Thinking outside the Berry boxes: New perspectives on

identity, acculturation and intercultural relations§

Colleen Ward *

Centre for Applied Cross-cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract

The paper pays tribute to the work of John Berry and the organizational frameworks that he has proposed for research on identity,

acculturation and intercultural relations. It also suggests that over-reliance on these frameworks may constrain developments in the

field. Accordingly, three new lines of research that illustrate ways in which we might ‘‘think outside the Berry boxes’’ are

introduced. The first develops theory and research on ethno-cultural identity conflict as a complement to studies of integration,

separation, assimilation and marginalization. The second proposes a new construct, the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity, and

examines it in the context of long-term acculturation, providing a new perspective on the relationship between individual and group-

level factors in the acculturation process. The third extends the classification of acculturating groups, incorporating tourists and

examining intercultural relations between tourists and hosts.

# 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Berry; Acculturation; Intercultural relations; Ethno-cultural identity conflict; Motivation for ethno-cultural continuity; Immigrants;

Tourists

The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them—

Sir William Bragg.

This paper reflects on theories, models and topics of acculturation research. It acknowledges past successes in

the study of identity, acculturation and intercultural relations, and it recommends directions for future research.

On the first count, there is no better way to commence the discussion than to pay tribute to my friend and

colleague John Berry. On the second count, new and exciting research emerging in our cross-cultural lab is

described with the acknowledgement of the energy, enthusiasm and creativity of my current and past post-

graduate students.

1. Beginning with the Berry boxes

John Berry has led, if not defined, contemporary approaches to acculturation. A pioneer in the field, Berry’s

contributions over the last four decades reflect his capacity for innovative, big-picture thinking, his ability to organize

and synthesize vast amounts of theory and research, and his canny talent for constructing graphic representations of

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114

§ Keynote address for the Seventh International Conference of the International Academy of Intercultural Research, Groningen, The Netherlands,

July, 2007.

* Tel.: +64 4 4636037; fax: +64 4 4635402.

E-mail address: Colleen.Ward@vuw.ac.nz.

0147-1767/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.11.002

theories and models of acculturation processes. In some circles, including our own lab, these organizational

frameworks have become known as the ‘‘Berry boxes.’’

The collection of Berry boxes has been central to the ways in which we broadly conceptualize acculturation

processes and outcomes, classify acculturation attitudes and orientations, and categorize acculturating groups.

However, the frameworks and models that have organized our research so efficiently may also operate to constrain it.

Consequently, to meet the second objective of this address, fresh perspectives on identity, acculturation and intergroup

relations are offered, ones that illustrate ways in which we might ‘‘think outside the Berry boxes.’’

Three Berry boxes are highlighted in this presentation as key organizational schema in psychological theory and

research on acculturation. These relate to: (a) acculturation dimensions and orientations; (b) a framework for the study

of acculturation processes; and (c) types of acculturating groups. Three new perspectives on identity, acculturation and

intercultural relations are then juxtaposed with these schemas. The first draws on developmental and social

psychological theory to extend the investigation of identity conflict to immigrants and members of ethno-cultural

groups, illustrating an alternative approach to conceptualizing orientations to heritage and contact cultures. The

second involves the development of a new construct, the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity, which redefines the

relationship between acculturating individuals and acculturating groups. The third extends theories of acculturation

and intercultural relations to an atypical domain, the study of tourist–host relations.

2. Berry Box 1: The dimensions of acculturation and acculturation orientations

Berry (1974, 1980) has argued that acculturating persons from non-dominant ethno-cultural groups confront two

important questions arising from intercultural contact: (1) is it important to maintain my original cultural heritage? and

(2) Is it important to engage in intercultural contact with other groups, including members of the dominant culture? If

the answers to these questions are dichotomized as yes–no responses, four acculturation orientations (also called

attitudes, strategies, preferences, and modes) can be identified (Table 1).1 If both cultural maintenance and contact are

important, an integrated orientation results; if neither is important, marginalization occurs. Assimilation arises when

only contact is valued while separation results when only cultural maintenance is of concern. It should also be

mentioned that the first dimension of Berry’s model, cultural maintenance, has remained stable across research;

however, the second dimension, ‘‘maintaining relations with other groups’’ has sometimes been explicitly linked to

contact with or participation in the wider national culture (e.g., Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006) and also been

examined as identification with the national culture (e.g., Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999).

