REVIEWARTICLE

Theories and Methodologies in Acculturation Psychology:The Emergence of a Scientific Revolution?

Simon Ozer

Received: 2 January 2013 /Accepted: 24 July 2013# National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2013

Abstract Acculturation can be understood as the continuousmeeting of different cultural elements. This phenomenon hasincreased globally due to advancements in technology, econ-omy and globalization. The development of a psychologicalstudy of acculturation has been a complex process with greatchallenges. This new discipline within cross-cultural psychol-ogy has expanded with a great number of articles in psycho-logical journals and subsequently increased in significancewithin cross-cultural psychology. The acculturation psycho-logical theory of multilinear bidimensionality with its quanti-tative methodology has been the predominant framework.However, critiques have challenged this paradigm and sug-gested the emergence of a new paradigm founded on a culturalpsychological approach. In this review, the different concep-tions and methodologies within acculturation psychology areassessed and suggestions for future research using mixed-methods are presented.

Keywords Acculturation . Review .Methodology . Theory .

critical acculturation psychology

Acculturation psychology has gained importance through thelast four decades in response to the globally accelerated paceof sociocultural changes and intercultural transitions in the lasttwo centuries. These changes were initiated by transforma-tions in technology, economy, education, social mobility, mi-gration, faith and values which lead to frequent continuousmeetings between different cultures, a process designated asacculturation (Trimble 2002).

The last few decades have shown an exponential increasein studies within the psychology of acculturation. As a rela-tively new field of research within psychology, the study ofacculturation is struggling with difficulties and ambiguities inthe theoretical and methodological conceptualizations andresearch designs. This has led to different cognate disciplineswithin psychology discussing the best way to study the com-plex phenomenon of acculturation (Chirkov 2009a; Berry2009). This review examines and presents the developmentsin theory and methodology as well as suggesting prospects forthe future of acculturation psychology.

The Study of Acculturation as a Psychological Discipline

The study of acculturation as an academic discipline wasinitially used by anthropologists to observe indigenous peo-ples. This research was usually centered on biased surveys ofhow “savages” or “primitive” societies changed to becomemore civilized through acculturative contact with the enlight-ened Western world. Concurrently, sociologists started usingthe terms assimilation and acculturation about immigrantsconforming to the lifestyle of the host societies, a focus laterfollowed by anthropologists (Sam 2006). The classical andreputable definition of acculturation is based on anthropolo-gists’ understanding that “[a]cculturation comprehends thosephenomena which result when groups of individuals havingdifferent cultures come into continuous first-hand contact,with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns ofeither or both groups” (Redfield et al. 1936, p. 149). Thisdefinition accentuates the notion of contact, reciprocal influ-ence and change in groups. The understanding of psycholog-ical acculturation as a study of the individual was first elabo-rated by Graves (1967). Today, the term acculturation has anoverall elusive history with many meanings and synonymsattached to it (Sam 2006; Rudmin 2009).

S. Ozer (*)Department of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences,Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmarke-mail: ozer@post.au.dk

Psychol StudDOI 10.1007/s12646-013-0203-0

Acculturation Psychology Founded on Cross-CulturalPsychology

Acculturation psychology is based on the theoretical andmethodological foundation of universalistic cross-culturalpsychology that is characteristic of our species,Homo sapiens,as a whole. This is done through interdisciplinary involvementwith cognate academic disciplines such as ecology, anthropol-ogy, sociology, linguistics and biology; thereby averting anuntenable reductionist position. It is important to include anunderstanding of the dialectical relationship between structureand agency in this framework. Here, a mutual process ofinfluence and adaptations between the ecological and sociopo-litical context and the intrapsychic entities such as traits, mo-tivation and genetic dispositions should be acknowledged andintegrated into the research frame. In this framework, it is abasic proposition that the individual develops the psychologi-cal characteristics cultivated by their cultural background(Berry et al. 2002).

Cross-cultural psychology has been blamed for the biasedevaluation of cultural differences in a better and worse classi-fication leading to ethnocentrism (Nisbett 1971; Minturn1983; Adams and Hanna 2012). This critique was presentedby the related studies of cultural psychology and anthropolo-gy. Other psychological approaches avoid ethnocentrism byemploying a more relativist epistemology.

Acculturation and Cross-Cultural Psychology in Relationto Cultural Psychology and Indigenous Psychology

Three psychological disciplines have been concerned with theimportance of culture: 1) cross-cultural psychology, 2) culturalpsychology, and 3) indigenous psychology. To understandacculturation psychology within cross-cultural psychology, itis important to investigate both the differing and the sharedaspects of the related approaches within psychology (Berryet al. 2002).

In the West, the study of psychology and culture hasresulted in a conceptual confrontation between two dissimilarepistemological approaches. Cultural psychology has advo-cated a relativism and social constructionist perspective ofhow a specific culture shapes and is shaped by the individual,while cross-culture psychology has suggested comparativism/universalism in their more positivist scientific approach tostudying a psychic unity that they find universal for humankind. Both psychological disciplines include strengths andweaknesses, and complement each other in numerous ways(Adamopoulos and Lonner 2001). Indigenous psychology is athird psychological approach immersed in culture. This ap-proach is rooted in particular cultural traditions, therebyavoiding ethnocentrism. Indigenous psychology advocatesthe importance of psychological knowledge derived fromcultural traditions, revealing the core of psychology found in

people’s daily mundane activities from an emic perspectiveand thus disclosing psychological knowledge through a localframe of reference (Kim 2000).

