1 Acculturation

Acculturation, Social Identity, and
Social Cognition: A New Perspective
The authors argue in this article that new approaches are needed in the study of psychological
acculturation. They posit that a new model of psychological acculturation should
incorporate contemporary work in social and cognitive psychology. The model they
present builds on previous research in the areas of social cognition, cultural competence,
social identity, and social stigma. Each of these perspectives is discussed in accordance
with its relevance to the acculturative processes operating in immigrants. They hypothesize
that acculturation is more difficult for those persons who must cope with the stigma
of being different because of skin color, language, ethnicity, and so forth. Finally, the
authors believe that the theoretical framework present here will lead to more productive
insights into the adaptation process of immigrants than has heretofore been the case.
Keywords: acculturation; social cognition; identity; stigma
In this article, we discuss psychological acculturation, by which we mean
the internal processes of change that immigrants experience when they come
into direct contact with members of the host culture. Our intent is not to
attempt to revive older models of acculturation but to present a schema of a
new model of acculturation that incorporates contemporary work in social
and cognitive psychology. To discuss this new model of acculturation, it is
first necessary to present a brief overview of the current status of acculturation
research. Our review of acculturation research is not intended to be

exhaustive. Our goal is merely to point out the current deficiencies in acculturation
research as we see them. Following this, we will present our model of
acculturation that rests on four pillars: social cognition, cultural competence,
social identity, and social stigma. Each of these will be discussed from a perspective
that shows their relevance to the acculturative processes operating in
immigrants and their American-born offspring. In our general model of
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 25 No. 1, February 2003 35-55
DOI: 10.1177/0739986303251694
© 2003 Sage Publications
35
acculturation, social stigma holds center stage; thus, we will point out ways
in which individuals cope with the stigma of being different because of skin
color, language, ethnic background, and so forth. Finally, we conclude this
article with a new approach that we hope will encourage theoretical and
empirical work in the area of acculturation.
Overview of Acculturation Research
Throughout most of the 20th century, social scientists theorized about the
process by which newcomers to America become incorporated into mainstream
culture. Thisworkwas first the province of sociologists at the University
of Chicago, with Robert Park the best known of the melting pot theorists.
Beginning in 1914, Park undertook the study of what happens to people from
diverse cultures and languages when they come into contact with one
another. For answers, Park drew on the ecological framework that was the
hallmark of the Chicago school of sociology and advanced a three-stage
model—contact, accommodation, and assimilation (Persons, 1987).
According to this model, contact between peoples from different cultures
forces them to seekways to accommodate to each other to minimize conflict.
Thus, contact shapes intergroup relations between different ethnic communities.
Furthermore, the essential element in the model was the process by
which newcomers to America learn to accommodate the dominant culture of
the United States. According to Park, as immigrants learned to accommodate
the dominant group, a process of cultural assimilation ensued culminating in
intermarriage and amalgamation. For Park, the process leading to cultural
assimilation was progressive and irreversible and contributed to the ethos of
America as a country of immigrants. Park’s three-stage model has in one
form or another remained a cornerstone in our thinking about how newcomers
adjust to the dominant culture following immigration.
Anthropologists were the next group of social scientists to expand on the
three-stage model. Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936), in explaining the
process of accommodation, made heavy reference to acculturation as a key

construct in their theorizing. According to Redfield et al., acculturation
occurs when groups of individuals from different cultures come into continuous
contact with each other, and subsequently, there are changes in the original
cultural patterns of either or both groups.
Redfield et al. (1936) were clear about the importance of “continuous
first-hand contact” between individuals of different cultures as the essential
ingredient of acculturation. These authors also pointed out that change in cultural
patterns is essential for at least one of the two groups in contact; how-
36 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
ever, Redfield et al. held that acculturation did not imply that assimilation
would ensue automatically.
Nearly 20 years later, another group of social scientists under the auspices
of the Social Science Research Council expanded on the Redfield et al.
(1936) model of acculturation by adding a psychological dimension to the
process of acculturation. Their definition stated,
Acculturative change may be the consequence of direct transmission; it may be
derived from non-cultural causes, such as ecological or demographic modifications
induced by an impinging culture; it may be delayed, as with internal
adjustments following upon the acceptance of alien traits or patterns; or it may
be a reactive adaptation of traditional modes of life. Its dynamics can be seen as

the selective adaptation of value systems, the processes of integration and differentiation,
the generation of developmental sequences, and the operation of
role determinants and personality factors. (Social Science Research Council,
1954, p. 974).
According to this expanded view of acculturation, we see the inclusion of
value systems, developmental sequences, roles, and personality factors as
contributing to how individuals accommodate when they come into contact
with each other. This model was an advance because it specified important
culture-related information that changes with intergroup contact and what
aspects of culture might be more resistant to change (e.g., values) with
intercultural contact. The significance of this definition is that it provides for
choice in the acculturation process—the change from one cultural orientation
to another can be “selective,” and persons involved in intergroup contact
can decide what elements of their culture they wish to surrender and what cultural
elements they want to incorporate from the new culture.
Teske and Nelson (1974) offered the first complete psychological perspective
on acculturation. According to these writers, acculturation included
changes in material traits, behavior patterns, norms, institutional changes,
and importantly, values. However, Teske and Nelson did not go further in
their psychological analysis of how members of diverse cultures accommodate
to one another. This was left to Berry (1980), who expanded on the view
of acculturation to include varieties of adaptation and specifically identified
the following four: assimilation, integration, rejection, and deculturation.
The importance of Berry’s model was that it recognized the importance of
multicultural societies, minority individuals and groups, and the fact that
individuals have a choice in the matter of how far they are willing to go in the
acculturation process. An important advance in Berry’s model is that he
incorporated language emanating from the ethnic revival movement beginning
in the 1970s and held that a minority person and/or ethnic group could
Padilla, Perez / Acculturation & Social Cognition 37
reverse their acculturation process to the dominant group and revert to their
former cultural heritage. Today, there are numerous instances of ethnic
groups who have managed to revive their ancestral language and culture
(Fishman, 2001). Thus, acculturation was not seen as a strictly unidimensional
process of cultural change but as a process forced by intergroup contact
with multiple outcomes.
Unlike the earlier qualitative approaches to acculturation, Padilla (1980,
1987) and Keefe and Padilla (1987) presented a multidimensional and quantitative
model of acculturation that relied on two major supraconstructs—
cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty. According to this model, cultural
awareness represents the implicit knowledge that individuals have of their
cultures of origin and of their host cultures. Included in this knowledge are
such things as proficiency of the languages of each culture, knowledge of significant

historical events that have shaped the cultures, understanding and
appreciation of the artistic and musical forms of the cultures, and standards of
behavior and values that have shaped how persons conduct themselves. If
individuals show more knowledge of their heritage cultures than they do of
the newcontact cultures, the model holds that they are less acculturated; similarly,
if the persons possess more knowledge of the host cultures, then they
are more acculturated. Ethnic loyalty, on the other hand, is dependent on the
self-ascribed ethnicity of the individuals, the ethnic group membership of
their friends, and preferences for such things as recreational activities.
Padilla and Keefe and Padilla showed that cultural awareness declined from
the first (immigrant) generation to the fourth generation of Mexican origin
respondents. Furthermore, the steepest decline in cultural knowledge
occurred between the first and second generation.However, an important discovery
was the finding that ethnic loyalty to the culture of origin remained
consistently high from the first to the fourth generation. In other words,
although the Mexican heritage individuals possessed limited implicit knowledge
of the culture of their grandparents by the third or fourth generation,
they still held on to their Mexican heritage identity. In identifying with their
Mexican heritage, they preferred friends of the same ethnicity and preferred
to engage in Mexican-type activities. These findings have been replicated in
other studies with Mexican Americans (Arbona, Flores, & Novy, 1995;
Montgomery, 1992) since first being reported by Padilla in 1980.

