little choice but to learn English and to associate

with White Americans. At the same time, however, theymay not identify with, or hold the values of, their receivingcommunity. Conversely, research suggests that—in termsof cultural practices—young people immigrating to ethnicenclaves are likely to be bicultural and adults immigratingto ethnic enclaves are likely not to acquire the practices of the receiving country (Schwartz, Pantin, et al., 2006). How-ever, are there changes in cultural values or identifications,even in ethnic enclaves, that are not captured by measuresof cultural practices? More research is clearly needed todelineate the ways in which heritage-culture and receiving-culture practices, values, and identifications are interrelatedand change in similar or different ways—as well as the

ways in which these patterns differ on the basis of charac-teristics of the migrants themselves, the context in whichthey have settled, and the extent of discrimination and otherstressors that they have experienced.

Moving toward a more complex approach also raisesthe question of how to study the effects of acculturation onhealth outcomes. Which dimension of acculturation shouldbe studied, and how should it be measured? Is acculturationbest operationalized at a single point in time or as alongitudinal trajectory of cultural adaptation? These issuesmay introduce some theoretical and methodological com-plexity not present in simpler views of acculturation, butthis complexity is likely necessary to capture the constructof acculturation accurately and to understand more pre-

cisely which aspects of acculturation may be linked tomental and physical health outcomes.

Given that cultural practices, values, and identifica-tions tend to be at least modestly interrelated (e.g., Berry etal., 2006; Raffaelli et al., 2005; Schwartz, Zamboanga, &Jarvis, 2007; Zamboanga et al., 2006), we propose accul-turation as simultaneously (a) a larger, higher order processand (b) a set of related but somewhat independent dimen-sions. For example, within the United States, receiving-culture acquisition may refer to an overall tendency to (a)speak English, eat American foods, associate with Ameri-canized friends and romantic partners, and read Americannewspapers, magazines, and websites; (b) attend to one’s

own needs and strive to achieve and to compete withothers; and (c) feel an attachment to and solidarity with theUnited States. At the same time, some migrants who speak English well and who associate with Americanized friendsmay not value competition and independence or may notthink of themselves as American. Focusing exclusively oncultural practices, as much of the acculturation literaturehas done, overlooks much of this complexity. It may there-fore be necessary to focus on the higher order construct of receiving-culture acquisition as well as on the individualdimensions of this higher order construct—practices, val-

ues, and identifications—when studying the associations of acculturation with health outcomes. Such an approachwould allow us to examine the extent to which culturalidentity, as a higher order construct, is associated withpsychosocial and health outcomes—as well as the extent towhich cultural practices, values, and identifications areuniquely associated with such outcomes. For example,Tseng (2004) found that attitudes and behaviors regarding

family interdependence had opposing effects on academicoutcomes in college students from immigrant families.Self-endorsed attitudes regarding obligations to familywere positively related to academic motivation, but behav-iors initiated in response to perceived family demands werenegatively related to academic performance. This suggests,again, that the multidimensionality of acculturation needsto be incorporated explicitly into acculturation theory andresearch. The multidimensionality of acculturation is si-multaneously a theoretical, empirical, and applied concern.

Rethinking Integration:Multidimensional Biculturalism

Our expanded conceptualization of acculturation carriesimportant implications for the study of biculturalism. Inte-gration, as conceptualized by Berry (1980) to refer toendorsing both the heritage and receiving cultures, refersprimarily to cultural practices (Berry et al., 2006). How-ever, given our multidimensional conceptualization of ac-culturation, it is possible that biculturalism can manifest interms of practices, values, and/or identifications. For ex-ample, a Latin American migrant in the United Statesmight be fluent in both English and Spanish, endorse indi-vidualistic values in some contexts (e.g., at work) andcollectivistic values in other contexts (e.g., at home), andidentify both with the United States and with her or his

country of origin.In keeping with our focus on context, biculturalism

might be most common (and perhaps adaptive) in commu-nities characterized by ethnogenesis (Flannery, Reise, &Yu, 2001)—that is, where both the heritage and receivingcultural streams are prominently endorsed (Schwartz &Zamboanga, 2008). Drawing on recent research in culturalpsychology, we posit that biculturalism may take one of two forms. Some bicultural individuals prefer to keep theirheritage and receiving cultural streams separate, often be-cause they perceive conflict and incompatibility betweenthese cultural streams (Chen et al., 2008). Other biculturalindividuals prefer to synthesize their heritage and receiving