There has been a massive amount of research on Berry’s model of acculturation attitudes. In fact, my recent

PsycINFO search generated over 800 citations linking ‘‘Berry’’ and ‘‘acculturation.’’ Amongst this large body of

research, there is a wide array of studies that confirm: (1) the two dimensions of acculturation are independent (e.g.,

Ben-Shalom & Horenczyk, 2003; Ward & Kennedy, 1994); (2) integration is the strategy most preferred by sojourners,

migrants, refugees and indigenous people (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Berry et al., 2006); and (3)

integration is associated with the most adaptive outcomes, including psychological and socio-cultural adaptation

(Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987; Dona & Berry, 1994; Sam & Berry, 1995; Ward & Kennedy, 1994; Ward & Rana-

Deuba, 1999).

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114106

Table 1

Acculturation dimensions

Participation Cultural maintenance

Yes No

Yes Integration Assimilation

No Separation Marginalization

1 Berry has pointed out that it has been many years since acculturation orientations were graphically represented in boxes (e.g., Berry & Kim,

1988; Dona & Berry, 1994) and that they are now depicted in a circle (e.g., Berry, 2005; Berry et al., 2006). However, ‘‘thinking outside the Berry

circles’’ does not make a very good title for a keynote address.

But there is more we need to know about acculturation attitudes and orientations. The emergence of acculturation

strategies obviously occurs as a process and is set in a broader sociocultural context, yet it has most often been

examined as a static outcome in itself or as a predictor of broader adaptation. The process elements have been largely

overlooked. For example, what does integration really mean, and how is it achieved?2 Do people integrate by fusing

their orientations to home and host cultures? Are their identities situational so that sometimes they are ‘‘traditional’’

and sometimes ‘‘modern’’? Why do people assimilate or separate? Is it because they choose to or because they do not

have the skills and abilities to integrate? How does marginalization occur? Does it arise from constraints and deficits or

is it a genuine option? Do acculturation orientations change over time? And more central to this discussion, are there

different ways to conceptualize orientations to traditional culture and to the broader society?

Berry’s model presents us with an orderly framework. Acculturating individuals can orient themselves to their

traditional culture, the wider society, to both or to neither. But it is not clear how people arrive at these orientations, and

if they change over time. And while we know that empirically the two dimensions of acculturation are orthogonal, we

do not know if acculturating individuals always experience them that way. Indeed, it has been argued in the

personality, clinical and counselling literature that migrants often experience conflict between the demands of home

and host cultures and that this is likely to have negative psychological and social consequences (Marsella & Pedersen,

2004). Consequently, we believe that it is useful to examine the construct of identity conflict in acculturating

individuals and groups.

2.1. Ethno-cultural identity conflict

Baumeister, Shapiro, and Tice (1985) described identity conflict as the problem of the multiply defined self whose

definitions have become incompatible. This construct was initially explored in our early work with sojourners (Leong

& Ward, 2000).3 Recently, however, we have developed a more systematic line of research that considers five

questions: (1) how can ethno-cultural identity conflict (EIC) be measured in acculturating persons? (2) Does EIC vary

as a function of cultural distance? (3) What are the predictors of EIC? (4) How does EIC relate to the Berry’s four

acculturation strategies? And (5) How does EIC relate to adaptive outcomes?

2.1.1. Scale development

Our current work initially concentrated on the construction and validation of an Ethno-cultural Identity Conflict

Scale (Ward, Stuart, & Kus, submitted for publication). We commenced with a group of international post-graduate

students in psychology and asked them to generate statements that reflected the construct, with particular emphasis on

the cognitive (rather than affective) aspects of identity conflict. Sixty-one statements were generated, 45 refined and

administered with criterion measures to a group of 304 respondents, including first generation migrants, members of

ethno-cultural minorities and international students, for scale validation. The resulting 20-item scale was prefaced

with the instruction: ‘‘These statements relate to your identity or how you see yourself, particularly in relation to your

cultural or ethnic background.’’ Sample items include: (a) I have a clear sense of who I am; (b) I have difficulty fitting

into the wider society because of my cultural background; (c) my beliefs about myself often conflict with each other;

(d) I sometimes question my cultural identity; and (e) I spend a lot of time wondering about the kind of person I really

am. The uni-factorial scale was validated by its correlation with Self-concept Clarity (r = �0.66), Sense of Coherence

(r = �0.57), and Identity Distress (r = 0.45).

