Acculturative stress

The definition proposed by Redfield and his colleagues (1936) disclosed that acculturation encompasses all forms of change. It is indicated that there is the need to consider the psychological changes at the individual level (Sam, & Berry, 2010). These changes range from simple behavioral shifts (e.g., in ways of speaking and eating) to more problematic facets that produce acculturative stress (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987).

The stress naturally comes along as part of adaptation once migration takes place.

Especially at the beginning stage of the adaptation process, the newcomer is overwhelmed by daily problems (Abouguendia & Noels, 2001). Berry (1997, 2010) suggested in his

acculturative stress model that migration is naturally stressful, and this stress could result in lowered mental health status, particularly in anxiety, depression, uncertainty and feelings of marginality and alienation, increased adjustment disorder symptom levels, and identity confusion. This stress is negatively related to acculturation and can affect individuals vastly with a disruptive effect on their psychological and physiological well-being (Glass & Bieber, 1997). This stress appears more severe at a low level of acculturation since the stress is a product of the anxiety of dealing with an unfamiliar environment for all migrants (Bochner, 1982). Likewise, researchers have found the prevalence of suicidal behaviors among the first or second –generation immigrant populations was higher than among the general population (Hjern & Allebeck, 2002; Lindert, Schouler-Ocak, Heinz, & Priebe, 2008). A high level of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts are also found among adolescents born of immigrant parents (Choquet & Ledoux, 1998; Douillard, 2003, as cited in Van Leeuwen, Rodgers, Régner, & Chabrol, 2010).

On the other hand, Kim (2001, 2002) declared acculturative stress has been found to be positively correlated with the learning and growth-facilitating nature of the adaptation process. The core of Kim’s theory is the “stress-adaptation-growth dynamic”, which is

stimulated by a continual and cyclic tension between stress and adaptation that produces an appearance of subtle growth. She claims a forward and upward psychological movement of intercultural transformation towards greater adaptation and growth. The intercultural transformation emerges in three facets: 1) increased functional fitness, 2) improved

psychological health, and 3) moving into intercultural identity (Kim, 2001). Moreover, shared networks with members of the host country have been found to facilitate the acculturation process. However, the home country network may instead hinder acculturation over a long period, because it reduces the motivation for social interaction with the host country members, and as a result the needs to learn acceptable social behaviors (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Kim, 2001). Conversely, Sandel and Liang (2010) found a long-term association with co-ethnics appears to correlate positively with greater satisfaction and adaptation.

Studies have found this acculturative stress or as it is commonly known, culture shock, often stems from the process of acculturation (Dyal & Dyal, 1981; Graham, 1983 as cited in Dow, 2010). Culture shock refers to the feeling of disorientation and anxiety that a sojourner experiences when entering a new culture (Liu, Volcic, & Gallois, 2011). It also has been indirectly supported by other sojourner studies that attempted to depict the stages of the adaptation process (Kim, 2002). The anthropologist Oberg (1979) identified the four stages of culture shock: 1) a honeymoon stage characterized by fascination and optimism; 2) a crisis stage characterized emotionally stereotyped attitudes toward the host society and increased association with the fellow sojourners; 3) a recovery stage characterized by increased language knowledge and ability to get around in the new environment; and 4) the adaptation stage characterized the adjustment is about as complete as possible, anxiety is largely gone and new customs are accepted and enjoyed (as cited in Kim, 2002). Empirical studies have documented what is called a “U-curve hypothesis” (e.g., Furnham, 1988; Ward et al., 1998).

This U- curve model delineates how sojourners typically embark on their cross-cultural

adaptation process with optimism and excitement, followed by a sequent crisis and dissatisfaction, and a recovery (Kim, 2002). Similar findings emerged in a study of multicultural relationships in Finland. After the initial excitement, the Finnish foreign spouses generally moved towards the crisis stage during the first year due to difficult language, cold winter, unemployment, and so forth. Followed by environmental support, coping strategy and relationship development, spouses moved forward to a stable relationship and problems were seen as a natural part of daily life (Angle, Uusiautti, & Määttä, 2014).

In reality, host cultural attitudes can exert a strong influence on how immigrants experience the acculturation process (Kosic, Mannetti, & Lackland Sam, 2005). The attitude of intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination aimed at immigrants, refugees, and sojourners is often reflected in host conformity pressure (Kim, 2001). Bond and Smith’s (1996) result revealed the degree of conformity varied with aspects of culture, and generally was correlated to the tightness of a society like a subsistence society. They found that conformity was lower in societies valuing autonomy, individualism, and status achievement, while it was higher in societies that held values of conservatism, collectivism and a preference for status

acknowledgment.

However, poor adaptation is not necessarily an inevitable outcome of migration. This is because moderating and mediating factors such as age, personality, gender, social support, acculturating strategies, and coping can either strengthen or ease the adaptation outcome (Berry, 2006). Moreover, a distinction has been made between psychological and

sociocultural adaptation by Ward (2001). She stated that in the broadest sense, psychological adaptation refers to an individual’s satisfaction and overall emotional or psychological well-being; yet sociocultural adaptation refers to how successfully the individual acquires the appropriate sociocultural skills needed for living in the new sociocultural milieu.