Indigenous and cultural psychologies have been presentedas kindred approaches because both conceptualize culture assomething inside the individual. Both share the advantage ofthe emic perspective, understanding what is meaningful forthe local actor in her own terms and subsequently developingpsychological theories. Disadvantages in these approaches aretheir problematic reliability and validity. In cross-culturalpsychology, culture is viewed as something outside the indi-vidual; something that can be measured as an antecedentindependent variable. In this approach reliability and validitycan be tested, which leads to the possibility of generalization

The optimal approach would seem to be a synthesis of thethree methods (Triandis 2000; Greenfield 2000). The cross-cultural psychologist, Berry (2000), has argued that the threemethods are mutually compatible in a symbiosis that couldemphasize the cultural context and at the same time aim at apanhuman universalistic framework. This is refuted by thecultural psychologist Shweder (2000), who argues thatcross-cultural study loses the focus on culture specific “men-talities” in the search for psychological uniformities withinhumanity. Both Berry and the indigenous psychologist Kimacknowledge a possibility for developing a universal psychol-ogy through simultaneous integration of different indigenouspsychologies in the cross-cultural approach comprising boththe etic and emic perspective (Berry and Kim 1993). The pastdifferences between cross-cultural psychology and culturalpsychology are now moderated as each discipline, to somedegree, uses the other discipline’s methodologies (van deVijver and Matsumoto 2011).

Acculturation psychology needs to balance an understand-ing of both biological and cultural factors underlying behaviorwith respect to universalistic human characteristics and culturespecific contexts. Their perspective of derived etic, where theetic perspective is changed to match the emic viewpoint of thestudied culture, is operationalized through the use of adaptedassessment instruments (Berry et al. 2002). The experience ofacculturation is found worldwide as a universalistic phenom-enon. However, the phenomenon is bound in a culture specificcontext. Therefore, the universalistic study of cross-culturepsychology aims at uncovering the human adaptation to ac-culturation in all its variances (Berry et al. 2006).

The Psychology of Acculturation

An understanding of dimensionality is essential in conceptu-alizing and assessing the process of acculturation. The ques-tion of dimensionality relates to disciplinary differences.Sociology has often studied the development towards moder-nity, in which traditionalism or different traditions develop

Psychol Stud

towards the single acculturation outcome labeled modernity.In anthropology, acculturation is viewed as a multilinear phe-nomenon resulting in alternative outcomes related to theirdifferent starting points. The latter approach contrasts thesingle dimension of assimilation or modernity found in thefirst approach (Berry et al. 1992). The psychology of accul-turation has primarily been linked to the anthropological un-derstanding of the phenomenon; with an empirically derivedincorporation of the terms integration (Sommerlad and Berry1970) and marginalization (Berry 1970), differing from as-similation and segregation. However, the discussion of dimen-sionality has characterized the psychology of acculturation forthe last decades (Ryder et al. 2000).

Berry (1980) elaborated the idea of understanding accul-turation through a bidimensional approach with fourfold ad-aptation as a classical psychological distinction: moving with,moving toward, moving against, and moving away from astimulus. The bidimensional understanding differentiates be-tween how the individual orientate toward one’s own groupand toward the other’s group. In that way, change can takeplace in two independent dimensions. The first dimensionentails the maintenance or loss of one’s own culture and thesecond involves participation in or adoption of aspects of thelarger society’s culture. Both dimensions are conceptualizedas bidirectional as individuals can move both ways in relationto their adaption to both old and new culture (Berry 2002).Simultaneous maintenance and participation of the two differ-ent cultures lead to four different acculturation strategiesconsisting of different combinations of attitudes and behaviorused in the adaptation to acculturation, what people prefer andseek on one side and what people actually do on the other(Berry 2006a).

Assimilation defines the strategy in which the individualdoes not maintain her cultural identity and instead seeks dailyinteractions with other cultures. Integration occurs when theindividual seeks to both maintain her original culture concur-rently with participating as an integral part of the largersociety. Separation is defined as valuing one’s own cultureand avoiding contact with others from the new culture. Lastly,marginalization takes place when the individual holds littleinterest in cultural maintenance of the original culture and inrelations with others from a different culture (ibid.). Both theindividual and the society employ acculturation strategies/ideologies in a mutual process of transaction.

A central concept in bidirectional understanding is mutualor reciprocal influence, where both individuals and societies,upon meeting, can change as a consequence of acculturation.The society’s strategy for acculturation adds a third dimensionto the theory duplicating the strategies of the individual. Thefour societal acculturation strategies are named 1) melting potwhen assimilation is sought by the dominant group, 2) multi-culturalism when cultural diversity is an accepted value of thesociety, 3) segregation when the dominant group demands and

enforces separation, and 4) exclusion when the dominantgroup imposes marginalization (ibid.).

Methodology

Various research methodologies have been used in the study ofacculturation. These include: case studies, observations, ques-tionnaires, scales, interviews, and information from significantothers. A majority of acculturation psychological studies havebeen done with self-report questionnaires. However, the meth-odology of acculturation psychology has always lacked ageneral conceptualization and assessment method. The disci-pline is not yet explicit in relation to the questions of dimen-sionality and domain specificity concerning the different waysan individual acculturates within life domains such as lan-guage, identity, childrearing, and social contacts and in differ-ent contexts such as publicly, with family and at home etc.Finally, there is the challenge of culture specificity whichquestions to what degree studies can be compared and gener-alized when conducted within a specific culture (Arendts-Tóthand van de Vijver 2006a).