We then examined ethno-cultural identity conflict as a function of cultural distance. Findings converged to indicate

that identity conflict is stronger when migrants originate from countries whose culture, language and ethnic

composition differ markedly from the host society. For example, our research in New Zealand indicated that first

generation migrants from Korea exhibit greater identity conflict than their counterparts from the United Kingdom

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114 107

2 This issue was subsequently addressed at the Conference for Conceptualizing Integration, organized by the Estonian Integration Foundation,

Tallinn, Estonia, in October 2007, including a presentation by Berry (2007).3 Benet-Martınez and colleagues subsequently produced an impressive body of empirical research on the strategies bicultural individuals adopt to

manage multiple identities. In this context they introduced the construct of Bicultural Identity Integration, incorporating dimensions of both conflict

and distance, and offered an integrative perspective on acculturation orientations and processes (Benet-Martınez & Haritatos, 2005; Benet-Martınez,

Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Haritatos & Benet-Martınez, 2002).

(Ward, 2007). Similarly, students from China and Taiwan experience more identity conflict in New Zealand than in

Singapore (Lin, 2006, 2008).

2.1.2. The correlates and predictors of EIC

The correlates and predictors of identity conflict were investigated over a series of studies in New Zealand with

Chinese (Lin, 2006, 2008), South Asian (Stuart, 2007) and Korean (Ward, 2007) adolescents and young adults. Across

these studies three constellations of relevant variables were identified: (1) developmental factors, (2) family values and

dynamics, and (3) intergroup factors.

Although this line of research is in its early stages, some interesting patterns have already been emerging. Findings

suggest that ethno-cultural identity conflict shares some common features with Marcia’s (1994) notion of moratorium,

a developmental stage characterized by exploration and search for identity, but an absence of commitment (Stuart,

2007). In the case of ethno-cultural identity conflict, however, the lack of commitment may be based more on the

perceived incompatibility of multiple identities than the tentative exploration of options. This seems particularly

plausible, as strong national and ethnic identities are both associated with decrements in EIC (Stuart, 2007), and more

positive attitudes to marginalization predict greater ethno-cultural identity conflict (Ward, 2007).

Both traditional (e.g., attitudes toward filial piety) and modern (e.g., endorsement of children’s rights) values may

be a source of ethno-cultural identity conflict in migrant youth (Lin, 2006; Ward, 2007). The influence of these values

is almost certainly moderated by the acculturation context, including family dynamics and relationships. More

specifically, the link between values and identity conflict is likely to reflect broader patterns of tension and harmony

between parents and children in acculturating families. There is some evidence that perceived values discrepancies

between parents and children lead to ethno-cultural identity conflict in migrant youth (Lin, 2006). There is even

stronger support for the influence of intergenerational conflict, over issues such as the retention of the ethnic language

and the practice of ethnic traditions, on identity conflict in adolescents and young adults (Stuart, 2007). Conversely,

research shows that family cohesiveness and congruence mitigate against identity conflict in migrant youth as does a

secure attachment style (Lin, 2006; Stuart, 2007).

Intergroup variables are also important antecedents of identity conflict. One of the most powerful predictors of

ethno-cultural identity conflict is perceived discrimination. Poor intergroup relations, infrequent contact with national

peers, perceptions of impermeable intergroup boundaries, and threats to cultural continuity are also significant

predictors of ethno-cultural identity conflict (Lin, 2006, 2008).

2.1.3. EIC and acculturation orientations

Of central interest to researchers is the relationship between ethno-cultural identity conflict and Berry’s (1984,

1990, 2005) acculturation orientations. This was examined by Ward et al. (submitted for publication) in a culturally

diverse sample of more than 300 first generation migrants who completed both the Acculturation Index (Ward & Rana-

Deuba, 1999) and our measure of ethno-cultural identity conflict. On the basis of the responses to the Acculturation

Index migrants were classified as integrated, assimilated, separated or marginalized. Comparisons across these groups

revealed that integrated migrants experienced significantly less ethno-cultural identity conflict (M = 1.88 on a 5-point

scale) than the separated (M = 2.10), assimilated (M = 2.30) and marginalized (M = 2.14). The findings not only

support the construct validity of ethno-cultural identity conflict but also provide more insight into the dynamics of

integration (Berry, 1990, 2006, 2007).