cultural streams into a single combined culture. In this way,biculturalism may—for some individuals—represent morethan simply endorsing both the heritage and receivingcultural streams. Biculturalism may involve combining andsynthesizing aspects of the two cultures into a unique blend(Benet-Martı́nez & Haritatos, 2005). For example, someCuban Americans in Miami celebrate the Thanksgivingholiday with a combination of traditional Thanksgivingfood and Cuban cuisine (Cuevas De Caissie, 2005). Somecultural identifications, such as Chicano or “Niyorican,”represent combinations of heritage and American identities



11/15

and are not generally found in the countries of origin(Mexico and Puerto Rico, in this case).

Benet-Martı́nez and colleagues found that “blended”bicultural individuals tended to report higher self-esteemand lower psychological distress than those who kept theirheritage and receiving cultural streams separate (Chen etal., 2008). The blended type of biculturalism also may beassociated with lower levels of acculturation-related stress

(Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008) because the consistentavailability of both cultural streams within the person’sdaily repertoire increases the ease of activating the correctcultural schema in any given situation. What is not known,however, is whether blended biculturalism is facilitative of other health outcomes as well. Might a blended biculturalapproach help to resolve the immigrant paradox? That is,might preserving the heritage culture by integrating it withthe receiving culture be associated with the most favorablemental and physical health profiles? Is it possible that withethnicity held constant, the ability to display the mostadaptive cultural repertoire in any given situation mightresult in lower levels of perceived discrimination than

found with other acculturation approaches? Might a blend-ed-bicultural approach help to counter some of the discrim-ination associated with being a minority group member,and is it the most adaptive approach across the varioustypes of migrants? On the basis of the extant research onbiculturalism, we hypothesize that the answers to thesequestions will be yes, but empirical research is needed.

Rethinking Context: Context ofReception and Its Effects on

Acculturation

Another issue that requires examination is the extent towhich patterns of acculturation, and their association with

psychosocial and health outcomes, differ across migrantgroups and receiving societies. There is evidence, for ex-ample, that the attitudes of receiving-society members to-ward migrants—and receiving-society members’ expecta-tions of how immigrants should acculturate—interact withmigrants’ own acculturation patterns to determine the ex-tent to which migrants are received favorably or unfavor-ably (Berry, 2006c; Rohmann et al., 2008). Receiving-society members may also have different attitudes towardmigrants from different ethnic groups, migrants from dif-ferent socioeconomic brackets, and migrants who migratedfor different reasons, as reviewed earlier in this article. Forexample, a White business executive with a French or

Italian accent may be regarded more favorably than adark-skinned Mexican farm worker with a Spanish accent.Sociologists and anthropologists have referred to this

dynamic as context of reception (e.g., Portes & Rumbaut,2006; Stepick et al., 2003). Along with perceptions of discrimination, perceptions of an unfavorable context of reception are hypothesized as being among the majorsources of stress in the lives of immigrants (Segal &Mayadas, 2005). What is not known, however, are theeffects that context of reception (actual or perceived) exertson immigrants’ psychosocial and health outcomes. As

noted earlier, there is evidence that perceptions of discrim-ination are likely to negatively impact physical and mentalhealth (Finch & Vega, 2003; Williams & Mohammed,2009)—as well as to interfere with receiving-culture acqui-sition (Rumbaut, 2008)—among migrants. However, so-cial-psychological research on mismatch between immi-grant and receiving society and on receptivity towardmigrants remains disconnected from clinical and epidemi-

ological research on acculturation and migrant health. In-tegrative work involving social and cultural psychologists,health psychologists, and epidemiologists is needed tomore fully explore the links among the dynamics of inter-national migration and acculturation, psychosocial andhealth outcomes in migrants, and match and mismatchbetween the acculturating group and the receiving society.It might be hypothesized, for example, that migrants fromethnic, religious, or national groups perceived as unwantedwould experience more discrimination than would thosewhose groups were not perceived in this way—but thatmatch or mismatch between a given migrant’s practices,values, and identifications and those that the local and

national communities find most desirable in newcomerswould either modulate or increase the extent of discrimi-nation that that migrant would experience or perceive.

