Kramer refers to changes in any culture due to acculturation as co-evolution. [22] Kramer also addresses what he calls the qualities of our vectors, which deal with nature, in which the old and new culture come into contact. [23] Kramer uses the term “interaction potential” to refer to differences in individual or group acculturative processes. For example, the process of acculturation is markedly different when entering admission as an immigrant or refugee. In addition, this idea sums up how important it is, how receptive a welcoming culture is to the newcomer, how easy it is for the newcomer to interact with and get to know the host, and how this interaction affects both the newcomer and the host. However, the acculturation category model has been criticized on at least two fronts (Rudmin, 2003, 2009). First, the creation of matrix 2 × 2 of acculturation categories requires that individuals be ranked high or low in the acquisition of culture and in the preservation of cultural heritage. The main methods of classifying individuals as high or low in categories involved the use of a priori values, such as the median of the sample (e.g., Giang and Wittig, 2006) or the midpoint of the range of possible values (e.g., Coatsworth et al., 2005), as intersections. The use of a priori intersections increases the probability that the same number of participants in each dimension will be classified as high and low, and therefore the four Berry categories will be well represented in the sample. However, the intersection between high and low is arbitrary and differs from sample to sample, making comparisons between studies difficult. The use of a priori classification rules presupposes that all four categories exist and are equally valid (Rudmin, 2003). In fact, research suggests that empirically stricter methods of classifying individuals (e.g., cluster analysis, latent class analysis) may not be able to extract all categories or extract multiple variants from one or more categories (e.g., Schwartz and Zamboanga, 2008). This suggests that not all berry categories exist in a given sample or population, and that some categories may have multiple subtypes.
In some cases, acculturation leads to the adoption of the language of another country, which is then changed over time to a new separate language. For example, Hanzi, the written language of the Chinese language, has been adapted and modified by other neighboring cultures, including: Japan (as kanji), Korea (as hanja), and Vietnam (as hán tự). Jews, often living as ethnic minorities, developed distinct languages derived from the common languages of the countries in which they lived (e.g., High German Yiddish and Old Spanish Ladino). Another common effect of acculturation on language is the formation of Pidgin languages. Pidgin is a mixed language designed to facilitate communication between members of different cultures in contact that usually occur in situations of trade or colonialism. [51] For example, Pidgin English is a simplified form of English mixed with some languages of another culture. Some Pidgin languages may evolve into creole languages that are spoken as a first language. Before we begin our review and expansion of the literature on acculturation, we should note that the issues we raise in this article may not apply to groups that experience involuntary submission, either on their own land (e.g., Native Americans) or after their ancestors were forced to emigrate to another nation (e.g., , African Americans).
In these groups, acculturation is likely to interact with a complex set of grievances that generally do not apply to immigrants, refugees, refugee claimants, and travellers (e.g., Forman, 2006). Therefore, a discussion of involuntarily subject groups is beyond the scope of this article. The sponge mechanism describes acculturation from the point of view of absorbing information and expelling cultural values. [33] This suggests that each person has a mindset (or set of core values) that influences their thinking and behaviour, and that acculturation occurs when their core cultural values change. If a person is exposed to new cultural values and believes that these values are subjectively beneficial, they are more likely to accept these values in order to penetrate the mindset and eventually replace core cultural values. However, if emergent and existing values are in conflict with each other, this necessarily leads to the rejection of weaker (or less subjectively valuable) values, but they can coexist and subsequently influence the person`s thinking and behavior. This phenomenon can be called cultural additivity. [34] Many aspects of the literature on acculturation need to be rethought, and we focus on some of them here.
First, we examine and compare important models of acculturation developed in cultural psychology, and describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches. Second, we discuss the role of ethnicity and the similarity between cultural heritage and host culture in acculturation. Third, we describe how acculturation is more or less important for different groups or types of migrants and can work differently. Fourth, we discuss the immigrant paradox, in which acculturation has been studied in simplified terms of health outcomes, and propose to address the immigrant paradox by broadening the conceptualization of acculturation. Fifth, we present such an extended model of acculturation – including cultural practices, values and identifications – that has the potential to synthesize multiple existing literatures and increase the theoretical, empirical and practical utility of the concept of acculturation. Finally, we describe the host context as how the host society limits and orients the acculturation options available to migrants, and we place acculturative stress and discrimination in an unfavourable reception context. Another question that needs to be addressed is the extent to which acculturation patterns and their relationship to psychosocial and health outcomes differ between migrant groups and host societies. There is evidence, for example, that the attitudes of members of the host society towards migrants – and the expectations of members of the host society about how immigrants should acculturate – interact with migrants` own models of acculturation to determine the extent to which migrants are welcomed positively or unfavourably (Berry, 2006c; Rohmann et al., 2008).
Members of the host society may also have different attitudes towards migrants from different ethnic groups, migrants from different socio-economic groups, and migrants who have migrated for different reasons, as described earlier in this article. For example, a white businessman with a French or Italian accent may be viewed more favorably than a dark-skinned Mexican farm worker with a Spanish accent. Not only are there a variety of measurement scales for a variety of cultures, but there are also many theories developed by anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists and other social scientists trying to understand the process of acculturation. Rudmin reported that in 2003 there were at least a hundred taxonomies of acculturation types. However, there is little agreement between them or ways to compare theoretical concepts, and therefore no overall model has emerged. Sometimes, however, acculturation has irreversible effects that harm the recipient`s culture. This is the case for many Indigenous peoples, such as the First Nations of Canada, the Native Americans of the United States, the Taiwanese Amerindians, and the Amerindians, who have almost completely lost their traditional culture (the most obvious language) and replaced it with the new dominant culture. These adverse cases are related to assimilation, resulting in the loss of many, if not all, characteristics of the culture of origin. Assimilation often leads to the complete assimilation of a minority culture into a dominant culture, and therefore the region where assimilation takes place is sometimes referred to as the “melting pot”.
Two opposing tendencies play a role in such a “melting pot” – one that strives to equalize all cultures and merge into one, and the other that tends to preserve cultural identity and uniqueness. Fourth, acculturation may be important for late-generation immigrants living in ethnic enclaves – regions where the vast majority of residents belong to the same ethnic group. Examples include Miami, the South Bronx, East Los Angeles, and Chinatown neighborhoods in various U.S. cities. In some of these enclaves, heritage culture is preserved in such a way that migrants – especially those who arrive as adults and have not received formal schooling in the society of settlement – can function in their daily lives without interacting with the host society or acquiring the practices, values or identifications of the host society (Schwartz, Pantin, et al., 2006). The presence of a large and influential cultural community can also encourage youth to maintain the language, values and heritage identity at least in the second generation, if not beyond (Stepick, Grenier, Castro, & Dunn, 2003). Indeed, acculturation – especially the preservation of heritage and culture – may take place differently in ethnic enclaves than in other types of contexts. Since the early 1980s, cultural psychologists have recognized that the acquisition of host country beliefs, values and practices does not automatically mean that an immigrant rejects (or ceases to support) the beliefs, values and practices of his or her country of origin (e.g., Berry, 1980).