2.1.4. EIC and adaptation

Finally, ethno-cultural identity conflict was examined in relation to psychological and socio-cultural adaptation in

studies of adolescent and adult migrants. EIC was significantly related to psychological adaptation as assessed by

measures of depression (r = 0.53), psychological symptoms (r = 0.42) and life satisfaction (r = �0.21) and socio-

cultural adaptation, operationalized in terms of school adjustment (r = �0.20), behavioral problems (r = 0.19) and

social difficulty (r = 0.52). Future research will investigate this issue more systematically and examine the suggestion

that ethno-cultural identity conflict may provide a cognitive-oriented assessment of adaptive outcomes to

complement the affective and behavioral indicators routinely used in acculturation research (Leong & Ward, 2000;

Lin, 2006).

At this point, research on ethno-cultural identity conflict provides a fresh perspective on how migrants or members

of ethno-cultural minorities deal with their relationships to heritage culture and to the wider society. Although there is

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114108

evidence that these two orientations are generally orthogonal, in some instances they are perceived as competing,

conflicting or irreconcilable. We believe that these perceptions are likely to vary across individuals, ethno-cultural

groups and receiving societies, and that cross-cultural research is warranted to examine this contention. We also

suggest that ethno-cultural identity conflict may serve as an important indicator of adaptation–maladaptation,

incorporating a cognitive facet to acculturation outcomes, typically investigated in affective and behavioral domains

under the rubric of psychological and sociocultural adaptation. These suggestions, the process of developing,

maintaining and resolving multiple identities in acculturating persons, and the relationship between identity conflict

and acculturation orientations are all deserving of more systematic research.

3. Berry Box 2: A framework for acculturation research

The second Berry box depicts a graphic representation of a framework for the study of acculturation (Fig. 1). It

distinguishes group-level variables (society of origin, society of settlement, and group acculturation) from

individual-level variables (moderating factors before and during acculturation and core changes in behaviors, stress

and psychopathology), which lead to adaptive (psychological and sociocultural) outcomes. The model portrays the

way in which researchers tend to conceptualize psychological acculturation, the experience of the individual as

situated in and influenced by group-level factors. For example, we generally describe the individuals’ experiences as

being affected by their cultural origins, the ethnic groups in which they are embedded and the surrounding host

society. In simple terms, we view the group as influencing the individual to produce a specific individual-level

outcome.

On occasion, a temporal dimension is introduced to this framework to capture the dynamic nature of the

acculturation process. There are longitudinal studies that follow individuals over time (T1, T2, T3). There is also

developmental research that compares age groups (A1, A2, A3), and in some instances, comparisons are made across

generations (G1, G2, G3). With the exception of a few large projects (e.g., Portes & Rumbaut, 2005; Scott & Scott,

1989) most longitudinal studies are of short duration. Age comparisons are relatively uncommon although they do

occur both in adolescence (e.g., Horenczyk & Tatar, 1998) and over the adult life span (e.g., Ritsner & Ponizovsky,

2003), but generational studies rarely, if ever, exceed the first and second generation (for an exception see work by

Robinson, 2006). Overall, the process of long-term acculturation has been relatively neglected in the psychological

literature.

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114 109

Fig. 1. A framework for acculturation research (Berry & Sam, 1997).

3.1. Long-term acculturation and motivation for ethno-cultural continuity (MEC)

Underpinned by a concern for long-term acculturation, a new and exciting line of research by doctoral student

Michelle Gezentsvey is emerging that transposes the Berry boxes’ lines of influence in the depiction of the relationship

between the individual and the group. More specifically, Gezentsvey has become interested in the impacts of

individuals on the larger group and their implications for the group over time and across generations. Her ultimate

concern is focused on the long-term process and outcomes of group acculturation; however, this is examined through

the study of individuals and the consequences that their behaviors have for their ethno-cultural group (Gezentsvey &

Ward, in press). In particular, endogamy has been investigated as one means of ensuring long-term cultural continuity

(Gezentsvey, 2008).

3.1.1. The conceptualization and measurement of MEC

Gezentsvey’s research commences with a new construct-motivation for ethno-cultural continuity (MEC). Based on

focus groups with Maori, Chinese, and Jews in New Zealand, Gezentsvey identified three components of the

motivation—maintenance, transmission and endurance. She then set about constructing and validating a measure of

MEC, defined as an individual’s motivation to maintain their ethno-cultural heritage (self-oriented), transmit it to their

children (family-oriented) and ensure collective endurance (group-oriented). The resultant 18-item Motivation for

Ethno-cultural Continuity Scale was initially developed from the survey responses of 125 Jews in Australia, and the

measure was refined on the basis of work with Chinese, Maori and Jews in New Zealand. Sample items from the uni-

factorial scale include: (a) continuing to practice my Jewish/Chinese/Maori traditions and celebrations is important to

me; (b) the endurance of the Jewish/Chinese/Maori people does not really matter to me, and (c) I would like to

encourage my children to learn Hebrew/Chinese/Maori. The instrument demonstrated good convergent validity via its

correlations with collective self esteem (r = 0.70), perceived group entitativity (r = 0.33), and perceived collective

continuity (r = 0.55). Its discriminant validation was established when MEC was found to be unrelated to attitudes

toward assimilation (Gezentsvey, 2007).