One of the features noted by Padilla (1980, 1987) in the original model of
acculturationwas that the greater the perceived discrimination reported by an
informant, the more likely he or she was to identify with his or her heritage
group. It is important that the discrimination reported by the informant did
not have to be directed at him or her specifically; in fact, it was sufficient for
the person to merely believe that discriminatory acts had been directed
toward other members of their same ethnic group for the person to report
greater loyalty toward his or her group.
Behavioral changes associated with acculturation have been well documented
during the past 15 years (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995;
Rogler, Cortes,&Malgady, 1991); however, cognitive referents of acculturation
have been more difficult to validate. The reason for this is that cognitive
and behavioral changes do not always follow the same time progression
when we are examining changes due to intergroup contacts. There are a variety
of factors that influence the different ways in which people acculturate.
These include family structure and function, adherence to certain religious
beliefs and practices, gender, power relationships between the majority and
minority groups, personality characteristics, and age of onset of intergroup
contact. Moreover, some immigrants experience more social discrimination
because of their minority status. Ethnicity, race, religion, language, and/or
dress often distinguish many immigrants from the host country’s culture.
Immigrants from various groups differ on these characteristics. Thus, members
of some newcomer groups are likely to be targeted for greater discrimination
than others. Some newcomers may be more inclined to undergo
cultural changes not because of personal interest or inclination but due to
political, social, and/or economic circumstances that may make certain types
of cultural adaptation preferable or beneficial (Marin, 1993) or even to a condition
of survival. Therefore, acculturation is more complicated and not
merely the outcome of two cultural groups being in contact with each other as
earlier models hold. In fact, many social and environmental conditions or
constraints exist that can largely determine the strategies available to individuals
or groups in the process of accommodating to newcomers.
In extending our view of acculturation as a mutual process in which both
dominant and nondominant groups are involved, it is necessary to take into
account the cultural differences that distinguish the groups and their power
relationship to each other. For example, the dominant group’s attitudes
toward newcomers and the extent to which they are open to newcomers indicate
whether this group will allow members of the subordinated group to
maintain their own culture while also participating actively with the dominant
group. In contrast, a concern of the subordinate group is the way members
of their own group should behave. The general circumstances of
majority-minority group relationships in a society are of crucial importance
(Ogbu, 1990). Berry prefers to use the term cultural group rather than minority.
Yet, it is fact that minority status of the immigrant is the crux of the matter
both in terms of smaller numbers and lower power or status in society.
Triandis, Kashima, Shimada, and Villareal (1986) found that the more
power the immigrant group has in its new setting, the less will be accommo-
dated to the new cultural norms. Thus, even within the same geopolitical
environment, we expect that different cultural ecologies will lead to different
outcomes with respect to the acculturation process. Furthermore, given the
diversity of ethnic enclaves that exist in the United States today, some ethnic
group members do not necessarily experience a great press to assimilate.
Nguyen, Messe, and Stollak (1999) reported an important twist to this. They
reported that for Vietnamese youth living in a predominantly White environment,
strong identification with Vietnamese culture resulted in high psychological
distress. According to these authors, it is difficult to embrace
Vietnamese culture in a primarily White American context. It may also be the
case that because they are in a predominantly White context, they are stigmatized
and experience more discrimination, which leads to psychological distress.
To cope with the rejection from the majority culture, these youth
identify even more with their Vietnamese background, which in turn results
in greater discrimination from the majority group.
Another way to examine acculturation is to conceptualize it as a function

of personal characteristics. Beyond group findings of acculturation, individuals
may also seek different levels of attachment to and involvement in their
host cultures or heritage cultures. Some individuals may actively pursue
involvement in either culture, some may try to maintain high levels of
involvement in both cultures, and still others decrease their involvement in
either or both cultural environments. People may have different reasons for
the paths they choose due to the relative importance of identifying with the
new cultures or maintaining loyalty to their heritage cultures. Responding to
distinct sources of cultural norms, individuals negotiate between cultural
contexts and emerge with their own interpretations of appropriate cultural
values, customs, and practices. This flexibility in acculturation pathways is
very different from earlier views of accommodation and assimilation emerging
from intergroup contact (Persons, 1987; Redfield et al., 1936).
None of the major theories of acculturation take into consideration individual
differences and personality characteristics that facilitate or retard
acculturation. Padilla’s (1980, 1987) model of acculturation focuses on the
preference of individuals for the majority or minority cultures and the effect
of such a preference on the overall acculturative process. His emphasis on the
preference of individuals for the dominant or heritage cultures is an important
consideration in understanding the overall process, but the model falls
short of explaining why people choose one culture over the other. To date, no
model has been advanced to explain how it is that individuals from the same
educational, socioeconomic, generational, and familial backgrounds differ
on willingness and competence to acculturate. Choice to acculturate may be
related to personality characteristics such as assertiveness, likeability, socia-
bility, extraversion, and ego control. Differences in attitude and risk taking
and level of anxiety tolerance may also lead to differences in the acculturation
process. Along this same line, Birman (1994) argued that acculturation
theorists need to appreciate and explain individual differences within the
demands of different cultural and sociopolitical contexts. We believe that
advances in social psychology that rely on social cognition, social identity
theory, and social stigma offer a new approach to the complexity involved in
understanding both the individual and group processes involved in the acculturation
of immigrants.We believe that contact between members of different
cultural groups is important, as first recognized by Park nearly nine
decades ago and elaborated on in numerous ways by social scientists ever
since to explain acculturation. However, we feel that current social psychological
research offers us a new set of conceptual tools that can be used productively
to rethink how acculturative processes work with immigrant
populations. We now turn to this new vision.
A New Vision of Acculturation Research
To understand cultural adaptation from the perspective that we will now

present, it is important to adopt new terminology and to see intercultural contact
through a new social framework. To shed light on these processes, our
model will rely on the following constructs: social cognition, cultural competence,
social identity, social dominance, and social stigma. In the next section,
we will begin by defining these key concepts.
Social Cognition
Social cognition is foremost a metatheoretical approach to studying social
behavior. Its metatheoretical focus is on the mental processes that guide
social interaction. Fiske and Taylor (1991) defined social cognition as “how
ordinary people think about people and how they think they think about people”
(p. 1). In our theory of acculturation, we will followthe tradition of pragmatism
in social cognition research (Fiske, 1993) that emphasizes the
motivational and intentional bases of perception and cognition (e.g., Heider,
1958; James, 1890).
According to social cognition researchers, cognitive processes stem from
people’s pragmatic goals, which themselves derive from multiple sources,
including person-level variables, situational constraints, societal structure,
and evolutionary mechanisms (e.g. Fiske, 1993; James, 1890). Simply put,
“thinking is for doing,” a message from James (1890) positing that cognition
follows from people’s goals, which vary according to their social situation.
Cultural Competence
Immigrants involved in cultural transitions because of migration must
cope with their new cultural-societal pressures and standards. They must
make sense of their new social environment and decide how and/or whether
they are going to integrate themselves into the host culture. Howis it that they
develop situated behavior patterns that are adaptive within the larger societalcultural
context (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Markus, Kitayama, & Heiman,
1996)? Pragmatism and cultural competence play critical roles in how we
theorize about individual and group acculturation. Today, social cognition
researchers have used the metaphor “motivated tactician” (Fiske & Taylor,
1991) to describe social perceivers. According to this theoretical view, people
choose among a wide range of pragmatic cognitive tactics based on their
goals, motives, and needs as determined by the power of the situation, and
thus most significant cognitive activity results from motivation. People think
for the purpose of satisfying their pragmatic motives and tend to think with
less effort when their knowledge goals are satisfied (Fiske, 1993). This is
equally true for people in a new culture who are striving to be successful in a
new country to which they have migrated.
To use our social cognition model to its fullest, we need to first understand
what is meant to be culturally competent in one or more cultural contexts.
Most simply, cultural competence refers to the learned ability to function in a
culture in a manner that is congruent with the values, beliefs, customs, mannerisms,
and language of the majority of members of the culture. When members

of the culture come to view the person as an “insider,” then we can say
the person has attained complete competence in the new culture. However,
acceptance as an insider is not a prerequisite for cultural competence per se.
The important consideration is for the person to behave within an acceptable
cultural band of normative behavior. With this clear, we turn now to social
identity.
Social Identity
Social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel&Turner, 1986) stresses that individual
behavior reflects individuals’ larger societal units. This means that overarching
societal structures such as groups, organizations, cultures, and most
important, individuals’ identification with these collective units guide internal
structures and processes. Cultural competence lies at the heart of this theory
because collective group membership influences and frequently determines
individuals’ thoughts and behaviors (Markus et al., 1996). Thus, individuals
are not self-contained units of psychological analysis. Social identity theory
states that people think, feel, and act as members of collective groups, institutions,
and cultures. The social identity approach reinforces the idea that individuals’
social cognitions are socially construed depending on their group or
collective frames of reference. For instance, immigrants who see themselves
as negatively stigmatized because of their darker skin color or accented English
speech may be less willing to acculturate, believing that such negative

views will persist regardless of whether they are culturally competent in the
dominant culture.
As originally formulated, social identity theory sought to explain intergroup
relations in general and social conflict in particular. The theory incorporated
three main points: (a) People are motivated to maintain a positive
self-concept, (b) the self-concept derives largely from group identification,
and (c) people establish positive social identities by favorably comparing
their in-group against an out-group (Operario&Fiske, 1999). As such, social
identity theorists assume that internal social comparison processes drive
intergroup conflict, even in the absence of explicit rivalry or competition
between groups. Structural variables such as power, hierarchy, and resource
scarcity increase the baseline proclivity to perceive the in-group more favorably
than the out-group.
An extension of social identity is self-categorization theory. Here Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, andWetherell (1987) argued that social contexts create
meaningful group boundaries and that social identities are socially construed
categories that shift depending on situational pragmatics. Thus, the
salience of social categories provides perceptual filters for organizing outgroups
and in-groups. The consequence is that situational factors guide cognitive
processes, and as such, self-categorization theory suggests that these
pragmatic cognitive processes form the basis for ensuing intergroup interaction
including prejudice and conflict between group members.

