Psychological adaptation has been seen to be best explained in terms of stress and coping framework, while sociocultural adaptation is best understood with culture learning approach (e.g. Berry, 2006b; Ward et al., 2001; Ward &
Kennedy, 1999). The stress and coping approach refers to the core assumption that culture contact is inherently stressful (Ward et al., 2001).
These studies include e.g. Berry’s acculturative stress model (1970, 1997, 2006b) and different coping theories, like Folkman and Lazarus’s (1985) coping strategies. According to Ward & Kennedy (1999) the culture learning approach emphasizes “the acquisition of culture-specific skills, behavioral dimensions of adaptation to change, and the significance of intercultural interactions” (p.673). In Ward, Bochner & Furnham’s (2001) The Psychology of Culture Shock the authors identified three main areas of individual change during acculturation, referring to these as “ABCs of acculturation”. These are the affective, behavioural and cognitive aspects of the acculturation process.
The main theoretical perspectives on how individuals manage the acculturation process are, respectively, 1) the stress and coping approach, highlighting the affective perspective 2) the cultural learning approach, dealing with behavioural components and 3) social identification orientation, which discusses the cognitive aspects of acculturation.
2.3.1 THE STRESS AND COPING APPROACH
Berry (1997, 2006b) first introduced the term acculturative stress, indicating those changes that generate stress in the acculturation process. According to Berry (1997) the concept of stress denotes here physiological and emotional reactions to conditions of living, a definition borrowed from Lazarus (1990).
The term stress is based on studies how people deal with negative experiences (stressors) by engaging in various coping strategies, leading eventually to some form of adaptation (Berry, 2006b). People are seen as potentially able to deal efficiently with stressors and achieve outcomes (adaptations), whether the outcomes are positive or negative. Berry (2006b) has written he prefers the term acculturative stress rather than Oberg’s (1960) culture shock, though he acknowledges that it has a broadly similar meaning. However, he sees the term shock implying that only difficulties will result from culture contact, whereas the acculturative stress theory points out that acculturation experiences can be advantageous, providing opportunities and stimulating experiences. Berry (1997, 2006b) also prefers the term acculturative rather than culture, referring with this to the fact that stressful experiences happen
17
in the interaction between two cultures instead of considering that only one culture affects the process.
Psychological acculturation stems from the experience of having to deal with two cultures in contact, and having to participate to various extents in both of them (Berry, 1997). According to Berry (1997), acculturative stress appears when moderate difficulties are experienced during acculturation. If acculturation is rather easy and only small psychological changes are needed, behavioural shifts may be sufficient and acculturative stress may not occur.
However, this also requires some culture shedding: the unlearning of aspects of one’s behaviour that are no longer appropriate. It is also accompanied by some culture conflict, meaning that incompatible behaviours create difficulties for the individual (Berry, 1997). On the other hand, when changes in the cultural context exceed the individual’s capacities to cope, serious psychological disturbances, such as clinical depression or incapacitating anxiety may occur (Berry, 1997). As individuals deal with these experiences that they feel as problematic in acculturation, they can be seen as choosing different kinds of coping strategies. In coping theories Folkman and Lazarus (1985) drew distinctions between problem-focused (attempts to change or solve the problem) and emotion-focused (attempts to regulate the emotions associated with the problem) coping styles. Cross (1995) made a distinction between primary and secondary coping strategies. Primary strategies imply changing the environment to suit the self, whereas secondary strategies reflect changing the self to suit the environment. Cross (1995) argued that people in individualistic cultures prefer primary coping strategies and people from collectivist cultures prefer secondary strategies. This proposition has been questioned, though, to some extent (e.g. Ward et al., 2001, 78-79).
2.3.2 THE CULTURE LEARNING APPROACH
The culture learning approach examines the behavioural dimensions of acculturation. It highlights communication competence and language learning, and refers to sociocultural adaptation as an outcome (Masgoret &
Ward, 2006). The theory is based on the assumption that cross-cultural problems arise because individuals have difficulties in managing everyday social encounters in a new social milieu (Furnham & Bochner, 1982.). The traditional line of studies concerns cultural differences in communication styles, norms and values (e.g. Gudykunst, 1993; Hammer et al., 1978: Kim, 1977), and theories are still being developed (e.g. Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001;
Oguri & Gudykunst, 2002; Kim, 2008). Another recent line of work by Ward and colleagues has emphasized sociocultural adaptation, called cultural fit (e.g. Ward, Leong & Low, 2004). This approach accentuates the ability to negotiate the interactive aspects of life in a new cultural milieu, and take into account the interaction of personality and situational factors (e.g. Searle &
18
Ward, 1990; Ward & Chang, 1997; Ward & Kennedy, 1999). All in all, sociocultural adaptation refers to the ability to fit in, not only through language proficiency and communication competence, but also through adaptation to new ecologies, norms, values and worldviews (Masgoret &
Ward, 2006).