3.1.2. MEC in Chinese, Maori and Jews

With the measure in hand Gezentsvey set about answering two questions: (1) does MEC vary across ethno-cultural

groups and societies, and (2) Does it predict behaviors? On the first count the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity

was found to be significantly stronger in Jews and Maori than Chinese in New Zealand (Gezentsvey, 2006, 2008). The

patterns of findings were largely interpreted in terms of the national and international vitality of these ethnic groups.

On the second count, motivation for ethno-cultural continuity predicted behavior and behavioral intentions for Maori

and Jews. For example, MEC accounted for an additional 17% of the variance in the intention for endogamy over and

above that explained by similarity, attraction and social network approval. In total these factors accounted for 43% of

the variance in endogamy intentions in a sample of unmarried New Zealand Jews (Gezentsvey, 2007).

To date, research on motivation for ethno-cultural continuity provides a fresh perspective on the relationship

between the group and the individual in acculturation research. It reminds us that not only does the group exert

influence on acculturating individuals but also that individuals’ attitudes and behaviors have consequences for the

group, both in the present and the future. Research in progress includes the examination of motivation for ethno-

cultural continuity in the same ethnic group across a range of international settings (Jews in New Zealand, Australia,

Canada and the United States) as well as the strength of the motivation and associated behaviors over generations.

Future research should extend the investigation of MEC to additional ethnic groups in varied sociocultural and

political situations as well as examining possible moderating factors in long-term acculturation, such as ethnic identity

and collective self-esteem.

4. Berry Box 3: Types of acculturating groups

Berry (1990, 2006) offered a useful classification of acculturating groups, distinguishing them along two

fundamental dimensions: mobility and voluntariness of contact (also Berry & Sam, 1997) (Table 2). Voluntary contact

is characteristic of groups who choose to relocate across cultures, i.e., immigrants and sojourners, as well as sedentary

and more established ethno-cultural groups within a nation. In contrast, indigenous peoples, as a result of colonization,

and refugees and asylum seekers who are pushed from their homelands, are examples of those exposed to involuntary

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114110

contact, the former being an example of a sedentary group and the latter examples of mobile ones. A further temporal

distinction is made amongst migrant groups, depending on the temporary or permanent nature of their relocation. This

framework has been used not only to categorize acculturating groups, but also to identify risks associated with their

status. For example, mobile (as opposed to sedentary), permanent (as opposed to temporary), and involuntary (as

opposed to voluntary) acculturating groups tend to experience greater acculturative stress (Berry et al., 1987).

While the table includes the major groups that have been the subject of psychological studies on acculturation, two

further comments are warranted. First, it should be understood that ‘‘ethno-cultural groups’’ incorporate all groups within

a society, including the majority or dominant group, although this may not be explicitly stated in the Berry box. Second,

although tourists may be viewed as a subset of sojourners (Bochner, 2006), and Berry (personal communication) indeed

adopts this view, they are absent in the table. We believe that tourists constitute a distinct acculturating group, merit

explicit acknowledgement as such, and warrant greater attention in the acculturation literature.

4.1. Tourists as an acculturating group

In ‘‘Innocence Abroad: A Pocket Guide to Psychological Research on Tourism’’ Tracy Berno and I described the

extant, limited and often atheoretical psychological research on tourism and argued that the ABC framework for the

study of acculturation could be effectively applied in this domain (Berno & Ward, 2005; Ward, 2001). The application

of each of the three major theoretical approaches identified by Ward, Bochner, and Furnham (2001) – stress and

coping, culture learning, and social identification with their respective emphases on affect, behavior and cognition – is

relevant to the study of tourism and can be observed in the following examples.

(1) In line with stress and coping theories, research on changes in tourist health and well-being is consistent with the

notion that travel is stressful and may result in a range of negative outcomes. Several authors have reported a range

of stress related symptoms associated with participating in tourism, despite the popular notion that tourism is a

‘‘pleasure-leisure’’ activity (e.g., Furnham, 1984; Pearce, 1981).