Research Designs

Quantitative research in acculturation psychology follows theexperimental methodology and psychometrics found in mostareas of psychology. A popular research design assesses ac-culturation conditions as an independent variable, accultura-tion strategies as a mediator variable, and acculturation out-comes as a dependent variable (Arendts-Tóth and van deVijver 2006b). The characteristics of the societies and groupscan be measured through background variables complementedby qualitative descriptions and perspectives. It has been sug-gested that understanding the cultural level is as important asinterpreting the psychological level, since the latter is based onthe former (Berry 2006b).

Because the process of acculturation involves change, lon-gitudinal designs would be optimal for research. However,since this design requires significant resources, most studiesfocus only short term on a single acculturation group. Oftenthe cross-cultural methodology includes quasi-experimentaldesigns, in which samples are not randomly selected fromthe studied population. This leads to bias, a lack of taxonomicequivalence, and to rival explanations within the differentresults. Counteracting this problem involves the inclusion ofadditional variables to confirm or disconfirm interpretations(van de Vijver and Matsumoto 2011).

Assessment

How to assess acculturation and acculturation strategies hasbeen amajor point of dispute within acculturation psychology.

Psychol Stud

As no standardized and widely accepted measurement foracculturation exists, researchers usually design their own as-sessment instrument with a varying sample of assessed lifedomains. Research stresses that although acculturation is aunitary construct, it should be assessed through attitude, be-havior, and different domains (e.g. publicly and privately) inorder to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the phe-nomenon (Arendts-Tóth et al. 2006).

When considering the question of dimensionality, the in-struments can either be developed through a one-, two- orfour-statement method. One-statement instruments ask ques-tions concerning both cultures. The answering can either use aLikert scale or checkboxes. The two-statement method entailstwo subscales with related questions to both ethnic culture andmainstream culture. The four-statement method entails foursubscales with questions related to each acculturation strategyanswered with a five point Likert scale. The four-statementmethod uses a Likert scale for answering (Arendts-Tóth andvan de Vijver 2006a).

The one-statement method is found in the unidimensionalconceptualizing of acculturation and has the clear advantage ofbeing short, simple, and efficient. However, it has been criti-cized for lacking dimensionality and the nuances found aroundthe middle scores. In addition, the unidimrndional conceptual-ization of acculturation assumes cultures are mutually exclu-sive, so the individual cannot be involved in both new andethnic culture. A unidimensional view of acculturation is oftenconceptualized as assimilation to the dominant culture. Thus, itreduces the complexity of the phenomenon (Nguyen and vonEye 2002; Arendts-Tóth and van de Vijver 2006a).

The two-statement method is often used to surveybidimensionality in the association between ethnic and newculture dimensions constituting the two subscales. A strongnegative correlation of the two statement subscales couldsupport the unidimensional understanding and a low correla-tion could support the bidimensional model. Nevertheless,results have been inconclusive in different studies supportingboth models. The two-statement model has the advantage ofbeing an effective way to capture both dimensions. However,its vagueness and ambiguity in analyzing the midpoint scoreswhen transferring them to the four acculturation strategies is adisadvantage (Arendts-Tóth and van de Vijver 2006a).

In the four-statement method, the four acculturation strate-gies are assessed independently using four subscales. This hasa great advantage in avoiding the uncategorizable midpointscores. Yet, the answers on the Likert scale can appear dividedinto two, with concern for both the attitude towards the cultureof origin and the new culture. Respondents can interpret this indifferent ways. Additionally, this method has been criticizedfor using too many negations, which makes the process ofanswering cognitively complex (ibid.). Furthermore, the four-statement method is profuse, resulting in a long scale, whichstill only assesses few life domains.

Reviews have shown a considerable heterogeneity in themeasurement of acculturation. Some use ethnic-specific mea-surement, while others use an ethnic-general scale. Somestudies use only one variable as a proxy measure e.g. languageor place of birth. Researchers who use a bidimensional assess-ment instrument often report and analyze in linear accultura-tion scores (Koneru et al. 2007).

Only a few studies have compared the different methods ofassessing acculturation. Strong evidence has found the processof acculturation to be bidimensional (Matsudaira 2006; Nguyenand von Eye 2002). Arendts-Tóth and van de Vijver (2007)tested the one-, two- and four-statement methods. Their conclu-sion favored a two-statement model assessing both private andpublic domains. The one-statement method was found to reducethe complexity of the phenomena. They criticized the four-statement model for generating lengthy and difficult instrumentswith items of high complexity. Rudmin and Ahmadzadeh(2001) have reviewed different studies of acculturationmeasure-ment constructs and conclude that researchers of acculturationshould cease using unidimensional instruments found in a uni-polar and bipolar format. Also, the four-statement model isdismissed because it is “double barreled,” asking two or morequestions instead of one. These questions are often interpreteddifferently or answered only in relation to one part of the item.Therefore, it is recommended to use a bilinear model assessingthe two dimensions found in relation to the two cultures.