As specified within the sociological and anthropolog-ical literatures (e.g., Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Stepick etal., 2003), an unfavorable context of reception includes notonly discrimination and lack of access to jobs and othersocial resources but also being marginalized to poor andunsafe neighborhoods. For both social and economic rea-sons, some ethnic minority migrants—such as Mexicans,Central Americans, and Indochinese—are especially likelyto settle in these types of areas (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006).Further, compared with voluntary immigrants, asylumseekers and refugees often tend to come from low socio-

economic class backgrounds and are less likely to haveexisting support systems (e.g., family and friends who havealready established themselves) in the country of settlement(Akhtar, 1999; Steiner, 2009). These conditions may in-crease stress and difficulties associated with acculturation(C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008).

Most broadly, the effects of context of reception onacculturation might be considered in much the same waythat context affects many other social and developmentalprocesses (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979). That is, both distaland immediate contexts (in this case both national and localcontexts of reception) help to elicit specific responses frommigrants and migrant groups, and there is a certain good-

ness (or poorness) of fit (cf. Windle & Lerner, 1986)between the individual and the context in which she or heis embedded. This proposition is consistent with social-psychological research demonstrating that the match—orlack thereof—between migrants’ acculturation orientations(e.g., separated, assimilated, bicultural) and the expecta-tions of receiving-society individuals serves as a contrib-uting factor to the extent of discrimination, stress, andhostility that migrants will experience as they acculturate(e.g., Rohmann et al., 2008). This goodness-of-fit principleserves as an indicator for perceived context of reception.



12/15

An unfavorable context of reception may result inwhat has been termed acculturative stress. Acculturativestress refers to adverse effects of acculturation such asanxiety, depression, and other forms of mental and physicalmaladaptation (see Berry, 2006a, and Rudmin, 2009, forreviews). A multidimensional perspective on acculturativestress (cf. N. Rodriguez, Myers, Mira, Flores, & Garcia-Hernandez, 2002) holds that such stressors can come from

perceptions that either (a) receiving-culture individualsmay scorn the person for not being sufficiently orientedtoward the receiving culture and/or (b) the heritage-culturecommunity may be displeased with the person for aban-doning the heritage culture. One possible way to resolvethe issue of acculturative stress is to become bicultural—that is, to endorse both the heritage and receiving culturalstreams (Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008). Indeed, Schwartzand Zamboanga (2008) found that among Hispanic youngadults in Miami, which is a highly bicultural context, thosewho were categorized as blended-bicultural reported thelowest amounts of both types of acculturative stress. Insome receiving-culture contexts, acculturative stressors and

discrimination might be experienced as a result of themigrant’s ethnicity, type (refugee or asylum seeker vs.voluntary immigrant), or country or region of origin.Again, it is not known whether a blended-bicultural ap-proach would reduce these negative experiences and per-ceptions.

It is also worth noting that different locales within agiven country can have vastly different contexts of recep-tion, and these different contexts may present differenttypes of supports and stressors. Large gateway cities suchas New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto, Syd-ney, London, Paris, and Amsterdam have long histories of receiving migrants, and indeed migrants comprise sizableshares of the populations of these cities. In some cases,

these co-ethnic communities may represent sources of sup-port. At the same time, the presence of a large heritage-culture community may create acculturative stressors,whereby the migrant is discouraged from adopting toomuch of the receiving society’s cultural streams (N. Rodri-guez et al., 2002; Schwartz, Montgomery, & Briones,2006). On the other hand, more rural or monocultural areasmay be more heavily “American,” and there may be stron-ger pressures to adopt heritage-culture practices (but notnecessarily values and identifications).