(2) The culture learning theories that deal with salient behavioral and interactive aspects of intercultural contact and

focus on the processes by which people acquire the culturally relevant skills to interact effectively across cultural

lines underpins intercultural training and forms the basis of training tools such as the cultural assimilator, which

has been used both for preparing tourists for overseas travel (Pearce, Kim, & Lussa, 1998) and training hospitality

workers for international clientele (Bochner & Coulon, 1997).

(3) Finally, social identification approaches, which reflect a wider range of acculturation and intergroup theories, have

provided the theoretical underpinnings for research on attributions (Jackson, White, & Schmierer, 1996),

stereotypes (Reisinger & Turner, 2003), contact (San Martın Garcia & Gomez Jacinto, 1998), tourist impacts,

including perceived threats (Berno, 2003) and intergroup relations (Pearce, 1998) in the context of tourism.

While it may be eminently clear to those of us who study acculturation and intercultural relations that tourism

researchers should borrow our theories, it may be less clear to us why we should be studying tourism. The most

persuasive reason is that tourism offers us the most common setting for first hand intercultural contact. According to

the United Nations (2006) world population report there are just over 200 million people who live outside their

countries of origin. However, from mid-2005 to mid-2006 alone there were over 800 million international tourists

(World Tourism Organization, 2007). In short, tourism presents us with a rich and varied natural lab and the

opportunity to test and extend our theories.

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114 111

Table 2

Types of acculturating groups (Berry, 2006)

Mobility Voluntariness of contact

Sedentary Voluntary Involuntary

Ethno-cultural groups Indigenous peoples

Migrant

Permanent Migrants Refugees

Temporary Sojourners Asylum-seekers

4.1.1. Tourists and hosts

Tracy Berno and I recently exploited the opportunities presented by tourism, combining social exchange and

relative deprivation theory with the contact hypothesis and integrated threat theory to examine perceptions of tourists

in Fiji and New Zealand. We commenced with the acknowledgement that social exchange theory is the most common

framework used in tourism research. It is frequently used to interpret studies that link positive and negative perceptions

of tourist impacts to support for or opposition toward tourism. It has also been used to explain the robust finding that

those employed in the tourist industry have more positive perceptions of tourists and tourist development. However,

there are other conceptual frameworks found in the psychological literature on acculturation and intercultural relations

that can be applied to the study of tourist–host encounters, including relative deprivation, the contact hypothesis, and

integrated threat theory (Ward & Berno, submitted for publication).

Our study examined social exchange theory in relation to perceived tourist impacts and employment in the tourist

industry, along with relative deprivation (residence in Fiji or New Zealand), contact and elements of integrated threat

theory (realistic and symbolic threat, stereotypes and intergroup anxiety) as predictors of attitudes toward tourists. In

particular, we hypothesized that: (1) positive attitudes toward tourists would be predicted by employment in the

tourism industry, residence in Fiji as a less developed country, positive perceptions of tourism impacts, more frequent

and satisfying contact with tourists, positive stereotypes, low perceptions of threat and low levels of intergroup

anxiety; and (2) contact and threat variables would explain additional variance in attitudes toward tourists over and

above that accounted for by demographic and impact factors.

Hierarchical regression analysis supported the hypotheses with each of these factors affecting attitudes toward

tourists. Together they explained 51% of the variance in the outcome measure. In addition, the contact and threat

variables, including stereotypes and intergroup anxiety, accounted for additional variance, over and above that

explained by perceptions of tourist impacts, employment in the tourist industry and residence in Fiji.

This study provides but one example of how the theoretical formulations we rely on to study the acculturation

experiences of sojourners, migrants, indigenous peoples, refugees and ethno-cultural groups can be extended to

tourists and hosts (Ward & Leong, 2006). We believe that such an endeavor serves to test the external and ecological

validity of our theories and offers alternative frameworks for tourism researchers. It also shows that thinking ‘‘outside’’

the Berry box may also involve adding something ‘‘inside.’’

5. Conclusion

In conclusion the presentation has paid tribute to one of the most distinguished and prolific psychologists to study

acculturation and intercultural relations. It acknowledges the leading role that John Berry has played in the

development of our field. It has also suggested that the organizational frameworks that Berry has shared with us may

inadvertently constrain our perspectives on identity, acculturation and intercultural relations.

