Choosing the best of both worlds: The acculturation process revisited

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Choosing the best of both worlds: The acculturation process revisited Gina G. Barker ∗ Coastal Carolina University, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 February 2014 Received in revised form 19 December 2014 Accepted 1 January 2015 Keywords: Acculturation Biculturalism Cultural integration Intercultural communication Intercultural adaptation Grounded theory Qualitative

a b s t r a c t This study examined the acculturation process with particular attention to how individuals navigate, evaluate, negotiate, adopt, and integrate various cultural aspects. A qualitative approach using in-depth interviews with Americans in Sweden and Swedes in the U.S. was employed to gain a nuanced and in-depth understanding of how the process is experienced at different stages and what role cultural, societal, and interpersonal factors play. Results emerging from a grounded theory analysis revealed a selective process involving identification of cultural differences and evaluation of host-culture aspects as complementary, superior, inferior, necessary, or unnecessary compared to home-culture ones. Culture-specific features are treated as additive, integrative, or mutually exclusive. Hostculture interaction and home-culture contact influence the process in important ways. Home-culture core values are rarely abandoned in favor of host-culture ones and the latter are not simply added. Bicultural competence is achievable; however, retention of a firm home-culture identity is a likely acculturation outcome. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction With more than 190 million people worldwide living outside their country of birth or citizenship (Martin & Zürcher, 2008), intercultural adaptation is becoming an increasingly common experience for people across the globe. Sojourners take residence abroad for various reasons, but whether they stay short term or long term, their ability to function in their host culture rests on some degree of adjustment and cultural change, a process referred to as acculturation. Underlying much of the early acculturation research among immigrants was a unidimensional view of the process. It was assumed that immigrants had to unlearn their home culture and assimilate into their host culture in order to achieve high levels of host-culture competence (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000; Kim, 2001). More than 30 years of acculturation research has demonstrated, however, that immigrants prefer to retain their home culture while acquiring host-culture competence. Increasing evidence that it is possible to internalize more than one cultural schema and be well adjusted in multiple cultures (Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Chen, Benet-Martínez, & Bond, 2008; Cheng, Lee, & Benet-Martínez, 2006; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000), has led to Berry’s (1990, 1997) bidimensional model becoming the predominant paradigm in acculturation research (Nguyen and Benet-Martínez, 2013; Ward, 2008).

∗ Correspondence to: 3421 Thrash Way, Myrtle Beach, SC 29577, United States. Tel.: +1 434 515 3117. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.01.001 0147-1767/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

