A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: This critique is divided into three sections. The rst section is a review of my positions on
Accepted 16 June 2009 three core issues regarding the nature of the human sciences (particularly cross-cultural
and acculturation psychology) that have been raised throughout these articles. Knowledge
Keywords: of these positions is essential background to understanding my comments in the second
Knowledge section. In the second section are some comments on specic claims and assertions about
Understanding my work that have been made in the articles. I believe that many of these assertions do not
Human science
represent my views, nor my empirical research, on acculturation. Of necessity, I have had
to select certain themes among all of these assertions. Although the special issue is a
critique of acculturation theory and research in general, the majority of the comments are
addressed to my work in the area. Hence, I have concentrated on criticisms directed at my
own work, rather than attempting to address the eld as a whole. However, my comments
likely have more general import for the eld of acculturation psychology as a whole. I
invite readers to consider these very contrasting sets of views about how we are to
understand individual human beings within the context of cultures, and of culture contact
and change. A third section returns to some of the basic issues regarding the nature of the
scientic enterprise. I advocate a dual approach, accepting both the natural sciences and
cultural sciences ways of advancing our knowledge of human behaviour in context. I argue
that dismissing the positivist traditions of the natural sciences, and replacing them with
social constructionist concepts and methods is a regressive step in our search to improve
our understanding of acculturation. Moreover, I have found little in these articles that
advances our knowledge of acculturation, or our potential for making applications for the
betterment of acculturating individuals and groups.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The opportunity to reply to these articles is very much appreciated. This reply is divided into three sections. The rst
section is a review of my positions on three core issues regarding the nature of the human sciences (particularly cross-
cultural and acculturation psychology) that have been raised throughout these articles. Knowledge of these positions is
essential background to understanding my comments in the second section. In the second section are some comments on
specic claims and assertions about my work that have been made in the articles. I believe that many of these assertions do
not represent my views, nor my empirical research, on acculturation. Of necessity, I have had to select certain themes among
all of these assertions. Although the special issue is a critique of acculturation theory and research in general, the majority of
the comments are addressed to my work in the area. Hence, I have concentrated on criticisms directed at my own work,
rather than attempting to address the eld as a whole. However, my comments likely have more general import for the eld
0147-1767/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.06.003
362 J.W. Berry / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 361371
of acculturation psychology as a whole. I invite readers to consider these very contrasting sets of views about how we are to
understand individual human beings within the context of cultures, and of culture contact and change. A third section
returns to some of the basic issues regarding the nature of the scientic enterprise. I advocate a dual approach, accepting
both the natural sciences and cultural sciences ways of advancing our knowledge of human behaviour in context. I argue that
dismissing the positivist traditions of the natural sciences, and replacing them with social constructionist concepts and
methods is a regressive step in our search to improve our understanding of acculturation. Moreover, I have found little in
these articles that advances our knowledge of acculturation, or our potential for making applications for the betterment of
acculturating individuals and groups.
I begin with a well-known quote:
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. (Shakespeare; Hamlet, Act II, scene ii).
There are two reasons for using this quote. If we replace good with true, the following two statements can be generated:
All things are true if one thinks they are; there is no need for an empirical referent in the outside world. This remark is
directed at the recent advent of the social constructivist perspective in anthropology and psychology.
Numerous assertions about my views are made in the various articles; simply saying and repeating them does not make
them true. This remark is directed at the serious lack of evidence provided by many of the authors to substantiate their
assertions.
There are three fundamental issues where my views about the human sciences differ from those underlying these articles.
First is the character of scientic enquiry in the human sciences generally. The second is the comparative study of human
behaviour in cultural context (i.e., cross-cultural psychology). And the third is the study of how individuals work through the
process of adapting to a life in a new society (i.e., acculturation psychology).
Human beings are part of the natural world; as members of a single species, we share basic psychological processes and
capacities. These commonalities allow for intercultural understanding, and for making comparisons. One task for
psychology is to search for these commonalities, as part of our search for an understanding of our common humanity.
Human beings are part of the cultural world; we make various cultures, and are shaped by these cultures. One task for
psychology is to sample these variations in order to appreciate our magnicent variety; another task is to employ them in
comparative research in our search for our common humanity.