It is also important to note that contexts of receptionchange over time. Although Jewish and Italian influencesare prominent and widely celebrated in New York, for

example, this was not always the case. Indeed, during thelate 19th and early 20th centuries, many Italian and Jewishimmigrants in New York (and elsewhere) were labeled asunassimilable and experienced widespread discrimination(Sterba, 2003). More recently, Puerto Ricans migrating toNew York in the 1950s and 1960s were met with harshdiscrimination, but the city has since become considerablyfriendlier toward Hispanic immigrants (Block, 2009).However, global events can also influence local contexts of reception. Middle Eastern migrants in the United States andEurope, for example, have experienced more discrimina-

tion since the September 11, 2001 attacks than they expe-rienced previously (Brü, 2008; Critelli, 2008).

Given that context of reception shapes the accultura-tion process, it is important to examine ways in whichcontext of reception influences and interacts with accultur-ation to predict psychosocial and health outcomes in im-migrants and their immediate descendants. Like discrimi-nation, context of reception is both objective and

subjective—but subjective experiences are more closelylinked with psychosocial and health outcomes (Finch &Vega, 2003; Williams & Mohammed, 2009). Valid mea-sures of context of reception—both actual and perceived—need to be developed. Studies are also needed to assess theagreement between migrants’ perceptions of the context of reception and the perceptions of people in the receivingsociety. Migrants may perceive discriminatory acts that gounnoticed by members of the majority culture—and mi-grants may also perceive typical receiving-society behav-iors (such as unfriendliness toward neighbors) as discrim-inatory.

Context of reception also includes support that mi-

grants receive from members of the local community.Migrants may often be best able to integrate themselvesinto the receiving society when they receive help, encour-agement, and tangible support resources (Akhtar & Choi,2004). For example, immigrant and refugee children andadolescents (as well as children and adolescents from asy-lum-seeker families) may perform most successfully inschool when they receive tutoring, mentorship, respect, andconcern from adults outside their families (e.g., teachersand guidance counselors; Green, Rhodes, Hirsch, Suárez-Orozco, & Camic, 2008). Such support may help to counterthe negative effects of discrimination and of feeling un-wanted in the larger society (C. Suárez-Orozco et al.,2008).

Conclusion

In conclusion, our goal in this article has been to proposean extension and expansion of the acculturation constructwhile also raising a number of questions and critical issuesthat need to be addressed for this literature to fulfill itspotential. The associations of acculturation with importanthealth and psychosocial outcomes, which represent someof the practical and policy value of acculturation theory andresearch, also warrant closer study. We hope that the issueswe have raised here can help to open a line of research onour expanded construct of acculturation and its effects onimportant outcomes in the lives of migrants.

REFERENCES

Akhtar, S. (1999). The immigrant, the exile, and the experience of nos-talgia. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 1, 123–130. doi:10.1023/A:1023029020496

Akhtar, S., & Choi, L. W. (2004). When evening falls: The immigrant’sencounter with middle and old age. American Journal of Psychoanal-

ysis, 64, 183–191. doi:10.1023/B:TAJP.0000027272.64645.f2Alegrı́a, M., Canino, G., Shrout, P. E., Woo, M., Duan, N., Vila, D., . . .

Meng, X.-L. (2008). Prevalence of mental illness in immigrant andnon-immigrant U.S. Latino groups. American Journal of Psychiatry,165, 359 –369. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07040704



13/15

Alegrı́a, M., Shrout, P. E., Woo, M., Guarnaccia, P., Sribney, W., Vila, D.,. . . Canino, G. (2007). Understanding differences in past year psychi-atric disorders for Latinos living in the U.S. Social Science and Med-icine, 65, 214 –230. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.026

Allen, M. L., Elliott, M. N., Fugligni, A. J., Morales, L. S., Hambarsoo-mian, K., & Schuster, M. A. (2008). The relationship between Spanishlanguage use and substance use behaviors among Latino youth: Asocial network approach. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 372–379.doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.02.016

Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychol-

ogist, 57, 774 –783. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.10.774Barker, V., Giles, H., Noels, K., Duck, J., Hecht, M., & Clément, R.