Worthy of note is the optimal distinctiveness work of Brewer (1991), who
holds that social identifications are guided by two core human motives: the
need to be unique and the need to belong. Having a social identity (e.g., ethnic,
religious, or national) satisfies individuals’simultaneous needs for inclusion
and differentiation. In other words, we need to simultaneously fill the
need to belong to a social group (e.g., Latino) while maintaining our distinctiveness
from another group (e.g., Jewish). In this way, we are motivated to
identify with social groups with which we feel kinship and to separate from
groups of which we do not feel a part and from which we strive to remain
detached through a manifestation of distinctiveness.
Social Dominance
Sidanius (1993) posits that all social institutions and cultures involve
some form of hierarchy. Unlike most other social identity theories that focus
on situational explanations, this theory of intergroup relations rests on individual
differences in social dominance. Individual orientations toward social
dominance are pragmatic insofar as hierarchies are functional for the collective
unit. Social hierarchies are validated through cultural ideologies that sustain
the legitimacy and centrality of hierarchy within the larger society. This
theory accounts for large-scale examples of intergroup dominance that
occurs in the absence of overt conflict, such as ethnic, religious, or gender
oppression. Social dominance theory differs in form from the cognitive and
motivational analysis of self-categorization and optimal distinctiveness theories,
stressing both the inevitability and functionality of consensual hierarchies,
such as legitimized social class distinctions and gender roles, as a
function of individual differences in social dominance.
In sum, these socially derived constructs (i.e., social cognition, cultural
competence, social identity, and social dominance) are critical to the theory
that we will advance in this article to explain the processes involved in acculturation.
We believe that acculturation is more difficult for those persons who
are more distinct (e.g., by skin color, physiognomy, religious practices, and
so forth) from the dominant in-group. Thus, we also need to address the question
of social stigma in understanding cultural change. This is due to the fact
that persons who are more identifiable as outsiders are more likely to be targets
of prejudice and discrimination by the socially dominant in-group. As a
consequence, they may endure more physical and psychological hardships as
outsiders that call into question their motives for wanting to adapt to the host
group; they may also experience fewer opportunities for contact with “insiders,”
thereby limiting their chances for successful adaptation; and they may
be implicitly or explicitly excluded from entry into groups and/ or institutions
that offer privileges to their members (McIntosh, 1988). Accordingly, we
will turn next to a discussion of social stigma.
Social Stigma
In Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Goffman (1963)

reasoned that if other people’s reactions influence our behavior and identity,
then reasonable people try to control the reactions of others by manipulating
what they reveal about themselves. He further stated that in their interactions
with others, people often expose or hide certain beliefs, ideas, or behaviors to
manipulate the perceptions these people hold of them. According to Crocker,
Major, and Steele (1998), social stigma is a function of having an attribute
that conveys a devalued social identity in a particular context. More specifically,
possession of a particular attribute might lead individuals to be stigmatized
in one context but not in another. Thus, stigmatization is not
inextricably linked to something essential to the stigmatized attribute or the
person who possesses that attribute. The essential distinction is in the unfortunate
circumstance of possessing an attribute that in a given social context
leads to devaluation. Attributes that may cause negative stigmatization
include skin color, accented speech, certain religious apparel, gender, homosexuality,
homelessness, mental illness, and so forth. It is important that these
attributes are generally associated with minority standing and powerlessness.
The flip side of this is that high social standing and power is associated with
decreased vulnerability to being stigmatized (Fiske, 1993).We must emphasize,
however, that “high social standing and power” is relative and may vary
from one country or culture to another. For example, in the United States and
Western Europe, White men hold high social standing and power; thus, a
White man who finds himself in a context in which he is devalued because of
his power status is astutely aware that in most social contexts, that same identity
is highly valued. This awareness mitigates the psychological consequences
of being negatively stigmatized in other contexts (Fiske, 1993).
A dimension of social stigma of critical importance in understanding the
subjective experience of stigmatized individuals is visibility. Visible stigmas
such as race, certain physical handicaps, accents, or severe malnourishment
due to poverty cannot be hidden easily from others. Thus, for people with visible
attributes, the stigma can provide the primary schema from which others
make assumptions about the person (Goffman, 1963; Jones et al., 1984). The
awareness that others judge us because of our visibility may influence our
thoughts, feelings, and behavior (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Visibly stigmatized
individuals cannot use concealment of the stigma to cope with stereotypes
and prejudice that their stigma may trigger. For example, people with
dark skin and middle-eastern features may be second- or third-generation
American, yet in the eyes of nonstigmatized and socially dominant Americans,
they may be perceived as Arabs and discriminated against.
People with a concealable stigma such as certain ethnicities, religious
groups, or sexual orientation have different concerns. Because their stigma is
not visible, they can interact with others without their negative social identity
filtering how everything about them is understood. But they are aware they
could be stigmatized if their devaluing attribute is discovered—they know

they are “discreditable” (Goffman, 1963). Thus, some individuals may carefully
monitor the way they speak, dress, and behave to maximize their
chances of “passing” with the dominant group. Other individuals may actu-
ally make a conscious decision to display their stigma by wearing signs or
symbols that convey their stigmatized identity or engage in collective manifestations
that demonstrate their identity with a stigmatized group (e.g., gay
pride parade).
In general, stigmatized individuals are aware of the negative connotations
of their social identity in the eyes of others. For example,Mexican Americans
believe that many non-Hispanic Whites hold negative views of their group
(Casas, Ponterotto, & Sweeney, 1987). The age at which this awareness
develops is not always clear, but it is likely to be well established by adolescence.
Although having a negative social identity may threaten both collective
and personal self-esteem, it does not lead inevitably to having low
personal or collective self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989). For example,
Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine, and Broadnax (1994) found that both Asian and
Black college students believed their racial groups were evaluated negatively
by members of the majority group; nonetheless, both Asian and Black students
were as likely to evaluate their respective groups as positively as White
students evaluated theirs. Thus, although having a devalued social identity
may create a challenge, stigmatized individuals respond to this predicament

in a variety of ways. For instance, some “stigmatized” individuals can effectively
defend their self-esteem from external threat while affirming their
identity with the group, and other individuals seek strategies to minimize
their stigma.
Coping With Social Stigma
Stigmatized individuals are sensitive to information in their environment
that affects the likelihood that negative reactions or evaluations from others
are due to prejudice and discrimination (Crocker, Voekl, Testa, & Majors,
1991). At the same time, some researchers (Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995, 1997)
suggested that stigmatized individuals are relatively reluctant to blame their
negative outcomes on prejudice or discrimination, even when there is good
reason to suspect it. Ruggiero and Taylor (1997) argued that participants in
their studies were reluctant to attribute negative outcomes to discrimination
because there are a number of psychological costs associated with making
these attributions. Specifically, attributing negative outcomes to discrimination
lowers social self-esteem and decreases perceived control over individuals’
outcomes at the same time it may protect self-esteem associated with
individuals’ performance. In addition, attributions to discrimination may be
very costly to interpersonal and working relationships (Crosby, 1982), such
as the process that immigrants undergo to acquire competence in the newcul-
ture. Immigrants may be less motivated to attempt acculturation if they