Language proficiency and communication competence are seen to work reciprocally in effective intercultural interaction, leading to sociocultural adaptation (Masgoret & Ward, 2006). Language proficiency has a straightforward relationship to sociocultural adjustment. As one learns the language of a new society, interaction with the host community increases, leading to better adaptation and fewer adjustment problems (Ward &
Kennedy, 1993b). Competent communication also includes numerous aspects of nonverbal communication, such as culture-specific gestures, facial expressions, body postures, expressions of emotion, greetings, forms of address, use of silence and interpersonal space, just to mention a few (Masgoret & Ward, 2006; Ward et al. 2001, 53-61). Nordic people, for example, have been found out to make little use of gestures compared to expressive Latin cultures, and Southern Europeans and Latin American people have smaller interpersonal space and frequent physical contact, especially compared to East Asian people (Masgoret & Ward, 2006).
2.3.3 SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION ORIENTATION
Ward et al. (2001) see the origins of social identification theories in two related bodies of theory and research: 1) studies on identity and acculturation and 2) Tajfel’s (1978) Social Identity Theory (SIT) applied to cross-cultural research. Ethnic or cultural identity is the central concept in these theories, and the relation between self-definition and group membership is studied along with intergroup processes and dynamics (Ward et al., 2001, 98).
Berry’s (1974, 1997, 2006a) model of the acculturation process is probably the most recognized and used categorical approach in cross-cultural studies concerning identity. The model describes to what degree an individual simultaneously participates in the cultural life of a new society and adapts to its customs and culture, and to what degree one maintains one’s original cultural identity. In situations where individuals have freedom of choice, the four acculturation strategies are defined as follows: 1) Assimilation is the strategy when individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity, seek daily interaction with other cultures and adopt the cultural values, norms and traditions of the new society. 2) Separation strategy refers to holding on to one’s original culture and avoiding interaction with members of the new culture. 3) Integration is the strategy when individuals have both an interest in maintaining their own culture, and at the same time have daily interactions with other groups. 4) Marginalization is defined when there is little interest, or
19
possibility, in cultural maintenance, and little interest in having relations with other groups. (Berry, 2006a.)
In his social identity theory Tajfel (1978) defined three major features of social identity: 1) It is part of the self-concept; 3) it requires awareness of membership in a group: and 3) it has evaluative and emotional significance.
Social identification studies are based on social categorization and social comparison. The group that an individual regards himself as belonging to is the in-group, and the other groups to which this group is compared to are the out-groups. It is recognized that the division into in-groups and out-groups exists; they are compared, and comparisons, whether favourable or unfavourable, have consequences for self-esteem. Along with social identity theory abundant research has been conducted investigating social, cultural, ethnic or national identity and acculturation. Since this line of theories would require a whole book to be presented, I will only review here a few studies and articles that might prove interesting concerning the study at hand.
Liebkind (2006) has drawn attention to the concept of ethnic identity, which has sometimes been confused with social identity, or has been treated simply as the ethnic component of social identity. Social identity derives from the social position of one’s membership group, whereas ethnic identity “refers to an individual’s sense of self in terms of membership in a particular ethnic group” (Liebkind, 2006, 78).
Integrated identity, also called bicultural identity refers to the situation where identification is strong both with the ethnic group and with the new larger society. It has usually been shown to be the most successful acculturation strategy, leading to most psychologically adaptive outcomes (e.g.
Berry, Phinney, Sam & Vedder, 2006; Chen et al., 2008; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind & Vedder, 2001). In the study by Phinney et al. (2001) the authors proposed a model investigating the interactions between ethnic and national8 identities and adaptation to the new society, taking into account both the attitudes and characteristics of immigrants, as well as the responses of the receiving society. Moderating factors, such as gender, age at time of migration, and generation of migration help in understanding the situational variations in the acculturation process. The authors accentuated the fact that different identity categories (assimilated, separated, marginalized, integrated) vary not only between groups but also in different settings, such as schools or ethnic neighbourhoods (Phinney et al., 2001).
Snauwaert, Soenens, Vanbeselaere & Boen (2003) demonstrated in their research on Moroccan and Turkish immigrants in Belgium that neither adoption of the host culture’s habits (adoption acculturation orientation) nor identification with Belgians (identification acculturation orientation) was connected to contacts with Belgians (contact acculturation orientation). They
8 National identity refers to identification with the new society (Phinney et al. 2001), including feelings of belonging to, and attitudes toward, the larger society (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997, in Phinney et al. 2001).
20
could show that the majority of both Moroccans and Turkish immigrants regarded intercultural contacts with Belgians as important but they did not adopt the Belgian culture nor identified with Belgians (Snauwaert et al., 2003). In other words, it is important to make clear distinctions between different conceptualizations of acculturation orientations.