57

Acculturation studies conducted across several disciplines have generally defined culture as a complex set of interrelated variables or as a system of components including identity, behavioral norms, and values that are corporately shared yet individually internalized (Zane & Mak, 2003). However, most researchers have treated culture as a single composite variable. Since culture has been operationalized in a number of different ways, it is difficult to compare research results. Also, a large number of studies involve Asian-American and Latin-American immigrants and biculturals, leaving other cultural pairs under-represented. Acculturation research to date has identified independent variables such as age, generational status, language proficiency, and political climates across a wide range of cultures (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002; Ward & Kus, 2012) along with factors aiding or hindering host-culture adaptation (Berry, 1990; Cools, 2006; Kim, 2001; Lee, 2006; Somani, 2010) and acculturation outcomes such as social and psychological adjustment and levels of host-culture adoption and home-culture retention (Hong et al., 2000; Ward, 1996). Less is known about the actual process of acculturation, including exactly how individuals evaluate, negotiate, organize, and move between cultural orientations. The affective, cognitive, and behavioral variables involved when managing dual cultural identities and frameworks are not yet clearly understood. Some of the questions left unanswered were aptly articulated by Ward (2008): The process elements have been largely overlooked. For example, what does integration really mean, and how is it achieved? Do people integrate by fusing their orientations to home and host cultures? Are their identities situational so that sometimes they are ‘traditional’ and sometimes ‘modern’? Why do people assimilate or separate? Is it because they choose to or because they do not have the skills and abilities to integrate? How does marginalization occur? Does it arise from constraints and deficits or is it a genuine option? Do acculturation orientations change over time? (p. 107). Recognizing a degree of uniformity in acculturation research that has stalled theory-building; Portes (1997) emphasized the need for conceptual innovation. Voicing similar concerns, Sackmann and Phillips (2004) advocated using contextual analysis, Chirkov (2009) argued in favor of diverse methodologies and multidisciplinary perspectives, and Hong et al. (2000) recommended using qualitative methods to examine the specific cognitive-affective responses to real-life cultural transitions. Following these recommendations, this study sought to revisit the acculturation process by examining the nature of bicultural integration in greater depth and detail, with particular attention to how acculturating individuals navigate, evaluate, negotiate, adopt, and integrate various aspects of their host and home cultures. A qualitative approach using in-depth interviews with Americans living or having lived in Sweden and Swedes living or having lived in the United States was employed in order to gain a nuanced and in-depth understanding of the lived experiences of individuals at different stages in the acculturation process and the cultural, societal, and interpersonal factors that influence how bicultural individuals integrate their two cultural frameworks. The use of the terms Swedish and American home and host cultures does not imply that cultural variation within each country was overlooked or disregarded or that culture was simply viewed as aligning with the concept of nation. 2. Review of literature and rationale As background for the study, literature on acculturation and cultural integration was reviewed. Leaning on a definition provided by Benet-Martínez et al. (2002), culture was conceptualized as a framework that includes cognitive, affective, and behavioral components that enables people to orient themselves in relation to one another and the rest of the world and to experience and interpret the world in similar ways. This definition agrees with Hofstede’s (1984) assessment that culture undergirds every aspect of human activity. It also lines up with Berry’s (2009) description of culture as consisting of both concrete features, i.e. artifacts and institutions, and abstract features, i.e. representations, ideas, and symbols. Furthermore, it recognizes that culture exists simultaneously as a socially shared, external reality and as an internal reality, incorporated in each individual’s psychological makeup. 2.1. The process of acculturation The literature on cultural adaptation is vast with most recent research recognizing two acculturation dimensions: homeculture maintenance and host-culture participation, the interplay of which results in the four distinct acculturation strategies of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization proposed by Berry and Sabatier (2011). This model was originally designed to gauge attitudes toward the two cultures, but was later changed to incorporate identity, language, social behavior, and motivations (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). The two dimensions have been operationalized in a number of different ways; however, most measurements focus on social interactions with home- versus host-culture members (Ward & Kus, 2012). Berry and Sabatier (2011) noted that participants classified as using an integration strategy varied from 82% in studies that emphasized intercultural contact to 37% in studies that emphasized adoption of culture and 10% in studies that emphasized cultural identity. They concluded, “It appears that this more internal way of becoming linked to the national society (identification with it) is somehow more difficult or less salient than the more external or behavioural ways” (p. 667). Ward and Kus (2012) reported similar findings and Matsudaira (2006) argued that the emphasis on attitudes, social

58

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

contact, and overt behavior at the expense of subjective, internal changes in beliefs, values, and identity has resulted in a biased assessment of the acculturation process. It appears that Berry’s (1990, 1997) two dimensions are not parallel; rather, acculturating individuals often maintain the values and identities of their home culture, while developing competencies that allow them to participate as competent members of their host culture without necessarily internalizing it in a manner that would make them fully bicultural. Navas et al. (2005), stressing that the process is complex and relative, said, “The same strategies are not applied in all of the domains, and interaction with other cultures in the workplace is not the same as when it affects the complex world of religious experience or family relationships” (pp. 31–32). They proposed seven domains, ranging from the political and government system being the most material to religious beliefs, ways of thinking, and values being the most immaterial. Navas, Rojasb, García, and Pumaresd (2007) found that immigrants are more likely to assimilate in public or peripheral areas, where change is also more likely to be imposed upon them, and less likely to do so in the more private, core aspects of culture. Consequently, they argued that acculturation must be measured across several domains. Kim (2001) also reported that acculturative change is least likely to take place in an individual’s value system. This might explain why the values domain has received the least attention in acculturation research (Matsudaira, 2006). One exception is a study by RotheramBorus (1993), who reported that Mexican Americans were able to blend their two cultures by becoming competitive and individualistic while remaining warm and expressive, family-focused, and deferring to authority. It is also likely that the specific home-culture aspects that are considered salient and critical to preserve (e.g. religion, traditions, gender roles, and ethnic status) vary across different cultures, as reported by Earley and Mosakowski (2000).