believe discrimination exists against their group by members of the dominant
social group. If this happens to immigrants, their opportunities for social
mobility in the new culture are lessened.
There is evidence that stigmatized groups differ in their willingness to
attribute negative outcomes to discrimination (Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997). In
this study, Black (mostly Caribbean) and Asian students received a failing
grade on a test from an evaluator. The critical manipulation in the study
involved giving participants information about the probability that the evaluatorwould
discriminate against them. Regardless of the prior probability that
the evaluator discriminated, Black students were more likely to attribute their
failing grade to discrimination than were Asian students. This finding supports
the notion that members of some stigmatized groups are more willing to
make attributions to prejudice and discrimination than others. However, this
interpretation must be tempered by the realization that Blacks may be behaving
rationally given their history of oppression in this country.
One factor that may influence the willingness of stigmatized individuals
to attribute negative outcomes to prejudice and discrimination is the perceived
controllability of the stigma itself. Crocker and Major (1994) have
argued that individuals who believe their stigmatization condition is under
their control, or is their own fault, are less likely to blame negative outcomes
associated with stigma on prejudice and discrimination because they feel
they deserve those outcomes. Crocker et al. (1998) suggested that ideologies
related to personal responsibility may predict which stigmatized individuals
and groups are unwilling to blame negative outcomes on prejudice and discrimination.
For example, Major et al. (2002) found that the more Black,
Latino, and Asian students believed that the American system is just (i.e.,
believed in individual social mobility, that hardwork pays off, and that group
differences in social status are fair), the less likely they were to perceive both
themselves and members of their ethnic group as experiencing discrimination
due to their ethnicity.
Salience of the stigmatized group identity and the degree to which stigmatized
individuals are highly identified with their group also affect the extent to
which they perceive themselves as targets of discrimination based on their
group membership (Major, 1994; Major et al., 2002). Stigmatized individuals
who are highly identified with their group are more likely to make intergroup
comparisons, notice intergroup inequalities, and label them unjust.
Consistent with this observation, Major et al. (2002) also found that the more
highly identified students were with their ethnic group, the more they said
that they and members of their group experienced discrimination based on
their ethnicity. However, it is important to recognize that their consciousness
of discrimination may have contributed significantly to their enhanced social
identity as a member of a stigmatized ethnic group. Thus, perceived discrimination
may be the fuel that triggers the search for greater affinity to a heritage
culture among later generation ethnics. This mechanism, then, may explain
the adherence to a Mexican heritage identity found even among third- and
fourth-generation Mexican Americans (Keefe & Padilla, 1987).
One way in which members of stigmatized groups may protect their personal
self-esteem from the potentially painful consequences of upward comparisons
with advantaged out-group members is by restricting their social
comparisons to others who share their stigmatized status. By coping in this
way, the person is more likely to compare with others whose outcomes are
also likely to be relatively poor (Crocker & Major, 1989; Gibbons, 1986;
Jones et al., 1984; Major, 1987, 1994; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). For example,
there is substantial evidence that women who work are more likely to compare
their personal outcomes (e.g., lower wages) with those of other women
rather than with those of men (Major, 1994; Zanna, Crosby, & Lowenstein,
1986). This has the effect, then, of reducing perceptions of wage discrimination
between men and women.
One reason people tend to make interpersonal comparisons with in-group
rather than out-group members is simple proximity—people who are similar
to us tend to be more readily available in our environments and hence more
salient for social comparison purposes (Runciman, 1966; Singer, 1981). The
greater prevalence of similarly stigmatized individuals in the immediate
environment occurs both because of forced segregation due to discrimination
(e.g., in housing, schooling, or employment) and because of preferences to

affiliate with similar others (Schacter, 1959). Affiliation with others who are
similarly stigmatized not only furnishes a potentially less threatening comparison
environment but also provides the stigmatized with opportunities to
be “off duty” from the attribution ambiguity, stereotype threat, anxiety, and
mindfulness that are likely to accompany interactions with the
nonstigmatized, socially dominant group. The prevalence of ethnic enclaves
and support groups as well as the popularity of ethnically oriented theme
houses and social clubs on university campuses are no doubt due in part to the
benefits of affiliating with others who share a stigmatizing attribute.
In an investigation of the contextual nature of social stigma and its effects,
Brown (1998) assessed self-esteem and “possible selves” (Markus&Nurius,
1986) of students of color (Latino and African American) and White students.
Brown reported that the students of color had higher self-esteem and
envisioned more positive future selves than did White students. However, in a
follow-up study, Brown asked students to imagine that they would be in a
semester-long course with a White student or a student of color as the teaching
assistant. In this condition, students of color indicated more positive possible
selves when they imagined having a teaching assistant who was more
ethnically similar than dissimilar to them. This effect was not found for
White students or when the expected interaction was of more limited duration
(a single class).
This study suggests that the effects of stigma on self-concept may be much
more dependent on the particular features of the social context, resulting in
temporary changes in the aspects of the self-concept that are activated. This
may help to explain why some stigmatized individuals make greater efforts to
identify with the mainstream social group if they experience long-term
encounters with similar group role models (e.g., teachers, counselors, physicians)
and mentors.
On occasion, stigmatized persons may also experience attribution ambiguity.
That is, stigmatized individuals may be uncertain whether friendly or
unfriendly behavior directed at them by majority group members is a
response to their social identity or to personal, individual qualities (Crocker
& Major, 1989; Crocker et al., 1991; Major & Crocker, 1993). In addition to
these negative effects of attribution ambiguity, ambiguity about the causes of
positive and negative outcomes may contribute to the motive to be reserved or
to cope by holding back in interpersonal interactions until the causes of other
persons’ positive or negative signals are known. Often, individuals who are
cautious about revealing or displaying their social identity remain “in the
closet.” In other contexts (e.g., classroom), such individuals are deemed to be
shy and to possess a poor self-concept.
Thus, stigma represents a potential threat to individuals’ sense of safety.
Coping strategies such as in-group social comparisons, attributions to prejudice,
and disengagement from the source of discrimination may enable stigmatized

individuals to maintain a sense of worth in the face of devaluation.
Stigma also denotes how we construe our social world. The construction of
social identities and the meanings associated with them is a cognitive, sensemaking
process. The stereotypes that drive impressions, judgments, and
behaviors toward stigmatized individuals are mental representations that
make order of individuals’ social world. Many of the predicaments of being
stigmatized involve awareness of how individuals are thought of by others
and construal of the meaning and causes of others’behavior. Likewise, many
of the strategies that stigmatized individuals use to cope with their predicaments
emerge from interpretations of social contexts and social events.
Summary
We take the position that after three decades of research, the psychological
models of acculturation are of limited value because they rest too heavily on
(a) a static view of intergroup relations that does not address important concerns
related to the motivation to acculturate; (b) a belief that acculturation is
more or less a uniform process across all newcomer groups regardless of race,
culture, or social status; and (c) a methodology that is limited to its reliance
on self-reported language use preferences, entertainment practices, and
friendship patterns. We believe that social cognitions, social identity, and
social stigma provide us with a conceptual framework that allows for a better
understanding and study of the processes involved in acculturation. International
migration affects many aspects of the self, requiring significant redefinition
and reconstruction of both personal and social identities. Immigrants
continuously reorganize the delicate structure of their various social identities
in newcultural contexts (Ward, Bochner,&Furnham, 2001). Some identities
relate to membership in the host culture, and others reflect attachment to
values of their heritage culture.Within their new social context, newcomers
form perceptions regarding expectations that members of the dominant
group have of them. Perceptions are likely to affect the process of redefining
their identity and whether and to what extent they choose acculturation and
membership in the host culture.
To date, acculturation research has been confined to correlational studies.
This is due in large measure to how acculturation has been operationally
defined and to the measurement tools used to assess the level of acculturation.
The newvision presented here opens the door to experimental approaches for
investigating acculturation.We take the position that acculturation is a social
process that occurs in a context in which newcomers and members of the host
culture are in dynamic contact with each other. Newcomers, regardless of
their heritage culture and whether they are sojourns, refugees, or voluntary
immigrants, must in one form or another adapt to their new cultural environment
(Ward et al., 2001). The social identities they bring with them and the
identities they develop in the new environment influence social cognitions

that in turn guide their behavior such as the clothes they wear, the foods they
eat, the people with whom they associate, the values to which they adhere,
and the strategies used to accommodate to the new culture and its people. As
outsiders, immigrants have less political power and influence and are frequently
stigmatized in negativeways by the dominant group. Members of the
dominant group may view one group of newcomers as hard workers and
intelligent but as clannish and difficult to get to know. At the same time, they
might view members of another ethnic heritage group as lazy and fun loving
but honest and religious. How closely the newcomer group possesses the
physical attributes of the dominant group is also important because it is more
difficult to stigmatize individuals who appear indistinguishable from the
majority group. Accordingly, to the extent that immigrants become aware
and interpret their social stigma, their approach to acculturation and accommodation
will reflect their interpretation of the stigma and the cognitions that
surround these perceptions.
To understand acculturation, it is important to keep in mind that newcomers
are not always free to pursue the acculturation strategy they prefer (Berry,
1997). Furthermore, the expectations that a host culture has of newcomers
will likely affect the acculturation and adaptation of immigrants (Taft, 1977).
In this article, we take the position that social stigmas affect the acculturation
and adaptation of immigrants. The prevailing attitudes, whether positive or

negative, have the power of constraining the adoption of the social identity of
the host country and thereby the acculturation trajectory of newcomers.
If newcomers are aware their social identity is devalued, this will affect the
strategies employed in the acculturation process and, as a result, the cultural
competences they are willing and/or able to develop. Tajfel (1978) suggested
the following three alternative responses open to the newcomer group when
the dominant group fails to positively recognize the social identity of the
newcomer group: (a) Newcomers can leave the heritage group physically
and/or subjectively through a reduction in their identification with their heritage
group (Tajfel&Turner, 1986), (b) newcomers can reinterpret their group
attributes to justify the negative stigma or to make it acceptable, and (c) newcomers
can engage in social action to promote desirable changes both inside
and outside the heritage group.
Research is needed to better understand hownewcomers’cognitions of ingroup
and out-group relations, including stigmas, affect the acculturationadaptation
strategy used by immigrants. How these cognitions contribute to
the motivation to engage and participate in the new culture is also in need of
research. Howimmigrants cope with social stigmas is a fertile field for study.
For example, why does the same social stigma affect one individual in one
way and another person in a very different way? It is also important to ask
how physical similarity (phenotype) as well as cultural similarity to host culture
individuals influence the types of social stigmas that different immigrant

groups endure.
In closing, we believe that our model of acculturation based on social cognition
offers a new and innovative approach to research on the process of
acculturation. We maintain that this approach lends itself to both quasiexperimental
and experimental studies in which social stigma and social cognition
can be manipulated to assess their impact on social identity and adapta-
tion toward the host culture. For instance, if immigrants who identify
strongly with their ethnic group are exposed to a condition in which their
social stigma is made salient, will their attitudes toward the host culture shift
in the appropriate direction given the type of information to which they are
exposed? How will immigrants who possess little identity with their heritage
group be affected by a manipulation of stigma affecting them? Similar questions
can be asked of majority group members, such as how readily are they
willing to engage in more intimate contacts with newcomers depending on
the type of information they are given about the new group. We could also
extend the question to explore the types of accommodations majority group
members are willing to give newcomers to facilitate their transition into the
culture of the dominant group. These are a few of the exciting new possibilities
we see in the area of acculturation research in the new millennium.