My claim is that both propositions are true. However, my reading of the main arguments in the articles in this special issue
indicates that the authors consider only one (the second proposition) to be true. For example, Chirkov comments (p. 97):
Thus, the process of acculturation could be addressed from two different philosophical positions. Researchers could apply a
naturalistic approach position and analyze acculturation as a natural science phenomenon trying to explain it through
discovering and applying universal covering laws of acculturation and then predicting future outcomes of this process. Or
researchers could look at acculturation through the prism of the interpretative social sciences and focus on the dynamics of
the changes in the intersubjective meanings of various culturally constructed realities and study individuals intrasubjective
meanings that immigrants assign to their actions in a new country (emphasis on Or added). In my view, this either/or
position seriously limits the possibility of attaining a comprehensive knowledge of the processes and outcomes of
acculturation.
My position is that the use of approaches from both the natural and cultural traditions of research should be used in
research on acculturation. The advantage of employing both approaches is that it allows for comparative work (based on our
common membership in one species), and for work that focuses on the individual within the nexus of a single culture. This
joint approach can be based on three sets of ideas drawn from the eld of cross-cultural psychology.
In taking this dual stance, I follow in the footsteps of Donald Campbell who advocated using concepts and methods drawn
from both traditions. In editing Campbells collected papers, Overman (1988, pp. xviii, xix) notes that in many of his works,
Campbell sought: to reconcile differences between the quantitative tradition and all it stands for and the qualitative
tradition and all it stands for. The dominant characteristic of these essays is Campbells ability to weave a path, not just
between quantitative and qualitative knowing, but also between the goal of objectivity and ontological nihilism, between
the empirical-behaviourist expectation and the solipsism of phenomenal absolutism. His success depends on our willingness
not to be wedded to choosing between the two sets of beliefs, but being able to recognize and operationalize an intermediate
position . . . Donald Campbell is most notable over his long career as a social science researcher and theorist to synthesize and
reconcile these opposing perspectives.
J.W. Berry / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 361371 363
More recently, others have taken this dual stance. For example, Fry (1996) has advocated a multicultural approach to the
philosophy of science, in which both positions (cultures) are seen as part of a larger frame for engaging in social science
theorizing and research. And Glynos and Howarth (2007, p. 1) note that starting with Bernstein (1976) and continuing to the
present, while the dominant view [is] that social and political theorists ought to distinguish and then choose between
explanation, interpretation and critique, [Bernstein] optimistically advocates their dialectical integration for any theoretical
approach worth its salt.
In my view, it makes no sense to advocate for one perspective, and to dismiss the other, as is done in this special issue.
Many of the critical comments made in this special issue refer to my approach to acculturation, particularly to a lack of
attention to culture (at least as dened by the critics who accept the interpretive version). This section reiterates two basic
frameworks that have guided my work on acculturation psychology. More details of these frameworks can be found in Berry
(2005).
J.W. Berry / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 361371 365
Fig. 1. General acculturation framework showing cultural-level and psychological-level components, and the ow among them (Berry, 2003).
feature of acculturation research (e.g., Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Chirkov, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c), and
variations in them have been related to variations in both acculturation experience and to adaptation (e.g., Berry et al., 2006).
These two basic issues were initially approached from the point of view of the specic ethnocultural groups. However, the
original anthropological denition clearly established that both groups in contact would change and become acculturated.
Hence, in 1974 a third dimension was added: that of the powerful role played by the dominant group in inuencing the way
in which mutual acculturation would take place (Berry, 1974, 1980). The addition of this third dimension produces the right
side of Fig. 2. Assimilation when sought by the dominant group is termed the melting pot. When separation is forced by the
dominant group it is segregation. Marginalization, when imposed by the dominant group it is exclusion. Finally, integration,
when diversity is a widely accepted feature of the society as a whole, including by all the various ethnocultural groups, it is
called multiculturalism.
Integration can only be chosen and successfully pursued by non-dominant groups when the dominant society is open and
inclusive in its orientation towards cultural diversity (i.e., when there is widespread acceptance of a multicultural ideology;
Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977). Thus a mutual accommodation is required for integration to be attained, involving the
acceptance by both groups of the right of all groups to live as culturally different peoples. This strategy requires non-
dominant groups to adopt the basic values of the larger society, while at the same time the dominant group must be prepared
to adapt national institutions (e.g., education, health, and labour) to better meet the needs of all groups now living together in
the plural society. This position is now widely promoted by various countries (e.g., European Union, 2005; Government of
Canada, 1971); every group and every individual, is expected to give a bit in order to achieve a winwin intercultural
situation in contemporary plural societies.