Differing operationalizations of the bidimensionality greatlyinfluences the results. Also, different conceptions of culturalorientation have been employed since the original frameworkpresented by Berry (1980) with the conceptualization: “prefer-ence for maintaining heritage culture, and contact and partici-pation with the larger society” (Berry and Sabatier 2011). Arecent study byWard and Kus (2012) has advanced the knowl-edge about influences in constructing an acculturation scaleexploring the relationship between acculturation and adapta-tion outcome varying as a function of the acculturation mea-surement. It was found that the integration acculturation strat-egy would occur more frequently if cultural contact with thenew society were assessed instead of cultural adoption.Likewise, the integration strategy would also occur more fre-quently when ideal/attitudes were measured rather than real/behavior measures. The behavior measures were found to beslightly better in predicting adaptation measures. Furthermore,the measure of cultural adoption was related to better socialadaptation rather than the measure of cultural contact.Similarly, Berry and Sabatier (2011) found the highest prefer-ence for integration when involvement in the new society wasconceptualized as contact, an intermediate preference whendefined as adaptation and the lowest preference when consid-ered as identity. This pattern was reversed regarding separationstrategy. The general pattern was consistent during variationsof operationalization of the first dimension regarding ethnicculture maintenance, contact or identity.

Psychol Stud

Acculturation has been found to be domain-specific, asdifferent strategies are used across values and behavioral ac-culturation domains. In one study, more than two thirds of theparticipants used different strategies for these two domains(Miller et al. 2013). Another study by Arendts-Tóth and vande Vijver (2007) found a great difference in the measurementof private and public domains. In the private domain theassimilation or separation strategy was largely preferred, whilethe integration strategy was more widespread in the publicdomain. This finding reveals the importance of including bothdomains in the assessment tool and also the lack of nuancesfound in psychometric scales. These nuances are consideredand integrated in the Relational Acculturation ExtendedModel(RAEM) assessing the acculturation process to be complexand relative. This model assesses seven domains categorized asboth public and private, as well as comprehending that accul-turation strategies are not static but vary according to thepresent circumstances, thereby including the notion of theindividual’s selective and changeable navigation through theprocess of acculturation (Navas et al. 2005). This model com-plies with much of the criticism presented against Berry’sacculturation model in recent years. Still, the quantitative mea-surement of acculturation does not capture the dynamics char-acterizing the phenomenon as a process. In order to developsuggestions for future research, the criticism and defense ofacculturation psychology should be reviewed.

A Critique of the Existing Studies and a Changeof Methodology

A strong critique of both the theoretical and methodologicalperspectives within the field of acculturation psychology hasfollowed the drastic rise in the number of studies and papersconcerning the subject. This critique has been presented throughappellations such as “Critical Acculturation Psychology” or“cultural psychology of acculturation” (Chirkov 2009a).

Anomalies and Critique of the Existing AcculturationPsychology

The critique of acculturation psychology comes, for the mostpart, from supporters of a more relativist approach found inanthropology and cultural psychology. This position favors amore flexible, less mechanical and unequivocal treatment of aphenomenon that in real life involves great variances andcomplexity. Within this perspective acculturation cannot beassessed and studied as a uniform phenomenon (Bhatia andRam 2001). This advocates a new paradigm in the develop-ment of acculturation psychology, with a thorough break fromthe traditional and mainstream psychology with their exces-sive use of quantitative methods in a positivist or post-positivist epistemology (Waldram 2004).

First, acculturation psychology is criticized for lacking aproper definition and for a vague conceptualization of bothacculturation and culture. The most common definition ofacculturation dates back to a modernist anthropological un-derstanding that has long been dismissed within anthropology.A postmodern theoretical development in anthropology hasestablished a shift in the understanding of cultures; a changefrom considering culture as essentialized, static, bounded andhomogenous entities to recognizing a lived and interactedexperience in individuals in their dynamic local, social worlds.This has led to a focus on the ambiguity within “cultures”.Therefore, the term acculturation is scarcely used in contem-porary anthropological literature (Waldram 2009). From thisperspective, many criticize acculturation psychology for lack-ing an understanding of “culture”, instead reducing it to quan-titatively measurable variables (Triandis 1997; Rudmin 2003;Chirkov 2009b; Waldram 2009). Newer definitions of accul-turation, through a psychological approach, emphasize theindividual level in the phenomenon. Here, acculturation hasbeen defined as a continuous process that is executed by theagentic individual through cognitive activity, physical andsymbolic interactions (Chirkov 2009c). Others simply defineacculturation as “second-culture acquisition” (Rudmin 2009,p. 109). Both suggestions seek to focus on the individual leveland to emphasize the phenomenon imbued with agency.

Second, the theory of fourfold acculturation strategies hasbeen disputed. Berry’s paradigmatic theory has been criticizedas too generalizing and inflexible in categorizing and describ-ing groups and new situations (Pick 1997; Bhatia and Ram2001; Schwartz et al. 2010). In addition, Lazarus (1997)criticized Berry’s fourfold theory for being too broad andstatic, lacking the crucial specific individual and contextualvariances. Different ethnic groups experience acculturationdifferently and many people move within several diversecultural or subcultural contexts, changing their way of adap-tation dynamically. Some researchers have advocated the useof more than four different acculturation strategies to capturethe complexity and variety in possible adaptations (Mishraet al. 1996; Bourhis et al. 1997; Rudmin 2003).

Third, the acculturation strategies have been criticized fortheir conceptualization and operationalization (Rudmin2003). Especially the marginalization strategy has been se-verely critiqued for its ambiguous meaning, problematic con-ceptualization, and low validity (Del Pilar and Udasco 2004).This strategy is rarely employed, as people usually draw, tosome degree, on either their heritage culture or the mainstreamculture (Schwartz et al. 2010). Alternative understandings ofthe marginalization strategy have been discussed and theyreveal the possible orientation towards affiliation with a thirdculture (Tartakovsky 2010), multiculturalism with preferencefor some other culture, subculture or cultural autonomy foundin some religious groups, and in self-realization and counter-culture movements (Rudmin and Ahmadzadeh 2001). In

Psychol Stud

consonance with this critique, Bourhis et al. (1997) havedivided marginalization into two acculturation strategies, withthe new strategy termed individualism. Individuals using thisfifth acculturation strategy might prefer to identify themselveswith individuals rather than groups, refusing to be limited byeither heritage group or mainstream ascriptions. This versionof the marginalization strategy entails a focus on achievingpersonal goals and has been associated with superior mentalhealth. Thus, the heterogeneous marginalization strategy canalso be understood as an expression of agency and as a possi-bility for construction of new cultural identities and innovation.