References
Arbona, C., Flores, C. L.,&Novy, D. (1995). Cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty: Dimensions
of cultural variability among Mexican American college students. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 73, 610-614.
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, CO: Westview.
Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 46, 5-34.
Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. InE. J.Trickett,
R. J.Watts,&D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 261-
284). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer,M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
Brown, L. M. (1998). Ethnic stigma as a contextual experience: A possible selves perspective.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 163-172.
Casas, J. M., Ponterotto, J. G., & Sweeney, M. (1987). Stereotyping the stereotyper: AMexican
American perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 45-57.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B.,&Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and psychological
well being among White, Black, and Asian college students. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 502-513.
Crocker, J.,&Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of
stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Crocker, J.,&Major,B. (1994). Reaction to stigma: The moderating role of justification. In M. P.
Zanna&J.M. Olsen (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (pp. 289-
314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crocker, J., Major, B.,&Steele, C. (1998). Social Stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske,&G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 504-553). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Crocker, J.,Voekl, K., Testa, M.,&Major, B. (1991). Social stigma: The affective consequences
of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218-228.
Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Cuellar, I., Arnold, B.,&Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale forMexican Americans–
II:Arevision of the originalARSMAScale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
17, 275-304.
Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (2001). Can threatened languages be saved? Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Fiske, S. T. (1993) Social cognition and social perception. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L.W. Porter
(Eds.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 155-194). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Gibbons, F. X. (1986). Stigma and interpersonal relationships. In S. C. Ainlay, G. Becker, &
L. M. Coleman (Eds.), The dilemma of difference (pp. 123-156). New York: Plenum.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Heider, F. (1958). Perceiving the other person. In R. Tagiuri&L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception
and interpersonal behavior (pp. 22-26). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social
stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman.
Keefe, S., & Padilla, A. M. (1987). Chicano ethnicity. Albuquerque: University of NewMexico
Press.
Major,B. (1987). Gender, justice, and the psychology of entitlement. In P. Shaver&C. Hendrick
(Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 124-148). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Major,B. (1994). Gender, justice, and the psychology of entitlement: The role of social comparisons,
legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (pp. 293-348). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Major, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributional
ambiguity. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping:
Interactive processes in intergroup perception (pp. 345-370). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Major, B., Gramzow, R. H., McCoy, S. K., Levin, S., Schmader, T., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving
personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, 269-282.
Marin, G. (1993). Influence of acculturation on familialism and self-identification among Hispanics.
In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission
among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 181-196). Albany: State University of NewYork
Press.
Markus, H. R.,&Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S.,&Heiman, R. J. (1996). Culture and “basic” psychological principles.
In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (pp. 857-913). New York: Guilford.
Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see
correspondences through work in women’s studies. In M. L. Andersen and P. Hill Collins
(Eds.), Race, class, and gender: An anthology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Montgomery,G. T. (1992). Comfort with acculturation status among students from south Texas.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14, 201-223.
Nguyen, H. H., Messe, L. A.,&Stollak, G. E. (1999). Toward a more complex understanding of
acculturation and adjustment: Cultural involvements and psychosocial functioning in Vietnamese
youth. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 5-31.
Ogbu, J. U. (1990). Racial stratification and education. In G. E. Thomas (Ed.), U.S. race relations
in the 1980s and 1990s: Challenges and alternatives.Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Operario, D.,&Fiske, S.T. (1999). Integrating social identity and social cognition:Aframework
for bridging diverse perspectives. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and
social cognition (pp. 26-54). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Padilla, A. M. (1980). The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in acculturation. In A. M.
Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 47-84). Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Padilla, A. M. (1987). Acculturation and stress among immigrants and later generation individuals.
In D. Frick (Ed.), The quality of urban life: Social, psychological, and physical conditions
(pp. 101-120). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Persons, S. (1987). Ethnic studies at Chicago: 1905-45. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation.
American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.
Rogler, L. H., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. (1991). Acculturation and mental health status
among Hispanics: Convergence and newdirections for research. American Psychologist, 46,
585-597.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor. D. M. (1995). Coping with discrimination: How disadvantaged
group members perceive the discrimination that confronts them. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 826-838.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D.M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do not perceive
the discrimination that confronts them: The role of self-esteem and perceived control.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72, 373-389.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of the attitudes to
social inequality in 20th century England. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schacter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of social oppression: A
social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar &W. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political

psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Singer, E. (1981). Reference groups and social evaluations. In M. Rosenberg&R. Turner (Eds.),
Social psychology (pp. 66-93). New York: Basic Books.
Social Science Research Council. (1954). Acculturation: An exploratory formulation. American
Anthropologist, 56, 973-1000.
Steele, C.,&Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
Taft, R. (1977). Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 97-126). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61-67). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H.,&Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.Worchel
& W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup behavior (pp. 7-24). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Teske, R. H. C.,&Nelson, B. H. (1974). Acculturation and assimilation: A clarification. American
Ethnologist, 17, 218-235.
Triandis, H. C., Kashima, Y., Shimada, E., & Villareal, M. (1986). Acculturation indices as a
means of confirming cultural differences. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 43-70.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D.,&Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Ward, C., Bochner, S.,&Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of sulture shock (2nd ed.). Boston:
Routledge Kegan Paul.
Zanna, M. P., Crosby, F.,&Lowenstein, G. (1986). Male reference groups and discontent among
female professionals. In B. A. Gutek & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women’s career development
(pp. 28-41). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Amado M. Padilla received his Ph.D. in experimental psychology from the University of
NewMexico. He is a professor of psychological studies in education at Stanford University.
He has long been interested in the ways in which newcomers adapt to new environmental
contexts and/or cultures. He is the founding editor of the Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences. He enjoys jogging and biking with his partner Deborah.
William Perez completed his B.A. degree in psychology at Pomona College. He is currently
completing his Ph.D. in child and adolescent development in the School of Education
at Stanford University. His research interests include ethnic identity, school
achievement, and acculturation, particularly in school-age populations. He is an avid
runner and recently participated and completed in his first marathon.

A critical examination of acculturation theories
Abstract
Using an anti-oppressive and social justice lens, this paper critically examines the prominent theories of
unidirectional, bidimensional and interactive acculturation. The analysis reveals that all three theoretical schools of
thought have omitted to critically examine acculturation in relation to dominant-subordinate oppression, mutual
transformation of immigrants and the receiving society, formulation and reformulation of identities, and issues of
social justice.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Beth Chatten, Avery Calhoun, David Este, Catherine Worthington, Tim Pyrch, Lloyd Wong and
Amal Umar for their thoughtful feedback and support. I appreciate the helpful comments of the anonymous
reviewers and editor.
Introduction
The concept of acculturation, conceived in the fields of anthropology and sociology early in the 20th century (see
Park & Burgess, 1921; Redfield, Linton & Herskovits, 1936), has been used to explain dynamics involved when
people from diverse cultural backgrounds come into continuous contact with one another. Throughout the years,
theories of acculturation have evolved from the unidirectional school of thought with an emphasis on assimilation to
bidimensional and interactive perspectives which posit various acculturative outcomes (see Berry, 1980; Castro,
2003; Chun, Organista & Marin, 2003; Gordon, 1964). Acculturation theories could potentially offer insights into
multifaceted and often versatile interactions between immigrants and the dominant culture. The processes of
acculturation are, however, complex and have often been dealt with in the literature in confusing and inconsistent
ways (Berry & Sam, 1997). The interchangeable use of the terms assimilation and acculturation in many
acculturation theories also points to the persistent melting pot discourse. Furthermore, many acculturation theorists
have not explicitly reflected upon their ontological and epistemological orientations and biographies, and how these
impact their work. These contexts call for the use of an anti-oppressive and social justice lens to critically examine
the prominent acculturation theories and their usefulness to understanding of interactions between immigrants and
the dominant culture.
Locating the Critical Lens