(2001). The English-only movement: A communication analysis of changing perceptions of language vitality. Journal of Communication,51, 3–37. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02870.x

Beadnell, B., Stielstra, S., Baker, S., Morrison, D. M., Knox, K., Gutier-rez, L., & Doyle, A. (2003). Ethnic identity and sexual risk-takingamong African-American women enrolled in an HIV/STD preventionintervention. Psychology, Health, and Medicine, 8, 187–198. doi:10.1080/1354850031000087564

Benet-Martı́nez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration(BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Person-ality, 73, 1015–1050. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M.Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings(pp. 9 –25). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Berry, J. W. (2006a). Acculturative stress. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J.Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 287–298). Dallas, TX: Spring.

Berry, J. W. (2006b). Contexts of acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W.Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp.27–42). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, J. W. (2006c). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocul-tural groups in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 30, 719 –734. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.004

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

Block, D. (2009, February 3). Census says African, Hispanic immigrantsflocking to Bronx boro. New York Daily News. Retrieved from http:// www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2009/02/03/2009–02-03_census_says_african_hispanic_immigrants_.html

Boykin, A. W., Jagers, R. J., Ellison, C. M., & Albury, A. (1997).Communalism: Conceptualization and measurement of an Afrocultural

social orientation. Journal of Black Studies, 27, 409–418. doi:10.1177/ 002193479702700308

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruce, E., & Waelde, L. C. (2008). Relationships of ethnicity, ethnicidentity, and trauma symptoms to delinquency. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 13, 395– 405. doi:10.1080/15325020802171326

Brü, J. (2008). Experiences of discrimination reported by Turkish,Moroccan, and Bangladeshi Muslims in three European cities. Journalof Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34, 875–894. doi:10.1080/ 13691830802211166

Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Wallisch, L. S., McGrath, C., &Spence, R. T. (2008). Acculturation, drinking, and alcohol abuse anddependence among Hispanics in the Texas-Mexico border. Alcoholism:Clinical and Experimental Research, 32, 314 –321. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00576.x

Chen, S. X., Benet-Martı́nez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Biculturalidentity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multiculturalsocieties: Immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation.

Journal of Personality, 76, 803– 838. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00505.x

Chirkov, V. (2009). Summary of the criticism and of the potential ways toimprove acculturation psychology. International Journal of Intercul-tural Relations, 33, 177–180. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.03.005

Chun, K. M., Organista, P. B., & Marı́n, G. (2003). Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Coatsworth, J. D., Maldonado-Molina, M., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J.(2005). A person-centered and ecological investigation of acculturation

strategies in Hispanic immigrant youth. Journal of Community Psychol-ogy, 33, 157–174. doi:10.1002/jcop.20046

Cornelius, W. (2002). Ambivalent reception: Mass public responses to the“new” Latino immigration to the United States. In M. M. Suárez-Orozco & M. M. Páez (Eds.), Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 165–189). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Corral, I., & Landrine, H. (2008). Acculturation and ethnic-minorityhealth behavior: A test of the operant model. Health Psychology, 27,737–745. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.6.737

Critelli, F. (2008). The impact of September 11th on immigrants in the

United States. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 6 (2), 141–167. doi:10.1080/15362940802198793

Crockett, L. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2009). Substance use among Latinoadolescents: Cultural, social, and psychological considerations. In F. A.Villaruel, G. Carlo, J. M. Contreras Grau, M. Azmitia, N. J. Cabrera, &T. J. Chahin (Eds.), Handbook of Latino psychology: Developmentaland community-based perspectives (pp. 379 –398). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation RatingScale for Mexican Americans–II: A revision of the original ARSMAscale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304. doi:10.1177/07399863950173001

Cuevas De Caissie, R. M. (2005, November 17). Hispanic culture: AHispanic Thanksgiving. Havana Journal. Retrieved from http://havana

jour nal. com/ cuba n_am eri can s/entry /his pani c_cu ltur e_a_ hisp ani c_thanksgiving/

David, E. J. R., Okazaki, S., & Saw, A. (2009). Bicultural self-efficacyamong college students: Initial scale development and mental healthcorrelates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 211–226. doi:10.1037/a0015419

Del Pilar, J. A., & Udasco, J. O. (2004). Deculturation: Its lack of validity.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 169–176. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.10.2.169

Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.447

DiStefano, C., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2006). Investing subtypes of childdevelopment: A comparison of cluster analysis and latent class clusteranalysis in typology creation. Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 66, 778 –794. doi:10.1177/0013164405284033