2.2. Acquiring bicultural competence Acquiring host-culture competence is necessary for assimilation or integration to take place. Kim (2001) noted, however, that it is difficult for adult first-generation immigrants to internalize the host culture. Similar conclusions were furthered by Birman (1998), Postiglione (1983), and van Oudenhoven, Ward, and Masgoret (2006). Not surprisingly, new culture learning is easier at a younger age and more likely to be achieved by subsequent generations of immigrants (Cheng et al., 2006; Christmas & Barker, 2014) and by internationally mobile third culture individuals (Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, 2009; Greenholtz & Kim, 2009; Lyttle, Barker, & Cornwell, 2011; Moore & Barker, 2012). Not only is host-culture adoption difficult to achieve; it may not even be desirable. Soujourners such as expatriates, missionaries, and international students may acquire host-culture competence in order to feel adjusted and fulfill strategic goals without internalizing the culture. Motives and time horizons naturally impact the process, as emphasized by Berry (1997) as well as by Ko and Yang (2011). Another important factor in the acculturation process is the presence of co-nationals (Berry, 1997). Individuals assimilate less to the host culture when they initially and predominantly spend time with home-culture members relative to hostculture members (Kosic, Kruglanski, Pierro, & Mannetti, 2004). Groups of immigrants present in large numbers often form communities within which they maintain their home-culture heritage (Portes, 1997). Such communities not only mitigate the need for immersion into the host culture, but may also help immigrant groups retain and strengthen their group vitality and identity (Croucher, 2011). Ward (1996) noted, however, that while some immigrants perceive the presence of conationals as a source of social support, others do not. One reason is that home-culture members may exert pressure to maintain social distance from the host culture which makes it more difficult to integrate the two (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Phinney & Devich-Nevarro, 1997). Social distance maintained by host-culture members also affects immigrants’ acculturation strategies (Zagefka, Gonzalez, & Brown, 2011) and may prevent them from becoming bicultural, as reported by Berry (1997), Kim (2001), Montreuil and Bourhis (2001), Navas et al. (2005), and Ward (2008). Van Oudenhoven, Ward, and Masgoret (2006) noted that since limited contact may lead to negative attitudes and social distance between the groups, immigrant integration requires a pluralistic society that accepts culturally different people. While several researchers have reported that it is possible for acculturating individuals to develop an integrated bicultural identity (Padilla, 2006; Phinney & Devich-Nevarro, 1997), it is clear that the process is both multi-facetted and complex. Rather than simply trading a home-culture identity for a host-culture one or adding one to the other, Kim (2008) envisioned an intercultural person as having “an open-ended, adaptive, and transformative self-other orientation” (p. 364) and being equipped with a mindset that embraces and incorporates divergent cultural elements into one’s own worldview.

2.3. Research questions From the review of the literature, it is evident that the process of acculturation needs to be revisited and re-examined in greater depth. Although there is ample evidence pointing to integration as the preferred acculturation strategy (BenetMartínez et al., 2002; Berry, 2009), it is less clear how bicultural competence is actually achieved (Berry & Sabatier, 2011; Kim, 2001; Ward & Kus, 2012) and to what extent different acculturation strategies are chosen and employed across different cultural domains and at different stages in the process (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Birman, 1998; Navas et al., 2005, 2007; Ward, 2008). This research attempted to fill this gap by examining the process as experienced by acculturating individuals:

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

59

RQ1: How do acculturating individuals navigate through the process of getting involved with and adopting aspects of their host culture? RQ2: How do acculturating individuals navigate through the process of remaining involved with and maintaining aspects of their home culture? Further inquiry also needs to be made into the social and individual factors impacting the acculturation process, including whether intercultural experiences in various social contexts are perceived as positive or negative (Cheng et al., 2006; Somani, 2010) and how such experiences affect the choice of acculturation strategy and the process of cultural integration (Ward, 2008). Particular attention needs to be given to identity, beliefs, and values, which have been found least likely to change by acculturation (Kim, 2001; Matsudaira, 2006; Navas et al., 2007). Thus, this study aimed also to investigate: RQ3: In what ways do evaluation of and attitudes toward host- and home-culture aspects impact the acculturation process? RQ4: In what ways do societal and interpersonal factors impact the acculturation process? 3. Method In order to seek an in-depth understanding of the acculturation and bicultural integration process, a qualitative method was chosen. Qualitative approaches provide detailed descriptions of socially constructed realities and meaning assigned to particular experiences (Creswell, 2007). This makes them appropriate for studying processes that play out in specific settings (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data for this study were collected through interviews, which is recommended for capturing social actors’ experiences and perspectives (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002), and analyzed using the grounded theory approach developed by Strauss and Corbin (1998). Grounded theory method is characterized by data collection and analysis occurring simultaneously in a comparative fashion in order to explain the process under investigation and generate theory that is grounded in the relationship between the data and the categories into which they are coded. This particular approach was deemed most appropriate because its systematic open, axial, and selective coding processes facilitate inductive analysis of large data sets. 3.1. Participants Participants in this study were recruited primarily through a snowball sampling strategy. The researcher contacted groups such as the American Women’s Club, the Swedish Women’s Educational Association, a Facebook group for expatriates, and individuals in her personal network. Those interviewed recruited additional participants. The resulting sample of 50 met several of the criteria listed by Creswell (2007, p. 127). A stratified, purposeful sample, it included several subgroups to facilitate comparison. Half of the participants were Americans living or having lived in Sweden and the other half were Swedes living or having lived in the U.S. All participants had grown up in their home country, relocated as adults, and lived at least two years in their host country. The two-year minimum was set to ensure that participants had achieved some degree of linguistic and cultural fluency and moved beyond the initial orientation stage. The average relocation age was 30 for both subgroups and the average age at the time of the interviews 46 and 49, respectively. The Americans’ average time in Sweden was 14 years, the range being 2–38, and the Swedes’ average time in the U.S. was 15 years, the range being 2–48. Eight participants had moved back to their home country. Twenty participants were male and thirty female. In addition, the sample included subgroups categorized as permanent immigrants, long-term immigrants, and short-term residents or expatriates. While the majority of the sample was Caucasian, participants with Asian, Latin, Filipino, Middle Eastern, and African-American racial and/or ethnic backgrounds were represented as well. The sample met the criterion for maximum variation in that participants had a variety of religious and political views, occupations, and socio-economic backgrounds yet was of sufficient size to allow the researcher to identify common patterns and achieve saturation of categories (Creswell, 2007). 3.2. Data collection and analysis Interviews were conducted July 2012–March 2013 in public or, if participants preferred, private places in four cities in southwest Sweden and in seven cities in the Carolinas and Virginia. In order to accommodate geographically dispersed participants in both countries, 23 interviews were conducted via the online video-conferencing application SkypeTM and seven via telephone. These interviews were similar to the face-to-face ones in that the researcher and interviewee were able to interact effectively and participants appeared comfortable and engaged in the conversation. The interviews were 40–102 min in length and averaged 60 min. The face-to-face interviews were 10% longer than the overall average; however, there were no notable differences in the interview protocol or the depth and detail of the answers. All interviews were conducted by the researcher in English, Swedish, or a combination based on each participant’s preference. With few exceptions, participants opted to use their native language. A semi-structured approach was used with a small number of open-ended questions. Participants were asked to describe their background, intercultural context, and future plans and to provide demographic information. They were asked to describe their cultural identity, their fluency in the host-country language, and their host-culture competency. Several lines