The anti-oppressive and social justice perspective has served as a critical lens for feminists, critical race theorists,
queer theorists, and proponents of the rights of persons with disabilities, among others, to examine social structures
that favor certain groups in society and oppress others along social divisions of class, race, gender, ability, sexual
orientation, and so forth. Philosophically, proponents of the anti-oppressive and social justice view position
themselves in the transformative paradigm (Mertens, 2004), also known as the structuralist or socialist-collectivist
paradigm in social work literature (see Payne, 1997; Poulter, 2005). They reject the notion of consensus in the nature
of society, and attempt to deconstruct apparently democratic notions of “will” and individualized power as
convenient illusions which mask a more complex reality in which some are more able than others to exert influence
(Tew, 2006). Instead, they see society as changing and evolving not through cooperative endeavour, but through
conflicts of interest, power and resources (Howe, 1987).
According to the anti-oppressive and social justice perspective, complex, multifaceted oppressive relations at the
personal, institutional, cultural, local, national, and global levels permeate all physical, psychological, cultural,
economic, political and spiritual domains of humanity (see Dominelli, 2002). Oppressive relations divide people into
dominant and subordinate groups along social divisions. The dominant culture uses allocative and authoritative
resources to exercise power over others, to systematically devalue attributions and contributions of those deemed
inferior, and to exclude them from opportunities for material and social resources (Dominelli, 2002; Tew, 2006). It
also exerts, reinforces and defends its status quo through various oppressive mechanisms, such as normalization of
dominant values and priorities, curtailing activities of subordinate groups with social control systems, attacks on
formation and reformation of identity, “othering” aimed at dehumanizing people and ascribing to them a subordinate
status, creating myths of superiority and inferiority, and cultural alienation and annihilation (Dominelli, 2002;
Freeman, 2006; Mullaly, 2002).
With respect to social justice, the anti-oppressive perspective is critical of conventional notions of
distributive/redistributive social justice, which focus solely on the distribution and redistribution of income and other
resources, often defined in terms of some kind of social minimum (Mullaly, 2002). Rather, it advocates for
procedural justice with greater emphases upon social structures, processes and practices (see Duetsch, 2006). As a
profession, social work has articulated its commitment to social justice and human rights (see Abramovitz, 1998;
CASW, 2005; NASW, 1999). The anti-oppressive and social justice perspective is congruent with the philosophy
and practice of social work and an important lens through which to examine complex intergroup relations.
Examining Prominent Acculturation Theories
Mapmakers and Mapmaking