With the use of this dual framework, comparisons can be made between individuals and their groups, and between
specic ethnocultural groups and the larger society within which they are acculturating. Inconsistencies and conicts
between these various acculturation preferences are common sources of difculty for those experiencing acculturation
(Bourhis, Moise, Perrault, & Senecal,1997; Navas et al., 2005). For example this can occur when individuals in the larger
society do not accept the main ideology of their society (such as when individuals oppose immigrant cultural maintenance in
a society where multiculturalism is ofcial policy), or when immigrant children challenge the way of acculturating set out by
their parents. Generally, when acculturation experiences cause problems for acculturating individuals, we observe the
phenomenon of acculturative stress, with variations in levels of adaptation.
The presentation of these strategies for the non-dominant group has been based on the assumption that non-dominant
groups and their individual members have the freedom to choose how they want to behave during their acculturation. This,
of course, is not always the case; the preferences (attitudes) of individuals do not always become expressed in their actual
behaviour. Thus, in addition to attitudes, researchers usually also assess behaviours in the same domains as their attitudes
(for example, the preferences and actual behaviours for, food eaten, language used, religion, and family relationships). There
is always less than a perfect relationship between acculturation attitudes and behaviours (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), just as in
the case of any other areas of life. As noted above, the combination of acculturation attitudes and behaviours has been
termed acculturation strategies.
Based on these general observations about cross-cultural and acculturation psychology, and the portrayal of my positions
on them, I now turn to comments on some specic issues raised in the articles in this special issue. In the opening sentence of
the concluding article, Chirkov refers (on p. 177) to the reections and opinions presented in the special issue. In this
characterization of the material as opinions I strongly agree. As foreshadowed in the opening quotation from Hamlet,
thinking (or saying or writing) something does not necessarily make it true.
One would expect that the articles in a special issue of a journal on a single topic would present a coherent picture of the
topic being addressed. At the very least there is an expectation of editorial comment on the differences across the articles.
Instead, the editor seems to have been unconcerned with disparities and inconsistencies among authors, preferring to
summarize only the communalities in the concluding article (as well as in the introduction and the rst article). For example,
most articles in the special issue advocate the interpretive or constructivist approach to acculturation rather than
following the positivist approach that is currently the dominant one (articles by Chirkov, Bhatia and Ram, Cresswell,
Waldram). However, two articles (e.g., Rudmin, Weinreich) do adopt a strict psychometric approach, which has its roots in
the positivistic tradition. No comment on this disparity is made, and hence no proposal is made to advocate the path forward
using both interpretive and positivist approaches together. Are we to develop the eld of acculturation psychology in two
mutually inconsistent directions?
There is frequent criticism of mechanistic linear models of the process of acculturation in the articles. For example, Tardif-
Williams and Fisher (p. 150) argue that acculturation is a dynamic and complex process . . . (that is) . . . a dialogic,
relationally constituted, and continually negotiated (unnalizable) process. Despite this emphasis on complexity and
interaction, there is yet another mechanistic model produced by Rudmin (p. 117, Fig. 2). And Weinreich presents a highly
mechanistic computerized procedure to assess cultural identities, but exactly how it works in practice is not easy to
368 J.W. Berry / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 361371
understand, since access is limited to those who have enough money to buy into his scheme. Neither of these mechanistic
models is criticized by the editor nor by any of the authors in the special issue.
The understanding of the position of universalism (as articulated above) is misrepresented in the special issue. It appears
that the differences between the positions of absolutism and universalism are not understood. For example, the phrase law
of acculturation was used with quotation marks (by Chirkov, p. 100, footnote 2) in commenting on our research with
immigrant youth (Berry et al., 2006). We do not use this phrase (as implied by the quotation marks), nor would I. The search
for pan-human regularities is very much a goal of comparative research on acculturation, but such acculturation universals
have not been attained as yet. And, when they are attained, in keeping with the position of universalism, they will only be
accompanied by important qualications by various cultural, social and economic factors.
Throughout the volume, there are claims that there is not enough attention paid to culture in acculturation research (at
least as dened by the current interpretive approaches; see Waldram article). For example, Chirkov (p. 95) argues: My
second thesis is that there is no attention given to culture in acculturation research . . . (emphasis on no added). He further
asserts that most research is guilty of: ignoring/omitting/skipping the descriptive phase of scientic research. This
sequence is exactly the one that I have proposed and advocated (Berry, 1989) and that is used by many cross-cultural
psychologists: emic and etic approaches are both necessary and complementary (Berry, 1999a). As noted earlier, Pike (1967)
argued that having these two perspectives on cultural and psychological phenomena is like having binocular vision:
perspective is gained by having two different points of view.