60

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

of questioning and probing techniques were utilized to assess their scope and level of adaptation, their process and degree of adoption of host-culture aspects, retention of home-culture aspects, degree of home- and host-culture contact, cultural integration, as well as attitudes toward and perspectives of both cultures. Examples of questions included, “What are the most notable aspects of being American that you have retained while living in Sweden?” and “How have your ways of thinking, feeling, and acting changed during your time in Sweden?” Some of the questions were designed to collect data for another study. The interviewer, cognizant of her central role in the research process, utilized verbal and nonverbal cues to build rapport with the interviewees, as recommended by Lindlof and Taylor (2002). Follow-up questions were employed as needed to obtain comprehensive data and to ensure that the participants’ accounts were properly and contextually understood, thus adhering to Seidman’s (1991) advice regarding “understanding the experience of other people and the meaning they make of that experience” (p. 8). All interviews were audio recorded. In the interest of capturing nonverbal nuances by listening to the interviews and also commencing the analysis phase by engaging closely with the data, the researcher transcribed all audio files. The analysis was conducted in several steps as outlined by Creswell (2007): “Using the constant comparative approach, the researcher attempts to “saturate” the categories—to look for instances that represent the category and to continue looking (and interviewing) until the new information obtained does not further provide insight into the category” (p. 160). The coding was conducted manually, memoing and highlighting the transcripts, with some computer assistance for organizing and cross-referencing two or more dimensions in the form of matrices, as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). Beginning with open coding, major categories were identified and noted but were held lightly and mutable to allow for an unrestricted and creative analytical process (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Following Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) model, the researcher proceeded with axial coding around a core phenomenon, noting connections between categories, causal1 and intervening conditions, and consequences. The data set was sequenced according to different criteria for multiple reviews as recurring themes and their relationships began to emerge. At the same time, each participant’s account was evaluated in its own context, thus combining variable-oriented and case-oriented analysis, as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). Finally, selective coding was conducted, generating a theoretical framework in which the interrelationships among categories were described and explained. Excerpts from the transcripts were selected and included in the description of the findings as exemplars to illustrate findings or as evidence to support interpretive claims (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). To protect participants’ confidentiality, pseudonyms were used when reporting the results. 3.3. Validity, reliability, and limitations Three different validation techniques were utilized to assess the accuracy and soundness of the findings. First, although a quantitative analysis was not a part of the research design, occurrences and cases related to each major theme were counted to ensure analytical honesty and sound judgment of qualities, as described by Miles and Huberman (1994): “When we identify a theme or pattern, we’re isolating something that (a) happens a number of times and (b) consistently happens in a specific way. . . When we say that something is ‘important’ or ‘significant’ or ‘recurrent,’ we have come to that estimate, in part by making counts, comparisons, and weights” (p. 253). Second, a negative or deviant case analysis was conducted to ensure that all disconfirming evidence, outliers, and exceptions related to the emerging theory had been accounted for (Creswell, 2007; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Third, member checking, also known as respondent validation, was conducted by asking participants via email to review preliminary findings and articulate their views of the credibility of the findings and interpretations (Creswell, 2007; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Since qualitative data collection obviously is not replicable, reliability was achieved by following Creswell’s (2007) admonition to make the sampling, data collection, and analysis processes transparent and to make the theoretical basis for interpretations explicit. Although the researcher made every effort to establish rapport with each interviewee and bracket her own attitudes and perspectives, the data were nevertheless scrutinized for possible interviewer effects. There were no indications that interpersonal dynamics or cultural norms had influenced what information was disclosed. None of the interviewees seemed uncomfortable answering the questions, which is another possible limitation when collecting data from interviews. When analyzing the data, the researcher was cognizant of the fact that the meaning assigned to social experiences is constantly changing and evolving and that interviewees are not simply recalling facts, but rather interpreting past experiences in light of the present (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Aware that the information had already been edited by the interviewees themselves into coherent stories that made sense to them, particular attention was given to accounts provided by those who had lived in their host country a long time and by those who had re-acculturated into their home culture. 4. Results The open coding of the interview transcripts revealed an intricate and complex navigation process whereby acculturating individuals identify, evaluate and compare aspects of their host and home cultures. This emerged as the core

1 The use of the term “causal conditions” does not imply claims of causation in a quantitative sense. Rather, it refers to conditions that are inferred to precede a data category when examined in the axial coding process.