Gans (1997), in examining the making of acculturation theories, stated that “we, the people who are doing the actual
research, are often left out of the analysis because the field still retains remnants of the inhuman positivism, once
dominant in the social sciences, which tried to ignore the fact that human beings were doing the research (p.883)”.
In a similar vein, Pyrch (1998), building upon American philosopher Ken Wilber’s distinction between maps and
mapmaking, drew attention to the prevalent acceptance of the map of the empirical world (expert knowledge)
without due attention to the mapmaker who might bring something of him/herself to the picture. It is, thus, necessary
to put a spotlight on the theorists’ ontological and epistemological orientations and histories before delving into the
theories.
Ontologically, many influential acculturation theorists, including Milton Gordon and John Berry (see Gordon, 1964;
Berry & Sam, 1997), have firmly planted their philosophical roots in realism, which posits an objective, knowable
and universal reality (Williams & Arrigo, 2006). Berry and Sam (1997), for example, insist that although there are
substantial variations in the life circumstances of the cultural groups that experience acculturation, the psychological
processes that operate during acculturation are essentially the same for all the groups. They go on to state explicitly
that “we adopt a universalist perspective on acculturation” (Berry & Sam, 1997, p.296, italics in original). Such an
empirical, universalist stance on acculturation has been responsible for a significant body of theoretical work that
denies historically, politically and socially situated realities facing immigrants and fails to explain varying
experiences in immigrants’ lives. Bhatia & Ram (2001) contend, “to suggest that such a process is universal and that
all immigrants undergo the same psychological processes in their acculturation journey minimizes the inequities and
injustices faced by many non-European immigrants” (p.9).
Many acculturation theorists hold the epistemological position of objectivism or empiricism (see Bhatia & Ram,
2001; Gans, 1997), which links closely to their ontological orientation. They are concerned with certainty, facts and
quantification (Wiliams & Arrigo, 2006). Acculturation theorists, particularly in the field of cross cultural
psychology, often draw upon their dispassionate, etic and empiricist ethnographic work to develop their theoretical
frameworks of acculturation, and then systematically formulate psychometric instruments to measure acculturation.
Commonly, these measures have reduced complex socio-psychological processes of acculturation to concrete,
compartmentalized constructs, such as language use and preference, social affiliation, daily living habits, cultural
traditions, communication styles, cultural identity and pride, perceived prejudice and discrimination, generational
status, family socialization and cultural values (see Zane & Mak, 2005). These measurements overwhelmingly
overlook structural issues. This compartmentalization of acculturative experiences offers no insights into processes
and interactions involved in acculturation.
Finally, theorists’ own histories also play an important role in theoretical development. The field of acculturation
has been dominated by white males of European descent, who often do not speak immigrant languages (Gans,
1997). Yet, these scholars do not readily discuss their limitations with respect to their understanding of languages,
cultural nuances and histories. They seldom offer a critical account of the effect of their own biographies,
worldviews and ideologies on their work with people of diverse cultures and on their own theoretical development.
Further, they often do not articulate their awareness of the social, political and cultural contexts in which they are
living, and how these impact their work. Consequently, their analyses of acculturation have been ahistorical, gender-
neutral, and apolitical. Most ironically, their views on culture have been rather monolithic, overlooking diversity
within cultural groups.
In summary, the existing body of knowledge related to acculturation theories has been bounded by the prominent
theorists’ relatively uniform ontological and epistemological orientations and histories. It is important to keep these
limitations in mind as we proceed with a critical examination of the prominent acculturation schools of thought,
namely unidirectional, bidimensional and interactive acculturation.
Unidirectional Acculturation
In the unidirectional tradition, acculturation is synonymous with assimilation, or absorption of subordinate groups
into the dominant culture. Early in the 20th century, Robert Park drew upon the hallmark ecological framework of
the Chicago school of sociology to describe the process through which ethno-racial groups “apparently
progressively and irreversibly” experience contact, competition, accommodation and assimilation (Park, 1950,
p.138). Building upon his mentor’s work, Gordon (1964, 1978) proposed an assimilation model that describes the
gradual process of absorption of immigrants and members of ethnic minorities into the dominant culture at the
individual and group levels. Gordon classified assimilation into seven types and their sub-processes: (1) cultural
assimilation and acculturation (change of cultural patterns to those of dominant culture); (2) structural assimilation
(large scale entrance into institutions of dominant culture); (3) marital assimilation or amalgamation (large scale
intermarriage); (4) identificational assimilation (development of sense of peoplehood based exclusively on the
dominant culture); (5) attitude-receptional assimilation (absence of prejudice); (6) behavoural-receptional
assimilation (absence of discrimination); and (7) civic assimilation (absence of value and power conflicts).
According to Gordon’s theory, cultural assimilation and acculturation is the first step of the absorption process that
would take place and that would continue indefinitely even when no other type of assimilation occurred (Gordon,
1964). Gordon’s vision for intergroup harmony, however, rests in the centrality of structural assimilation. He states,
“once structural assimilation has occurred, either simultaneously with or subsequent to acculturation, all of the other
types of assimilation will naturally follow” (Gordon, 1964, p.80-81, italics in original). Gordon rationalized that
structural assimilation would facilitate opportunities for interethnic relationships, which in turn provide
opportunities for interethnic marriages. Marital assimilation then would result in the loss of ethnic identity of
minority groups, promote stronger ties with the receiving society, and over time reduce prejudice and
discrimination. Gordon made it clear that the “core culture,” in the American context, that represents the direction
and eventual outcome of assimilation is the “middle-class cultural patterns of, largely, white Protestant, Anglo-
Saxon origins” (Gordon, 1964, p.72). Acculturation, in his view, would require the extinction of any form of ethnic
identity in favor of an exclusively national identity.
Subsequent efforts, notably by Gans (1973) and Sandberg (1973), addressed Gordon’s somewhat static formulation
of assimilation with their explicit elaboration of the notion of “straight-line assimilation.” Again, immigrants and
members of ethnic minorities would be involved in a sequence of intergenerational steps, progressively stepping
away from ethnic “ground zero” and moving toward assimilation (Alba & Nee, 1997). Portes & Zhou (1995),
conscious of the importance of socioeconomic factors in immigrant adaptation, challenged the notion of
homogeneous acculturation, and offered a segmented assimilation theory. They outline several distinct forms of
adaptation, including: (1) acculturation and integration into the white middle class, (2) assimilation into the
underclass, and (3) preservation of ethnic cultural traditions and close ethnic ties through social networks in the
community.
From the anti-oppressive and social justice perspective, the unidirectional acculturation school of thought is
pervasively and devastatingly oppressive. Its assimilation framework, both as a social process and an ideology,
mirrors the deliberate colonization of the so-called “Third World” nations and cultures by European imperialism
over the course of hundreds of years. It involves the sociopsychology of superiority and domination of Eurocentric
ways of being, the assignment of inferiority and otherness to non-European people, and the gravitation toward
expansion, exploitation and subjugation. The prevalent assertion among the unidirectional acculturation theorists
that the ultimate aim for acculturation of immigrants is their assimilation into the dominant culture, involving their
eradication of any form of ethnic identity in favor of an exclusively national identity (Gordon, 1964), is parallel to
the final act of appropriation in the chronology of imperialism (see Smith, 1999).
Theorists of the unidirectional school of thought gravitate toward an existentialist-functionalist orientation, putting a
strong emphasis on social equilibrium, stability, and free will. They have not adequately and justly examined the
structure of the dominant receiving society and its role in the social construction of socioeconomic inequities facing
immigrants. Specifically, they fail to position acculturation in the larger social, political and economic contexts of
intergroup relationships and interactions, to question the role of power and domination in the marginalization of
immigrants in the assimilation process, and to understand the historical influence of colonization and imperialism in
modern day immigration. Even some progressive segmented assimilation scholars, such as Portes & Zhou (1995),
have only discussed the issues related to social class in deterministic, consensual terms. Unidirectional theories,
then, view acculturation as a one way, psychological process relevant only to immigrants in their journey toward
cultural shedding, behavioural shifting and eventual full absorption into the dominant culture. Embedded in this
view is the inflated notion of free will exercised by immigrants, and undeclared structural determinism with respect
to the dominant culture. Psychosocial and economic struggles of certain groups of immigrants are, thus, viewed as
their failure to shed their cultural inferiority and to acquire the aspired-to Eurocentric, middle class norms and
standards.
With a few exceptions (see Portes & Zhou, 1995), the unidirectional acculturation school of thought perpetuates the
pervasive myth of equal opportunities. Immigrants are assumed to be able to achieve a good life, similar to that of
the dominant culture, once they shed their cultural identity, norms and practices and achieve full assimilation. This
myth serves two purposes. First, it reinforces the myth of fairness in an unfair society in order to justify the status of
the dominant culture. Second, it masks the fact that social position and resources will give some people preferred
access to these so-called “opportunities” (Mullaly, 2002). The myth of opportunity, therefore, helps to put blame on
immigrants who fail to achieve Eurocentric, middle class life patterns. Those who experience socioeconomic
hardship are seen as people of inferior, inassimilable cultural groups who fail to take advantage of the equal
opportunities available to all citizens. The myth of equal opportunities, of course, has been proven untrue. It has
been well-documented that immigrants do not have equal access to opportunities in various aspects of their lives,
including education (Ngo, 2007; Watt & Roessingh, 2001) and employment (Statistics Canada, 2001), and that
second and third generation children of immigrants have experienced differential rates of poverty and social
alienation (Portes & Zhou, 1995; Reitz & Banerjee, 2007). If there were such a thing as equal opportunity for
immigrants, it would be the equal opportunity of becoming unequal.
Finally, the monolithic view of culture, inherent in the unidirectional acculturation school of thought, refuses to
examine the diversity within cultural groups in terms of gender, age, sexual orientation, ability and so forth. It
further attacks the very identity formation and reformation of immigrants. By presenting Eurocentric middle class
cultural patterns as the goal, the monolithic view has reinforced “otherness,” inferiority and subjugation of non-
European immigrants by the dominant culture. Unidirectional acculturation theories ignore the devastating impact of
the extinction of ethnic cultural identity in the process of assimilation on the wellbeing of immigrants, and its
potential role in creating bleak socioeconomic realities for some immigrants. Unfortunately, the oppressive intent
behind the unidirectional school of thought has often escaped scrutiny in the existing literature. Many scholars,
particularly those who focus on measurement of acculturation of immigrants, have uncritically incorporated the
established unidirectional acculturation theories into their research efforts. They have contributed to the imperialistic
discursive field of knowledge that pathologizes the complex and often unjust experience facing immigrants (see
Cuellar, Harris & Jasso, 1980; Padilla, 1980; Szapocznik, J. Scopetta, Kurtines, Aranalde, 1978; Wong, 1999).
Bidimensional Acculturation
Criticism of unidirectional acculturation theories led to the development of the bidimensional acculturation school of
thought. Prominent, and perhaps most influential, in this school of thought is John Berry, a Canadian scholar of
cross-cultural psychology. Berry (1974, 1980) proposed a quadric-modal acculturation model outlining acculturation
strategies that individuals and groups use in their intergroup encounters. Central to this model is the concept that
there are two independent dimensions underlying the process of acculturation of immigrants, namely maintenance of
heritage, culture and identity, and involvement with or identification with aspects of their societies of settlement
(Berry, 1980). Projected orthogonally, an acculturation space is created with four sectors within which individuals
may express how they are seeking to acculturate: assimilation, separation, marginalization and integration (see
figure 1). According to this model, assimilation occurs when there is little interest in cultural maintenance combined
with a preference for interacting with the larger society. Separation is the way when cultural maintenance is sought
while avoiding involvement with others. Marginalization exists when neither cultural maintenance nor interaction
with others is sought. Finally, integration is present when both cultural maintenance and involvement with the larger
society is sought. Other scholars have also proposed similar bidimensional acculturation models (see Phinney, 1990;
Bourhis, Moise, Perrault & Senecal, 1997).
Dimension 1:
Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and
characteristics?
Dimension 2: Yes No
Is it considered to be of value to Yes INTEGRATION ASSIMILATION
maintain relationships with other No SEPARATION MARGINALIZATION
groups?
Figure 1a: Quadric-modal acculturation model (Berry, 1980; 1984)
Like its unidirectional acculturation predecessor, bidimensional acculturation theory gravitates toward the
functionalist perspective. In a recent publication, Berry, Phinney, Sam & Vedder (2006) stated, “ we seek to avoid
the extra baggage that often accompanies terms such as mainstream, majority, dominant, minority, non-dominant
and host society” (p.11). This is as much a declaration of their apolitical, ahistorical and overall functionalist stance
in viewing intergroup relations as a statement about their choice of terminology. Without a willingness to engage in
critical examination of domination and institutionalized oppression (legitimizing the dominant group’s power
through established social structures in all social, political, economic and cultural domains), bidimensional
acculturation theorists focus solely on how immigrants, in a one way process, acculturate themselves into the
dominant culture. Even though the bidimensional school of thought offers various acculturation outcomes, its notion
of acculturation, with a strong focus on changes of identity, life patterns and adaptation of immigrants, carries
remnants of the assimilation school of thought.
Without being grounded in social justice, bidimensional acculturation theories have faced some serious conceptual
limitations. At issue are the two foundational dimensions, namely maintenance of cultural identity and
characteristics and relationships with the dominant culture. In the context of intergroup relations, identity is a site of
struggle that involves ongoing negotiation, creation, deconstruction and re-creation (Dominelli, 2002). Depending
on their dominant-subordinate experiences and subsequent effects, struggles and resilience, immigrants may view
their cultural identities differently at various points in life, and at times even experience a false sense of identity, as
in the case of internalized oppression. The conceptual focus, therefore, should take into consideration factors and
players that have been involved in the formation and reformation of multiple identities (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender,
sexual orientation and so forth) among immigrants. Similar dynamics also challenge the construction of the second
dimension of immigrants’ relationship with the dominant culture in the bidimensional framework. A sole focus on
immigrants’ perception of their relationships to the dominant culture as individuals possessing free will undermines
the dominant-subordinate interactive processes that involve “othering”, exclusion, negotiation, acceptance,
accommodation, and so forth, and have varying impacts on immigrants’ relationships with the dominant culture.
Without a deeper understanding of social justice involved in formation and reformation of multiple identities of
immigrants and their interactions with the dominant culture, the bidimensional acculturation theories at best cannot
provide a holistic explanation of inequitable socioeconomic realities facing some immigrants, and at worst
pathologize a marginalized population.
Finally, the language attached to various acculturation modes requires analysis. In the consensual perspective, the
bidimensional acculturation theories assume horizontal hierarchy in power relations among groups. This
unexamined and biased assumption is in direct contradiction to the mounting evidence of racial and ethnic
disparities across the globe (see Cummins, 1994; Beiser, Noh, Hou, Kaspar & Rummens, 2001; Reitz & Banerjee,
2007). Integration, in the context of power differential intergroup relations, would more likely mean absorption of
the subordinate groups, and thus comes much closer to assimilation. In the same vein, the notion of segregation, in
power differential intergroup relations, is not so much a conscious choice of free will as an outcome of
marginalization. Therefore, explanation of adaptation difficulties facing immigrants should move beyond resorting
to the marginalization mode for peripheral, arbitrary insights, and instead unmask meaning and the dynamics
involved in the other acculturative modes.
Interactive Acculturation
Both the unidirectional and bidimensional acculturation traditions have primarily dealt with how immigrants
assimilate or acculturate into the dominant culture. Recognizing the need to explain more clearly the interactive
nature of the immigrant and the dominant cultures, Bourhis et al. (1997), working from a social psychological
perspective, proposed the Interactive Acculturation Model. Central to this theoretical framework are three
components: (1) acculturation orientations adopted by immigrant groups, (2) acculturation orientations adopted by
the dominant culture towards specific groups of immigrants; and (3) interpersonal and intergroup relational
outcomes that represent combinations of immigrants’ and the dominant culture’s acculturation orientations. Bourhis
et al modified Berry’s quadric-modal acculturation model to describe acculturation orientations adopted by
immigrant groups in the dominant culture (see figure 2a). Specifically, they re-conceptualized the marginalization
mode into two variants, namely anomie and individualism, in order to accommodate idiocentric individuals who do
not necessarily lose their identities, but who experience cultural alienation or simply reject group ascriptions per se
(Bourhis et al, 1997). Additionally, they devised a model of the dominant culture’s acculturation orientation on the
basis of two dimensions, namely their acceptance of immigrants maintaining their cultural identity and acceptance
of immigrants adopting the cultural identity of the dominant group. Projected orthogonally, the acculturation
orientations of the receiving community include integration, assimilation, segregation, and exclusion and
individualism (see figure 2b).
Dimension 1:
characteristics?
Dimension 2: Yes No
maintain relationships with other No SEPARATION ANOMIE
groups? INDIVIDUALISM
Figure 2a: Revised bidimensional model of acculturation (Bourhis et al, 1997).
Dimension 1:
characteristics?
Dimension 2: Yes No
maintain relationships with other No SEPARATION EXCLUSION
groups? INDIVIDUALISM
Figure 2b: Bidimesional model of the dominant culture’s acculturation orientations (Bourhis et al, 1997).
Bourhis et al then orthogonally projected the relational outcomes from the acculturation orientations of immigrants
against those of the receiving community. Three different relational outcomes would emerge depending on the
concordance or discordance between immigrants’ strategies and the receiving community’s orientations, namely
consensual (intergroup harmony), problematic (partial agreement) and conflictual (intergroup conflict) outcomes
(see Figure 3).
Host Community Immigrant Community