Thinking outside the Berry boxes has resulted in three new and evolving lines of research: the study of ethno-

cultural identity conflict; the development of a new construct, the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity; and the

application of acculturation and intergroup theory to the study of tourism.

Research on ethno-cultural identity conflict tells us that orientations to heritage and contact cultures can be

conceptualized and measured in different ways; that for some individuals traditional and new identities may be

perceived as incompatible; that family, developmental and intergroup factors can reduce or enhance the perceived

compatibility of identity orientations; and that the conflict engendered by irreconcilable identities has implications for

psychological and sociocultural adaptation. This line of investigation opens up a new avenue for understanding

identity achievement and maintenance in migrants and members of ethno-cultural minorities.

Studies on motivation for ethno-cultural continuity remind us that not only do group influences affect acculturating

individuals, but also that the aspirations and actions of individuals have consequences for acculturating groups. This

research ‘‘breaks the invisible time barrier’’ by its future orientation and adds a new dimension to acculturation theory

and application. The antecedents and consequences of the motivation for ethno-cultural continuity, as well as its

variation across nations and ethnic groups, are all fertile ground for future research in an era of increasing migration

and globalization.

Finally, tourists and tourism offer almost endless possibilities for extending acculturation theory and research. Our

tourism research to date has adopted an intercultural perspective, synthesizing a range of theories that have been

generally applied to the study of migrant or minority groups in relation to the majority; however, stress and coping,

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114112

culture learning and social identity frameworks can also be applied to the studies of tourists and hosts. Each of these

approaches holds promise for future research.

In the end, I hope that these three initiatives will influence future directions in acculturation research, but in any

case, I can only borrow the words of the eminent Alfred Nobel: If I have a thousand ideas and only one turns out to be

good, I am satisfied.

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the contributions of former and current post-graduate students: Tracy Berno (now at

Lincoln University), Chan-Hoong Leong (now at the National University of Singapore), En-Yi Lin (now at Massey

University), Michelle Gezentsvey, Jaimee Stuart, and Larissa Kus. She also gratefully acknowledges the financial

support for this research from the Royal Society of New Zealand James Cook Fellowship, the Royal Society of New

Zealand ISAT Linkages grant; and Building Research Capacity in Social Sciences (BRCSS) funding.

References

Baumeister, R., Shapiro, J. P., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Two kinds of identity crisis. Journal of Personality, 53, 407–424.

Benet-Martınez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality,

73(4), 1015–1049.

Benet-Martınez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus

compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516.

Ben-Shalom, U., & Horenczyk, G. (2003). Acculturation orientations: A facet theory perspective on the bidimensional model. Journal of Cross-

cultural Psychology, 34, 176–188.

Berno, T. (2003). Local control and the sustainability of tourism in the Pacific. In D. Harrison (Ed.), The sustainability of tourism in the Pacific (pp.

94–109). London: Cognizant Publications.

Berno, T., & Ward, C. (2005). Innocence abroad: A pocket guide to psychological research on tourism. American Psychologist, 60, 593–600.

Berry, J. W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 17–22.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theories, models and findings (pp. 9–25).

Boulder, CO: Westview.

Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies. In N. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact (pp. 11–27) New York: Academic Press.

Berry, J.W. (1990). The psychology of acculturation. In J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation, Vol. 37,

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press (pp. 201–234).

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712.

Berry, J. W. (2006). Contexts of acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 27–42).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, J. W. (2007). Integration: A psychological and cultural perspective. Paper presented at the Conference on Conceptualizing Integration, Tallin,

Estonia.

Berry, J. W., & Kim, U. (1988). Acculturation and mental health. In P. R. Dasen, J. W. Berry, & N. Sartorius (Eds.), Health and cross-cultural

psychology (pp. 207–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies on acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491–511.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology, 38, 185–206.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (Eds.). (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation

across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. J.W., Berry, M.H., Segall, and C., Kagitcibasi, In The Cambridge handbook of

acculturation psychology (pp. 181–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bochner, S. (2006). Sojourners. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 181–197).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bochner, S., & Coulon, L. (1997). A culture assimilator to train Australian hospitality industry workers serving Japanese tourists. Journal of Tourism

Studies, 8, 8–17.

Dona, G., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of Central American refugees. International Journal of Psychology,

29, 57–70.

Furnham, A. (1984). Tourism and culture shock. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 41–57.