Even a cursory examination of my general acculturation framework (Fig. 1) would reveal that this joint examination of
cultural and psychological acculturation phenomena is exactly what I have been proposing, and doing, for years. The rst
research activity is to carry out the ethnographic research with the cultures (left side of the gure); only then is it possible to
develop psychological research procedures and instruments to examine the individual level phenomena (right side of the
gure). In my own research on acculturation with indigenous peoples, I have carried out these initial ethnographic studies,
using concepts and methods inherited from cultural anthropologists. In fact much of my work on acculturation has been
carried out by a team, in which there has usually been an anthropologist member (see Berry, 1976; Berry et al., 1986; Mishra
& Berry, 2008; Mishra, Sinha, & Berry, 1996). And in my research with immigrant, refugee and sojourner groups, almost
always the work has been carried out in collaboration with members of the relevant ethnocultural community (Ataca &
Berry, 2002; Aycan & Berry, 1996; Kim & Berry, 1985; Krishnan & Berry, 1992; Kwak & Berry, 2001; Sands & Berry, 1993;
Zheng & Berry, 1991). The immigrant youth study (Berry et al., 2006) was carried out with assistants selected from the
relevant ethnocultural community. Thus, in my view, the charge that culture has been ignored in the process of carrying out
research on acculturation is simply not valid. It appears that the charge is that if I do not adopt an exclusively interpretive
approach to culture, then I do not study culture!
Moreover, the two issues underlying the acculturation strategies framework (Fig. 2) were identied during extensive
ethnographic work, and are based on both key informants and open interviews at the beginning of the research projects. And
the domains of concern to both groups during acculturation are similarly identied by them. The cultural issues of concern
and even contention between them, such as language, heritage custom retention, and social relations can only be identied
in this way. This is why, when asked (as I am frequently) for my acculturation attitudes scale, I reply that I do not have one.
My position is that every acculturative arena requires initial ethnographic research to identify the domains of concern to the
two groups in contact; only then can they be rendered into a reliable and valid research instrument for use with acculturating
individuals.
A number of articles seek to (re)dene acculturation in various ways. For example, Rudmin (p. 106) recommends that
acculturation be dened as second-culture acquisition. This is a return to a unidimensional, and assimilationist view of the
process of acculturation; acculturation becomes simply taking on another culture (see comment on the concept of
enculturation, below). It entirely ignores the complexity of the process, which necessarily involves working out how to live
with and between two cultures. If acculturation is to be redened in terms of only one culture (and in a single directionthat
of culture acquisition) the core meaning of the concept will be lost.
A second example is the proposal by Weinreich (p. 125) that acculturation be (re)dened as enculturation. In my view, as
long as individuals are involved in two distinguishable cultural groups in contact, then acculturation (not simply
enculturation) processes will be involved. This is because enculturation is a process of becoming a competent member of,
and identifying with, one particular culture (Berry, 2007). In culture contact situations, this would involve an individual in
two enculturation processes; this is precisely what is portrayed in my cultural transmission framework (Berry et al., 2002,
Fig. 2.1), which Weinreich seems to have missed. As explained in the accompanying text, when there is such double
enculturation, the phenomenon is appropriately termed acculturation. The interplay between the two concepts (see my
J.W. Berry / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 361371 369
discussion of cultural transmission; Berry, 2007, p. 546) is complex; however, the central criterion is whether one or two
cultures are being transmitted. If the situation involves two cultures, then it ts the longstanding meaning of acculturation.
There is an assertion by Weinreich (p. 125) that I assume that in acculturation settings both the dominant and heritage
cultures are benign and congenial . . . (and that) . . .. These assumptions reect an implicit ideology that cultures are benign for
all-comers. Similarly Bhatia and Ram (p. 148) claim that my framework implicitly assumes that both the majority and
minority cultures have equal status and power. These are prime examples of the belief that simply saying something makes
it true. No evidence is presented by either critic; indeed no evidence can be presented because I have never held these
positions, nor have ever expressed them. On the contrary, for example in my work with Aboriginal peoples (e.g., Berry,
1999b) the key to understanding their acculturative experiences and the variable outcomes (often negative) is the existence
of domination, conict and resistance. When cultural incompatibility or conict is present, then integration is not likely or
even possible; instead other strategies (particularly separation and marginalization) are the most common ways of
acculturating.