Finch, B. K., & Vega, W. A. (2003). Acculturation stress, social support,and self-rated health among Latinos in California. Journal of Immigrant

Health, 5, 109 –117. doi:10.1023/A:1023987717921

Flannery, W. P., Reise, S. P., & Yu, J. (2001). An empirical comparisonof acculturation models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,27, 1035–1045. 10.1177/0146167201278010

Forman, S. (2006). Beyond social dependency and political grievance.Society, 43(5), 33–34. doi:10.1007/BF02687571

Galanti, G.-A. (2003). The Hispanic family and male–female relation-ships: An overview. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14, 180–185.doi:10.1177/1043659603014003004

Galenson, D. W. (1997). Neighborhood effects on the school attendanceof Irish immigrants’ sons in Boston and Chicago in 1860. American

Journal of Education, 105, 261–293. doi:10.1086/444157Giang, M. T., & Wittig, M. A. (2006). Implications of adolescents’

acculturation strategies for personal and collective self-esteem. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 725–739. doi:10.1037/ 1099-9809.12.4.725

Gibson, M. A. (2001). Immigrant adaptation and patterns of acculturation.

Human Development, 44, 19 –23. doi:10.1159/000057037Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Green, G., Rhodes, J., Hirsch, A. H., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Camic, P. M.(2008). Supportive adult relationships and the academic engagement of Latin American immigrant youth. Journal of School Psychology, 46,393–412. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.001

Helms, J. (1994). The conceptualization of racial identity. In E. Trickett,R. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human perspectives on people in context (pp. 285–311). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behav-iors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.



14/15

Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2007). Domésticas: Cleaning and caring in theshadows of affluence. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Huntington, S. P. (2004). Who are we? The challenges to America’snational identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Huynh, Q.-L., Nguyen, A. M. T., & Benet-Martı́nez, V. (in press).Bicultural identity integration. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L.Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research. New York,NY: Springer.

Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G., & Schmitz, P. (2003).The interactive nature of acculturation: Perceived discrimination, ac-

culturation attitudes and stress among young ethnic repatriates in Fin-land, Israel and Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 27, 79–97. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00061-5

Johnson, T. P. (2007). Cultural-level influences on substances use andmisuse. Substance Use and Misuse, 42, 305–316. doi:10.1080/ 10826080601142022

Kang, S. M. (2006). Measurement of acculturation, scale formats, andlanguage competence: Their implications for adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 669– 693. doi:10.1177/0022022106292077

Kiang, L., Yip, T., & Fuligni, A. J. (2008). Multiple social identities andadjustment in young adults from ethnically diverse backgrounds. Jour-nal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 643–670. doi:10.1016/

j.jrp.2008.03.005Le, T. N., & Kato, T. (2006). The role of peer, parent, and culture in risky

sexual behavior for Cambodian and Lao/Mien adolescents. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 38, 288 –296. doi:10.1016/j/adohealth.2004.12.005Lee, R. M. (2005). Resilience against discrimination: Ethnic identity and

other-group orientation as protective factors for Korean Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 36 – 44. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.36

Louis, W. R., Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., Schuller, R. A., & Lalonde, R. A.(2007). Why do citizens want to keep refugees out? Threats, fairness,and hostile norms in the treatment of asylum seekers. European Journalof Social Psychology, 37, 53–73. doi:10.1002/ejsp.329

Mainous, A. G., III, Diaz, V. A., & Geesey, M. E. (2008). Acculturationand healthy lifestyle among Latinos with diabetes. Annals of Family

Medicine, 6, 131–137. doi:10.1370/afm.814Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S., Hecht, M. L., & Sills, S. (2004). Ethnicity and

ethnic identity as predictors of drug norms and drug use among pread-olescents in the U.S. Southwest. Substance Use and Misuse, 39, 1061–1094.