In addition to this critique of the marginalization strategy,integration strategy has been criticized for lacking a cleardefinition and appearing as a heterogeneous term (Arendts-Tóth and van de Vijver 2006a). Since cultural adaptationvaries in different domains as well as different socioculturalor subcultural contexts, the integration strategy will frequentlybe preferred even if separation in the private domain andassimilation in the public were favored. Likewise, shiftingbetween two cultural identities and the related mindsets cancreate conflict, while being defined as integration that istendentious conceptualized and hypothesized to be harmoni-ous (Boski 2008).

Fourth, the positivistic quantitative research methods pri-marily preferred in acculturation psychology have largelybeen criticized. Besides the methodological critique regardingthe lack of standardization, critique was directed towards theuse of psychometric tests and the reduction of culture to ameasurable variable as being inadequate to describe the com-plex and dynamic phenomena of acculturation (Hunt et al.2004). Instead, the use of an interpretative social scienceapproach was recommended (Chirkov 2009b). This approachcould focus on the phenomenological aspects crucial to thetheoretical development within acculturation research(Cresswell 2009; Rudmin 2010). It has been argued thatqualitative or mixed methods are needed to capture the com-plexity of the phenomena and the eco-developmental context,which can be seen as a strong factor in the acculturationprocess (Lopez-Class et al. 2011). Furthermore, longitudinalstudies have been advocated to capture the temporal anddynamic aspect of the process of transition constituting a coreissue of acculturation (ibid.; Ward 2008; Chirkov 2009b).

In conclusion, the critique of the existing acculturationpsychology has, on the one hand, aimed at the lack of stan-dardization i.e. the need for an absolutist theory and, on theother hand, a need for a more flexible and culture interpretivei.e. culture specific approach. This shows acculturation psy-chology–as a cross-cultural discipline–demarcated by classi-cal psychology on one side, and cultural psychology andanthropology on the other side. Most of the recent critiquehas been put forward by the culture relativist approach aspresented here. This critique has led the existing paradigm todefend their research position.

The Contemporary Paradigms Reply to the Critique

Berry and his associates have addressed these critiques, clar-ifying that their position is not opposed to most of the sug-gested alternative methods and theorizing. Berry advocatesthe possibility for both approaches–the quantitative positivistand the qualitative interpretive–to enrich each other in unifi-cation. However, he does not acknowledge the excludingconstructionist position found in the critique, which does notrecognize any objective reality. Opposed to Geertz’s (1973)classical understanding of culture–used in cultural psychology–stating that cultures are internal patterns of meaning embodiedin symbols, Berry advocates D’Andrade’s (1995) understand-ing that culture is both external, existing before the individual,and at the same time internal, created during social interaction.From this framework, Berry stresses the importance of ethno-graphic culture studies preceding the quantitative use of scalesand as an imperative function in the creation of an acculturationscale (Berry 2009). Berry originally used ethnographic emicmaterial to validate the theory of acculturation strategies (Berryand Sam 2003). Berry (2009) further states that he has oftenworked on his projects in collaboration with anthropologists toenhance the research.

Berry acknowledges that no theory can completely com-prehend so complex a phenomenon as acculturation. His ownmodel of the fourfold aspect of acculturation should rather beviewed as an intentional concrete framework for organizingconcepts and findings, and assisting future research, ratherthan as a testable and refutable theory. Berry also advocateslongitudinal studies in concurrence with the criticism (Berry1997).

In conclusion, the existing paradigm of acculturation psy-chology expounds willingness and the possibility of incorpo-rating the majority of the critique in a transformation of thecommonly used research designs and theoretical develop-ments. The mutually exclusive epistemological approachesbetween culture relativism and universalism cannot be rudi-mentary united. However, a third approach of integration andpragmatism could include both perspectives in a flexibleconceptualization. In this stance, acculturation psychologyshould discern its position proportional to the main disciplinesof psychology and anthropology. The question is whether thecritical approach has strength enough to emblematize enoughanomalies for a new paradigm to emerge.

The Rise of a New Paradigm?

From this review of the critique and defense of acculturationpsychology, it can be concluded that there is not enoughsubstantial anomalies to successfully fuel an emerging para-digm through a scientific revolution. However, most of thecritique is valid and should be considered and included infuture research. For example, qualitative emic-based data,

Psychol Stud

which is scarcely seen in contemporary research, ought to playa larger role in acculturation psychological research andshould be clearly reported in research papers. This couldprovide a more flexible approach revealing the diverse anddynamic aspects of acculturation. Furthermore, this couldilluminate many of the mechanisms underlying the relation-ship between acculturation and mental health. A branch ofcultural psychology studying acculturation could also beformed. However, this would doubtfully be able to eradicatethe existing paradigm since a strong foundation of empiricalresearch showing their superiority relative to the existingparadigm would be needed. A more pragmatic approach fromthe critiques would help the future field of research, integrat-ing instead of ignoring the existing body of acculturationresearch within psychology.