Integration Assimilation Separation Anomie Individualism
Integration Consensual Problematic Conflictual Problematic Problematic
Assimilation Problematic Consensual Conflictual Problematic Problematic
Segregation Conflictual Conflictual Conflictual Conflictual Conflictual
Exclusion Conflictual Conflictual Conflictual Conflictual Conflictual
Individualism Problematic Problematic Problematic Problematic Consensual
Figure 3: Relational outcomes of acculturation orientations: The Interactive Acculturation Model (Bourhis et al,
1997).
Bourhis et al did not elaborate in any detail implications of the 25 possible outcomes on immigrants’ wellbeing.
Their assignment of the relational outcomes was rather arbitrary, vague and incoherent. The model would require
much more theoretical refinement in order to coherently link the possible outcomes to various social issues.
At first glance, the interactive acculturation model promises innovation. Rather than examining only immigrants’
acculturative strategies, as demonstrated in unidirectional and bidimensional acculturation theories, Bourhis et al put
the spotlight on the interaction between the dominant culture and immigrants. A closer look at the model, however,
reveals an emperor of the bi-dimensional acculturation school in his new clothes. Even though Bourhis et al (1997)
proposed a bidimensional model of the acculturation orientations of the dominant culture, the conceptual dimensions
focus on what the dominant culture thinks immigrants should do with respect to maintenance of their cultural
identity and their relationship to the dominant culture. In other words, it is still immigrants who would have to
acculturate into the dominant culture. An anti-oppressive perspective would advocate for two way acculturation, in
which the dominant culture would also ask itself what to do with respect to the maintenance of its own cultural
identity and adoption of cultural identities of immigrants. Without explicit articulation of two way street
acculturation, the so-called interactive acculturation model remains incomplete and misleading. Like its bi-
dimensional acculturation predecessor, the interactive acculturation model is subject to the same critiques related to
a lack of critical examination of oppressive societal structures, dominant-subordinate power differential, formation
and reformation of multiple identities, conceptual limitations, and contradictions in the language assigned to various
modes of acculturation (see the critical analysis of bidimensional acculturation). Overall, this model fails to
interrogate the role of the dominant structures in the construction of inequitable socioeconomic realities facing many
immigrants, and remains focused on the failure of immigrants to successfully acculturate into the dominant culture.
Conclusion
Through a critical anti-oppressive and social justice lens, this paper has examined the three major acculturation
schools of thought with respect to usefulness in understanding interactions between immigrants and the dominant
culture. All three theoretical schools of thought have omitted to critically examine acculturation in relation to
dominant-subordinate oppression, mutual transformation of immigrants and the receiving society, formulation and
reformulation of identities and issues of social justice. Consequently, they have overlooked the social construction of
inequitable socioeconomic realities facing immigrants, particularly in the context of power differential intergroup
relations. Worse, they risk pathologizing a marginalized population. This analysis urges educators, researchers,
practitioners and policymakers to engage in critical reflections in their uses of the existing theories of acculturation
in their works, as well as to challenge unexamined public discourses on acculturation. It further points out a unique
opportunity for the development of an anti-oppressive and social justice-based theory of acculturation.

1 Acculturation

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1 Acculturation

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Acculturation, Social Identity, and

Social Cognition: A New Perspective

acculturation. They posit that a new model of psychological acculturation should

Keywords: acculturation; social cognition; identity; stigma

In this article, we discuss psychological acculturation, by which we mean

attempt to revive older models of acculturation but to present a schema of a

new model of acculturation that incorporates contemporary work in social

and cognitive psychology. To discuss this new model of acculturation, it is

first necessary to present a brief overview of the current status of acculturation

research. Our review of acculturation research is not intended to be

research as we see them. Following this, we will present our model of

acculturation that rests on four pillars: social cognition, cultural competence,

that shows their relevance to the acculturative processes operating in

immigrants and their American-born offspring. In our general model of

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 25 No. 1, February 2003 35-55

© 2003 Sage Publications

color, language, ethnic background, and so forth. Finally, we conclude this

empirical work in the area of acculturation.

Overview of Acculturation Research

process by which newcomers to America become incorporated into mainstream

culture. Thisworkwas first the province of sociologists at the University

hallmark of the Chicago school of sociology and advanced a three-stage

model—contact, accommodation, and assimilation (Persons, 1987).

According to this model, contact between peoples from different cultures

forces them to seekways to accommodate to each other to minimize conflict.

Thus, contact shapes intergroup relations between different ethnic communities.

Furthermore, the essential element in the model was the process by

which newcomers to America learn to accommodate the dominant culture of

the United States. According to Park, as immigrants learned to accommodate

the dominant group, a process of cultural assimilation ensued culminating in

intermarriage and amalgamation. For Park, the process leading to cultural

assimilation was progressive and irreversible and contributed to the ethos of

America as a country of immigrants. Park’s three-stage model has in one

form or another remained a cornerstone in our thinking about how newcomers

adjust to the dominant culture following immigration.

Anthropologists were the next group of social scientists to expand on the

three-stage model. Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936), in explaining the

process of accommodation, made heavy reference to acculturation as a key

cultural patterns of either or both groups.

Redfield et al. (1936) were clear about the importance of “continuous

first-hand contact” between individuals of different cultures as the essential

36 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

would ensue automatically.

of the Social Science Research Council expanded on the Redfield et al.

(1936) model of acculturation by adding a psychological dimension to the

process of acculturation. Their definition stated,

Acculturative change may be the consequence of direct transmission; it may be

derived from non-cultural causes, such as ecological or demographic modifications

induced by an impinging culture; it may be delayed, as with internal

adjustments following upon the acceptance of alien traits or patterns; or it may

be a reactive adaptation of traditional modes of life. Its dynamics can be seen as

the generation of developmental sequences, and the operation of

role determinants and personality factors. (Social Science Research Council,

According to this expanded view of acculturation, we see the inclusion of

value systems, developmental sequences, roles, and personality factors as

contributing to how individuals accommodate when they come into contact

culture-related information that changes with intergroup contact and what

aspects of culture might be more resistant to change (e.g., values) with

intercultural contact. The significance of this definition is that it provides for

choice in the acculturation process—the change from one cultural orientation

to another can be “selective,” and persons involved in intergroup contact

elements they want to incorporate from the new culture.

on acculturation. According to these writers, acculturation included