Nasim, A., Corona, R., Belgrave, F., Utsey, S. O., & Fallah, N. (2007).Cultural orientation as a protective factor against tobacco and marijuanasmoking for African American young women. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 36, 503–516. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9097-7

Oetzel, J., De Vargas, F., Ginossar, T., & Sanchez, C. (2007). Hispanicwomen’s preferences for breast health information: Subjective culturalinfluences on source, message, and channel. Health Communication,21, 223–233. doi:10.1080/10410230701307550

Park, Y. S., & Kim, B. S. K. (2008). Asian and European Americancultural values and communication styles among Asian American andEuropean American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 14, 47–56. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.14.1.47Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of

research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.499

Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about U.S. ethnic groups, what do we

mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918 –927. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.9.918Phinney, J. S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In K. M. Chun,

P. B. Organista, & G. Marı́n (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory,measurement, and applied research (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. L., & Kurtz, D. A. (1997). Ethnic and Americanidentity as predictors of self-esteem among African American, Latino,and White adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 165–185.

Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurementof ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271–281. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immi-grant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait (3rded.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Raffaelli, M., Zamboanga, B. L., & Carlo, G. (2005). Acculturation statusand sexuality among female Cuban American college students. Journalof American College Health, 54, 7–13. doi:10.3200/JACH.54.1.7-13

Ramirez, H., & Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2009). Mexican immigrant gar-deners: Entrepreneurs or exploited workers? Social Problems, 56, 70 –88. doi:10.1525/sp.2009.56.1.70

Rivas-Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2009). Public ethnic regard andperceived socioeconomic stratification: Associations with well-beingamong Dominican and Black American youth. Journal of Early Ado-lescence, 29, 122–141. doi:10.1177/0272431608324479

Rodriguez, L., Schwartz, S. J., & Whitbourne, S. K. (2010). Americanidentity revisited: The relation between national, ethnic, and personalidentity in a multiethnic sample of emerging adults. Journal of Ado-lescent Research, 25, 324 –349. doi:10.1177/0743558409359055.

Rodriguez, N., Myers, H. F., Mira, C. B., Flores, T., & Garcia-Hernandez,L. (2002). Development of the Multidimensional Acculturative StressInventory for adults of Mexican origin. Psychological Assessment, 14,451–461. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.4.451

Rohmann, A., Piontkowski, U., & van Randenborgh, A. (2008). Whenattitudes do not fit: Discordance of acculturation attitudes as an ante-cedent of intergroup threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,34, 337–352. doi:10.1177/0146167207311197

Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3–37. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.3.250

Rudmin, F. W. (2009). Constructs, measurements and models of accul-turation and acculturative stress. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 33, 106 –123. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001Rudmin, F. W., Ferrada-Noli, M., & Skolbekken, J.-A. (2003). Questions

of culture, age, and gender in the epidemiology of suicide. Scandina-vian Journal of Psychology, 44, 373–381. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00357

Rumbaut, R. G. (2008). Reaping what you sow: Immigration, youth, andreactive ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 12, 108–111. doi:10.1080/10888690801997341

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturationunidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in theprediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 79, 49– 65. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.79.1.49Sabates-Wheeler, R., Sabates, R., & Castaldo, A. (2008). Tackling pov-

erty–migration linkages: Evidence from Ghana and Egypt. Social In-dicators Research, 87, 307–328. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9154-y

Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). Press “one” for English: Language policy, public opinion, and American identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-versity Press.

Schildkraut, D. J. (2007). Defining American identity in the 21st century:How much “there” is there? Journal of Politics, 69, 597–615. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00562.x

Schwartz, S. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Briones, E. (2006). The role of identity in acculturation among immigrant people: Theoretical propo-sitions, empirical questions, and applied recommendations. Human

Development, 49, 1–30. doi:10.1159/000090300

Schwartz, S. J., Pantin, H., Sullivan, S., Prado, G., & Szapocznik, J.(2006). Nativity and years in the receiving culture as markers of acculturation in ethnic enclaves. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,37, 345–353. doi:10.1177/0022022106286928

Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2008). Testing Berry’s model of acculturation: A confirmatory latent class approach. Cultural Diversityand Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 275–285. doi:10.1037/a0012818

Schwartz, S., Zamboanga, B., & Jarvis, L. H. (2007). Ethnic identity andacculturation in Hispanic early adolescents: Mediated relationships toacademic gr

Documents

Rethinking Acculturation