Clearly, there is a need tomove beyond and further developBerry’s acculturation framework. Studies will be developedthat can explore the deeper aspects and variances of humanpsychology in relation to contextual change, which was notpossible with the commonly used theories. Many directionsfor development seem possible for this branch of social psy-chology and with the growing importance of these studies; theexisting paradigm will grow stronger through future discus-sions. Future research could use this discussion to employ anintegrative multimethod manner of combining the advantagesof both approaches: analyzing both the static outcome and thedynamic process. Furthermore, the process of globalizationhas initiated a worldwide acculturation processes including avast number of cultural elements. With an acculturation psy-chological approach globalization is not understood as a cul-tural homogenization. Cultural diversity is ensured throughthe various acculturation adaptations to globalization andphenomena such as cultural revitalization, counter-culturemovements, sub-cultures etc. (Berry 2008). In order to under-stand this complex process of globalization affecting all ac-culturation, there is a need to expand from understandingacculturation as a meeting between culture A and B. Thiscan be carried out through the inclusion of cultural contextualinformation and qualitative data.

Directions for Future Research

As reviewed in this paper, there is a strong need forprogression and flexibility within the psychology of accul-turation in order to advance Berry’s framework, especiallyconcerning methodology. In relation to the study of accul-turation there are three flagrant points to consider: 1) in-clusion of contextual information, 2) standardization ofassessment instruments and 3) enhancement with qualitativedata in the research design.

Firstly, acculturation is clearly a historical and culture-specific process and therefore the contextual information is

crucial. Employing a quasi-experimental research design, theeco-cultural influences should be delineated prior to the quan-titative survey. Bourhis et al. (1997) stress and differentiatewhat Berry mentions as the third dimension of acculturation:the mutual relationship between individual and society. Withthe dynamic Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM), theyincorporate detailed information about the society includingits policies and attitudes towards the acculturating individual.The contextual data can be found through ethnographic data,culture-historical data, fieldwork, and societal ideologies, at-titudes and discourses. This should be included as a pre-survey phase guiding the research. This information shouldlikewise constitute the background for the derived eticemployed through the culture specific acculturation scale usedin the quantitative survey phase.

Second, standardization of the quantitative assessment mea-sures would enable a circumspect universal integration.Acculturation scales should be developed as bidimensionaland culture-specific assessing a variety of both overt andinternal domains. The use of proxy measures should be aban-doned as it has been proven inadequate. Specific studies shouldstate how the cultural involvement is conceptualized within thetwo dimensions and which domains are included in the assess-ment scale. Empirical studies could also test the culture sensi-tivity of the different standardized assessment instruments formental health and other related areas, recommending the oneswith suitable psychometric properties.

Third, qualitative data could be integrated through a mixedmethods research design, such as the explanatory sequentialdesign (Creswell and Plano Clark 2007). With this design,quantitative data is collected and analyzed in the intermediatephase following the contextual research. The third phase ofcollecting and analyzing qualitative data builds on the quanti-tative data and can further validate the derived etics of thequantitative survey through qualitative emic perspectives. Ithas strongly been recommended that emic and etic perspectiveshould be combined in acculturationmeasurement (Matsudaira2006). The quantitative survey gives a general understandingof the phenomenon of acculturation while the qualitative datarefines and explains the statistical results through an in-depthexploration of the respondents’ phenomenological perspec-tives. Qualitative methods can provide descriptive data thatreproduce culture more concretely and locally, including inter-nal variances. Furthermore, the consequential mechanismsmediating between culture and acculturation on one side andthe human psyche on the other can be explored (Karasz andSingelis 2009). The acculturation related challenges could beexplored in relation to psychological pressure, which couldcause impairment or enhancement of mental health. Hence, thequalitative research can increase the understanding of a com-plex phenomenon as well as complement the weaknessesfound in quantitative research (Camic et al. 2003). It couldalso illuminate or validate the possible divergence between

Psychol Stud

acculturation strategies employed differently in private andpublic domains. And furthermore, it can explore the individualvariances in how culture is being negotiated and interpretedduring the process of acculturation from an agency perspec-tive. Suggestion for a three-phased research design is illustrat-ed in Fig. 1.

Using mixed methods, a position of pragmatism (Creswelland Plano Clark 2007; Feilzer 2010) seems to be a promisingapproach to study acculturation. From this position, the re-searcher can abandon the forced-choice dichotomy betweenthe post-positivism found in much of the existing accultura-tion and mainstream psychology and the constructivism foundin large parts of the critical acculturation psychology. Thisposition allows and combines both approaches through mixedmethods and is thereby combining deductive and inductivethinking in the research of the acculturation. The pragmaticepistemology judge the methods based on what they canaccomplish and what works (Karasz and Singelis 2009). Inthis perspective, the quantitative findings reveal a generalpattern and the qualitative phase explores the variations andtemporal aspects of the acculturation process.

The research design could further be strengthened throughlongitudinal studies capturing the temporal and dynamic per-spectives of socio-cultural changes happening over a longperiod of time. Unfortunately, the three-phase research designrequires a great deal of resources. This enhanced need forresources could be met by greater interdisciplinary collabora-tion within cognate disciplines.

Conclusion

The study of acculturation psychology constitutes a youngbranch of social psychology. Positioned within cross-culturalpsychology, this new study covers a comprehensive and grow-ing area of research. The issue of acculturation is of immenseimportance in today’s societies characterized by a high pace ofsociocultural change and prevalent cultural meetings. Thiscomplex phenomenon is clearly a subject for interdisciplinarycollaboration, where the nuanced study of culture and socialstructure can enrich the psychological theorizing.