Gezentsvey, M. A. (2006). Looking for that nice Jewish/Maori boy: Comparisons of Jewish and Maori continuity. Paper presented at the School of

Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Post-graduate Conference.

Gezentsvey, M. A. (2007). Four corners of the diaspora: Comparison of Jewish acculturation in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United

States. Paper presented at the Seventh Biennial Conference of the International Academy of Intercultural Research, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Gezentsvey, M. A. (2008). Journeys of ethno-cultural continuity: The long-term acculturation of Jews, Maori and Chinese. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation. New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114 113

Gezentsvey, M. A., & Ward, C. (in press). Unveiling agency: A motivational perspective on acculturation and adaptation. In R. Sorrentino & S.

Yamaguchi (Eds.), The handbook of cognition and motivation within and across cultures. New York: Elsevier.

Haritatos, J., & Benet-Martınez, V. (2002). Bicultural identities: The interface of cultural, personality and socio-cognitive processes. Journal of

Research in Personality, 36, 598–606.

Horenczyk, G., & Tatar, M. (1998). Friendship expectations among immigrant adolescents and their host peers. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 69–82.

Jackson, M. S., White, G. N., & Schmierer, C. (1996). Tourism experiences within an attributional framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 798–

810.

Leong, C.-H., & Ward, C. (2000). Identity conflict in sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 763–776.

Lin, E. -Y. (2006). Developmental, social and cultural influences on identity conflict in overseas Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.

Lin, E.-Y. (2008). Family and social influences on identity conflict in overseas Chinese. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32,

130–141.

Marcia, J. E. (1994). The empirical study of ego identity. In H. A. Bosma, T. L. G. Graafsma, H. D. Grotevant, & D. J. de Levita (Eds.), Identity and

development: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 67–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marsella, A., & Pedersen, P. (2004). Internationalizing the counseling psychology curriculum: Toward new values, competencies and directions.

Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 17, 413–423.

Pearce, P. L. (1981). Environmental shock: A study of tourists’ reactions to two tropical islands. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 268–280.

Pearce, P. L. (1998). The relationship between residents and tourists: The research literature and management directions. In W. F. Theobald (Ed.),

Global tourism (2nd ed., pp. 129–147). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Pearce, P. L., Kim, E., & Lussa, S. (1998). Facilitating tourist-host social interaction: An overview and assessment of the culture assimilator. In E.

Laws, B. Faulkner, & G. Moscardo (Eds.), Embracing and managing change in tourism (pp. 347–364). London: Routledge.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2005). Introduction: The second generation and the children of immigrants longitudinal study. Ethnic and Racial

Studies, 28, 983–999.

Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2003). Cross-cultural behavior in tourism: Concepts and analysis. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Ritsner, M., & Ponizovsky, A. (2003). Age differences in stress process of recent immigrants. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 44, 15–141.

Robinson, L. (2006). Acculturation in the United Kingdom. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation

psychology (pp. 385–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (1995). Acculturative stress and young immigrants in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36, 10–24.

San Martın Garcia, J., & Gomez Jacinto, L. (1998). Influencia del turismo en el cambio de actitud: Una perspectiva intergrupal [The influence of

tourism in attitude change: An intergroup perspective]. Revista de Psicologia Social Aplicada, 8, 5–18.

Scott, W. A., & Scott, R. (1989). Adaptation of immigrants. Oxford: Pergamon.

Stuart, J. (2007). Interpersonal and intrapersonal predictors of ethno-cultural identity conflict: The development and acculturation of South Asian

youth in New Zealand. Paper presented at the Seventh Biennial Conference of the Asian Association of Social Psychology, Kota Kinabalu,

Malaysia.

United Nations Population Division (2006). International migration 2006. NewYork: United Nations. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publica-

tions/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm

Ward, C. (2001). The ABCs of acculturation. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 411–445). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Ward, C. (2007). Ethno-cultural identity conflict in Korean youth in New Zealand. Paper presented at the Seventh Biennial Conference of the Asian

Association of Social Psychology, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia.

Ward, C., & Berno, T. (submitted for publication). Beyond social exchange theory: An integrated model of attitudes toward tourists.

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

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–343.

Ward, C., & Leong, C.-H. (2006). Intercultural relations in plural societies. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation

psychology (pp. 484–503). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

Ward, C., Stuart, J., & Kus, L. (submitted for publication). The construction and validation of a measure of ethno-cultural identity conflict.

World Tourism Organization. (2007). Inbound tourist arrivals. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, 5(2), 4.

C. Ward / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 105–114114