Perhaps the most contentious issue addressed in the special issue is that of acculturation strategies. Rudmin has made a
number of critical comments about the ways I have assessed acculturation strategies. He acknowledges that he has
published these criticisms previously (2001, 2008); however, he does not acknowledge that I and my colleagues have
responded to these criticisms on two occasions (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2008; Berry & Sam, 2003). Surely the norms
of sound scholarship require that both sides be presented, or at least referenced.
A second issue is whether acculturation strategies are really strategies in the sense that individuals actually seek out and
strive toward a particular way of acculturating that suits them. For example, Cresswell (p. 163) proposes that the concept of
intentionality be employed to understand an individuals acculturation. For him, intentionality involves actively ordering
living experience. Even though raw sensational impressions are a mass of unorganized stimuli, our experience is not one of
the unorganized chaos because we order it. As I understand this argument, he proposes that individuals are not pawns in the
acculturation process, but actively decide and proceed towards a particular goal in their intercultural life. This is exactly my
claim when I moved beyond assessing acculturation attitudes, to incorporating identities, behaviours and motivations in the
more comprehensive notion of acculturation strategies. However, it is not clear where in our 2002 book we claim that the
notion of intentional states involves relativism, solipsism, or radical subjectivity (e.g. Berry et al., 2002) . . ., or that . . . the
realist-absolutist dualism upon which the EmicEtic distinction is made (e.g. Segall, Lonner, & Berry, 1998) is a false dualism
. . . (Cresswell, p. 164). I am not sure that I understand these claims; however, I am sure that I have never stated these views!
Without specic references to these attributed points of view, it is difcult to know how to deal with them. A related set of
comments is made by Waldram (p. 174) when he asserts that: . . . contrary to John Berrys famous formulation, individuals
do not choose a strategy for acculturation, but rather engage with the new stuff of culture as they encounter it, often
without the kind of conscious scheming that Berry seems to suggest, and in ways that relate to, but are not bound to, their
sense of identity and heritage. Again, there is no documentation for the assertions that these views have been expressed in
my work; perhaps they are so famous that he can pull them out of thin air! Moreover, the contrast between these various
statements regarding my concept of acculturation strategies cries out for editorial attention. What does the critical
approach really say: are acculturation strategies actively sought by intentional acculturating individuals or they are mere
pawns in the process? Consistency in the presentation of a critical perspective is missing.
A charge made frequently in the volume is that there is nothing useful or applicable that can be derived from the existing
body of knowledge on acculturation. However, a reading of the articles in the volume leads me to conclude that the situation
is unlikely to be any better with the use of types of the research advocated here. There is a considerable amount of opinion,
verbiage and speculation, and little of substance that can be used for policy or program development. My experience over the
years with policy makers and public ofcials has convinced me that the kinds of information deriving from these more
interpretive and constructivist approaches are looked upon skeptically by them. They typically want to know how you know
what you claim to know; how much of the information being communicated is really valid information, based on the
realities that they must deal with in their public roles, and how much is just in the researchers heads.
4. Conclusions
Most of the articles in this special issue take a singularly one-sided approach to acculturation psychology, with respect to
concepts, methods and applications. Conceptually, they dene culture in a very narrow way, based on social constructivist
views about culture and behaviour, and their relationships. The contribution of the positivist conception of culture (as having
an actual and concrete existence) is dismissed because it does not t this narrow denition. Similarly, the well-established
methods of positivist behavioural science, with its emphasis on reliability (reproducibility) and validity (both internal and
external) are dismissed in favor of more subjective and interpretive positions (where these important issues are not typically
addressed). And with respect to applications, the use of existing knowledge about psychological acculturation in the
370 J.W. Berry / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 361371
educational, health and organizational domains is entirely ignored (see Sam & Berry, 2006, part 4 on applications). This is
particularly surprising because the agenda for applications outlined at the end of the issue (p. 180) is largely a repeat of
concerns that already been addressed, and to some extent accomplished, by research on acculturation psychology following
the positivist tradition. Finally, much of the presentation is extraordinarily polemical, often replacing what has been actually
done and reported in the literature with opinion and misrepresentation, and occasionally ignoring what has been published.