This review has presented the research position and maintheoretical conceptualizations of acculturation psychology. Ithas described the struggle to balance the universalist episte-mology between an absolutist and a relativist approach.Through the bidimensional approach, an acknowledged gen-eral framework for studying acculturation has been founded.

As presented in the review of criticism and suggestions fordevelopment in the field of acculturation psychology, there isa need for methodological as well as theoretical develop-ments. However, dismissing the existing, quantitative basedparadigm and replacing it with an excluding constructionistand qualitative paradigm do not achieve this. The develop-ment should comply with the dialectic process where thetension between a thesis and antithesis is resolved by themeans of a synthesis. This synthesis could use mixed methodsand integrate both emic and etic perspectives leading to anunderstanding of culture as something that is, at the same time,

Fig. 1 A three-phasemixedmethods research design. The thick arrows illustrate the temporal progress while the thin arrows reflect influential directionsand validations

Psychol Stud

common for a population and negotiated, reinterpreted andused specifically by the individual.

Acculturation psychology is a relatively young disciplineand much advancement is needed before it can reach univer-sally relevant conclusions. Complyingwith the findings in thisreview, advancement could be the integration of contextualdata guiding the quantitative methods, which could further besupplemented by qualitative inquiry. The theoretical frame-work presented by Berry needs advancement towardsmultimethod designs that, to a greater degree, include theculture-specific history and dynamic situation as well as theindividual differences and flexibility. The importance of thetopic of acculturation in psychology is indisputable and thefuture will surely bring great advancement in this new branchof psychology.

References

Adamopoulos, J., & Lonner, W. J. (2001). Culture and psychology at acrossroad. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture andpsychology (pp. 11–34). New York: Oxford University Press.

Adams, M., & Hanna, P. (2012). Your past is not their present: time, theother, and ethnocentrism in cross-cultural personality psychology.Theory & Psychology, 22(4), 436.

Arendts-Tóth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006a). Assessment ofpsychological acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.),The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 142–160). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Arendts-Tóth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006b). Issues in the concep-tualization and assessment of acculturation. In M. H. Bornstein & L.R. Cote (Eds.), Acculturation and parent–child relationship–mea-surement and development (pp. 33–62). New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Publishers.

Arendts-Tóth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Acculturation attitudes:a comparison of measurement methods. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 37(7), 1462–1488. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00222.x.

Arendts-Tóth, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2006). Theinfluence of method factors on the relation between attitudes andself-reported behaviors in the assessment of acculturation.EuropeanJournal of Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 4–12. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.22.1.4.

Berry, J. W. (1970). Marginality, stress and ethnic identification in anacculturated aboriginal community. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 1(3), 239–252. doi:10.1177/135910457000100303.

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: Westview Press.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Constructing and expanding a framework: opportu-nities for developing acculturation research. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 46(1), 62–68. doi:10.1080/026999497378548.

Berry, J. W. (2000). Cross-cultural psychology: a symbiosis of culturaland comparative approaches. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,3(3), 197–205. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00064.

Berry, J. W. (2002). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M.Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marín (Eds.), Acculturation: Advancesin theory, measurement and applied research (pp. 17–38).Washington: American Psychological Association.

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

Berry, J. W. (2006b). Design of acculturation studies. In D. L. Sam & J.W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psy-chology (pp. 129–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, J. W. (2008). Globalisation and acculturation. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 328–336. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.04.001.

Berry, J. W. (2009). A critique of critical acculturation. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 361–371. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.06.003.

Berry, J. W., & Kim, U. (1993). The way ahead: From indigenouspsychologies to a universal psychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry(Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cul-tural context (pp. 277–280). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2011). Variations in the assessment ofacculturation attitudes: their relationships with psychologicalwellbeing. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(5),658–669. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.002.

Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2003). Accuracy in scientific discourse.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44(1), 65–68. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00322.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992).Cross-cultural psychology (1st ed.). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002).Cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Berry, J. W., Sam, D. L., & Rogers, A. (2006). Conclusions. In D. L. Sam& J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturationpsychology (pp. 525–528). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001). Rethinking ‘acculturation’ in relation todiasporic cultures and postcolonial identities. Human Development,44(1), 1–18. doi:10.1159/000057036.

Boski, P. (2008). Five meanings of integration in acculturation research.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(2), 142–153.doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.005.

Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towardsan interactive acculturation model: a social psychological approach.International Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369–386. doi:10.1080/002075997400629.

Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E., & Yardley, L. (2003). Naming the stars:Integrating qualitative methods into psychological research. In P. M.Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research inpsychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design(pp. 3–15). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Chirkov, V. (2009a). Introduction to the special issue on critical accultur-ation psychology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,33(2), 87–93. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.03.003.

Chirkov, V. (2009b). Critical psychology of acculturation: what do westudy and how do we study it, when we investigate acculturation?International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 94–105.doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.004.

Chirkov, V. (2009c). Summary of the criticism and of the potential waysto improve acculturation psychology. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 33(2), 177–180. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.03.005.

Cresswell, J. (2009). Towards a post-critical praxis: intentional states andrecommendations for change in acculturation psychology.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 162–172.doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.005.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conductingmixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

D’Andrade, R. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Psychol Stud

Del Pilar, J., & Udasco, A. (2004). Deculturation: its lack of validity.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(2), 169–176.doi:10.1037/1099-9809.10.2.169.

Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically:implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research para-digm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16. doi:10.1177/1558689809349691.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. NewYork: Basic Books.Graves, T. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community.

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 23Greenfield, P. M. (2000). Three approaches to the psychology of

culture: where do they come from? where can they go? AsianJournal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 223–240. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00066.

Hunt, L. M., Schneider, S., & Corner, B. (2004). Should “acculturation”be a variable in health research? a critical review of research on USHispanics. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 973–986. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.12.009.

Karasz, A., & Singelis, T. M. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methodsresearch in cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 40(6), 909–916. doi:10.1177/0022022109349172.

Kim, U. (2000). Indigenous, cultural, and cross-cultural psychology: atheoretical, conceptual, and epistemological analysis. Asian Journalof Social Psychology, 3(3), 265–287. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00068.

Koneru, V. K.,Weisman deMamani, A. G., Flyn, P. M., & Betancourt, H.(2007). Acculturation and mental health: current findings and rec-ommendations for future research. Applied and PreventivePsychology, 12(2), 76–96. doi:10.1016/j.appsy.2007.07.016.

Lazarus, R. S. (1997). Acculturation isn’t everything. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 46(1), 39–43. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01089.x.

Lopez-Class, M., Castro, F. G., & Ramirez, A. G. (2011). Conceptions ofacculturation: a review and statement of critical issues. SocialScience & Medicine, 72(9), 1555–1562. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.011.

Matsudaira, T. (2006). Measures of psychological acculturation: a review.Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(3), 462–487. doi:10.1177/1363461506066989.

Miller, M. J., Yang, M., Lim, R. H., Hui, K., Choi, N., Fan, X., . . .Blackmon, S. (2013). A test of the domain-specific acculturationstrategy hypothesis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic MinorityPsychology, 19(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1037/a0030499.

Minturn, L. (1983). Ethnocentrism in cross-cultural research; and what todo about it. Behavior Science Research, 18(3), 213–227. doi:10.1177/106939718301800303.

Mishra, R. C., Sinha, D., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Ecology, acculturationand psychological adaptation: A study of Adivasis in Bihar. Delhi:Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Navas, M., García, M. C., Sánchez, J., Rojas, A. J., Pumares, P., &Fernández, J. S. (2005). Relative acculturation extended model(RAEM): new contributions with regard to the study of accultura-tion. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(1), 21–37.doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.001.

Nguyen, H. H., & von Eye, A. (2002). The acculturation scale forVietnamese adolescents (ASVA): a bidimensional perspective.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(3), 202–213.doi:10.1080/01650250042000672.

Nisbett, R. (1971). Ethnocentrism and the comparative method. In A. R.Desai (Ed.), Essays on modernization of undeveloped societies (pp.95–114). Bombay: Thacker and Co.

Pick, S. (1997). Berry in legoland. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 46(1), 49–52. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01091.x.

Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum forthe study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38(1), 149–152. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00213.

Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology ofassimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review ofGeneral Psychology, 7(1), 3–37. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.3.

Rudmin, F. W. (2009). Constructs, measurements and models of accul-turation and acculturative stress. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 33(2), 106–123. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001.

Rudmin, F. W. (2010). Phenomenology of acculturation: retrospectivereports from the Philippines, Japan, Quebec, andNorway.Culture &Psychology, 16(3), 313–332. doi:10.1177/1354067X10371139.

Rudmin, F. W., & Ahmadzadeh, V. (2001). Psychometric critique ofacculturation psychology: the case of Iranian migrants in Norway.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42(1).

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 ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 49–65. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.49.

Sam, D. L. (2006). Acculturation: Conceptual background and corecomponents. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridgehandbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 11–26). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010).Rethinking the concept of acculturation: implications for theory andresearch. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. doi:10.1037/a0019330.

Shweder, R. A. (2000). The psychology of practice and the practice of thethree psychologies. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 207–222. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00065.

Sommerlad, E. A., & Berry, J. W. (1970). The role of ethnic identificationin distinguishing between attitudes towards assimilation and inte-gration of a minority racial group. Human Relations, 23(1), 23–29.doi:10.1177/001872677002300103.

Tartakovsky, E. (2010). Found in transition: an acculturation narrative ofimmigration from the former Soviet Union to Israel. Culture &Psychology, 16(3), 349–363. doi:10.1177/1354067X10371137.

Triandis, H. C. (1997). Where is culture in the acculturation model?Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 55–58.doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01093.x.

Triandis, H. C. (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-culturalpsychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 185–195.doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00063.

Trimble, J. E. (2002). Introduction: Social change and acculturation. In K.M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marín (Eds.), Acculturation–ad-vances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 3–13).Washington: American Psychological Association.

van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Matsumoto, D. (2011). Introduction to themethodological issues associated with cross-cultural research. In D.Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural researchmethods in psychology (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Waldram, J. B. (2004). Revenge of the Windigo: The construction of themind and mental health of North American Aboriginal peoples.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Waldram, J. B. (2009). Is there a future for ‘culture’ in acculturationresearch? an anthropologist’s perspective. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 33(2), 173–176. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.03.004.

Ward, C. (2008). Thinking outside the berry boxes: new perspectives onidentity, acculturation and intercultural relations. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 32(2), 105–114. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.11.002.

Ward, C., & Kus, L. (2012). Back to and beyond Berry’s basics: theconceptualization, operationalization and classification of accultur-ation. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Relations, 36(4),472–485. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.02.002.

Psychol Stud