To repeat, simply saying so, over and over again, and without providing evidence from specic published statements, does
not make an assertion true. I agree that criticism is essential for making progress in research and application. However, the
articles in this issue give me little hope for the future if this exclusively social constructivist agenda is pursued.
Just as the Goddess of victory challenges all athletes to excel, my challenge to these authors is just do it, but better!
References
Aberle, D. F., Cohen, A. K., Davis, A., Levy, M., & Sutton, F. X. (1950). Functional prerequisites of society. Ethics, 60, 100111.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Ataca, B., & Berry, J. W. (2002). Psychological, sociocultural and martial adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples in Canada. International Journal of Psychology, 37,
1326.
Aycan, Z., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Impact of employment-related experiences on immigrants psychological well-being and adaptation to Canada. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 28, 240251.
Berry, J. W. (1970). Marginality, stress and ethnic identication in an acculturated Aboriginal community. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 239252.
Berry, J. W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism: Unity and identity reconsidered. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 1722.
Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Sage/Halsted.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and ndings (pp. 925). Boulder: Westview.
Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics, emics, derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 721735.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 568.
Berry, J. W. (1999a). Emics and etics: A symbiotic conception. Culture & Psychology, 5, 165171.
Berry, J. W. (1999b). Aboriginal cultural identity. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 19, 136.
Berry, J. W. (2000). Cross-cultural psychology: A symbiosis of cultural and comparative approaches. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 197205.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chun, P. Balls-Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation (pp. 337). Washington: APA Press.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697712.
Berry, J. W. (2007). Acculturation. In J. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialisation theory and research (pp. 343558). New York: Guilford.
Berry, J. W. (2008). Integration: A psychological and cultural perspective. The meaning of integration. Tallinn: Estonian Integration Foundation. 2332.
Berry, J. W., & Georgas, D. (2008). An ecocultural perspective on cultural transmission: The family across cultures. In U. Schoenug (Ed.), Cultural transmission (pp.
95125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J. W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491511.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 185206.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (Eds.). (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across nations. Mawah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2008). Response to Rudmins book review of immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation identity and
adaptation across nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 517520.
In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, J. Pandey, P. Dasen, T. S. Saraswathi, M. Segall & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Three Vols). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In Berry, J. W., Segall, M. H., Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Social behavior and applications. Vol.
3 (pp.291326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon .
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2003). Accuracy in scientic discourse. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 6568.
Berry, J. W., van de Koppel, J. M. H., Senechal, C., Annis, R. C., Bahuchet, Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., et al. (1986). On the edge of the forest: Cultural adaptation and cognitive
development in central Africa. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2009). Theorizing identity in transnational and diaspora cultures: A critical approach to acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33, 140149.
Bourhis, R., Moise, C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of
Psychology, 32, 369386.
Chirkov, V. (2009a). Introduction to the special issue on Critical Acculturation Psychology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 8793.
Chirkov, V. (2009b). Critical psychology of acculturation: What do we study and how do we study it, when we investigate acculturation? International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 33, 94105.
Chirkov, V. (2009c). Summary of the criticism and of the potential ways to improve acculturation psychology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33,
177180.
Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cresswell, J. (2009). Towards a post-critical praxis: Intentional states and recommendations for change in acculturation psychology. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 33, 162172.
DAndrade, R. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ember, C., Ember, M., & Peregrine, P. (2007). Anthropology (12th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
European Union. (2005). Common basic principles for immigrant integration in the European Union. Brussels: Author.
Fry, R. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science: A multicultural approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London: Routledge.
Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Government of Canada. (1971). Multiculturalism policy statement to the House of Commons. Ottawa: Hansard.
Graves, T. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community. South-Western Journal of Anthropology, 23, 337350.
Ho, E. (1995). Chinese or New Zealander? Differential paths of adaptation of Hong Kong Chinese adolescent immigrants in New Zealand. New Zealand Population
Review, 21, 2749.
Hunt, R. (2007). Beyond relativism: Rethinking comparability in cultural anthropology. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Kim, U., & Berry, J. W. (1985). Acculturation attitudes of Korean immigrant in Canada. In I. Reyes-Lagunes & Y. Poortinga (Eds.), From a different perspective (pp. 93
105). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Krishnan, A., & Berry, J. W. (1992). Acculturative stress and acculturation attitudes among Indian immigrants to the United States. Psychology and Developing
Societies, 4, 187212.
J.W. Berry / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 361371 371