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

61

Table 1 American and Swedish cultural components. Cultural domain

American

Swedish

Social interaction Individual vs. group

Openness; spontaneity; acceptance Individual achievements and recognition; results-oriented performance Tolerance and appreciation for diversity; individual uniqueness Customer service; product availability; enterprise; fast pace Pleasure; comfortable life, balancing work and play Conservatism; religion; charity; patriotism; right to bear arms

Loyal friendships; respect; reservedness Equality; collaboration; consensus building; group performance Planned and orderly interactions; uniformity of thought and action Simplicity; moderation; quality; outdoors; slow pace Responsibility; reliability; collective conscience Social welfare; public services healthcare; parental benefits

Individuals in society Quality of life values Rights and responsibilities Socio-political beliefs, policies, and programs

phenomenon that anchored the analysis. Several additional distinct sub-processes were identified, including adopting host-culture features that are deemed desirable and beneficial, opposing those deemed negative and contrary to deeply held beliefs or values, retaining home-culture features deemed preferable to host-culture ones, discarding those deemed inferior, and integrating home- and host-culture aspects when possible. The axial coding revealed a number of causal conditions that explained why the acculturation processes varied among participants in terms of the progression, level, and degree of permanency of their cultural transformation. Additive, integrative, and mutually exclusive aspects of the two cultures emerged as well. Although participants were not expected to be able to provide a comprehensive account of their processes, the salient aspects were understood to indicate which experiences had been most influential. As the participants described their acculturation process, six cultural domains with six distinct components from each culture emerged from the selective coding, as displayed in Table 1. 4.1. Navigating cultural differences Nearly all Swedes in the study described how they had adopted a social interaction norm characterized by openness and spontaneity. Despite a view of Americans as being superficial, no-one objected to chatting with strangers in public. Rather, this emerged as the American cultural feature that they most readily incorporated into their cultural make-up. Similarly, nearly all Americans reported having retained this open communication style in Sweden: “This spontaneous demeanor and a more open ‘I am not afraid of letting you know who I am’ is not difficult for me and stems from my American roots,” said Donna. While most felt it was well received, some said they felt pressured to tone down their public interactions. Only two reported having modified their behavior greatly because they saw it as loud and self-centered. Most Americans in the study had adopted a Swedish social interaction norm characterized by loyalty and respect. Corinne explained, “I love the loyalty; the friendships. It takes so long for me to get a friend; like snail-mail, but as soon as that person has decided it, the loyalty is so great that it almost freaks me out a little. At the same time, it feels very supportive.” Although several participants articulated frustration with Swedes being reserved and hard to get to know, they valued the quality of the friendships once formed, along with communication involving a greater degree of listening and ways to show hospitality. “Swedes always let someone speak and be heard without cutting them off or interrupting. I recognize in my own culture what would merely seem normal, now seems rude,” said Melissa. About half of the Swedes said they had retained a more timid and low-key approach along with a willingness to listen and a deep sense of loyalty toward their long-time friends. Most Swedes discussed acquiring confidence and freedom to achieve individual goals, feeling encouraged to do so in the U.S. Rakel explained, “There is a sense of freedom that you can do almost anything and achieve anything. There is a greater degree of acceptance.” Others commented on hope, positivity, and optimism. Most Americans said they had retained this aspect of individualism: “I still love the individualistic attitude and the ‘I can do this on my own’ or ‘I can do this. I can actually try this. I don’t have to feel afraid of failing.’ That still carries over from the American part of me,” said Cliff. Only three described discarding what they perceived as unnecessarily stressful and competitive American organizational behavior. Ten Swedish participants also described their opposition to hierarchical and competitive work structures that, while favoring individual achievements, were seen as harsh and counter-productive to the longer-term needs of the organization. Lennart said, “Sometimes I get very tired of the fact that all decisions need to go the top, turn around, and then come back down. I’m used to doing something, checking with my boss and then it’s a done deal.” Those in higher positions, however, noted that their decisions were implemented more effectively the American way. Participants from both countries contrasted the promotion of individual achievements associated with the U.S. with collaboration favored in Sweden. Nearly half of the Americans discussed adopting a value of equality, whether between the genders or among employees, along with a group-oriented approach to work. Donna explained, “Everyone strives endlessly for every human to have the same worth.” Others, while forced to adapt, opposed what they perceived as women and children exerting an inordinate degree of power along with a lack of individual differentiation and drive in the workplace. Ryan said, “You don’t do your best; you do the lower level that is expected of you. Nobody expects you to go above and beyond. . . I don’t get the impression that if I really go and really make a name for myself it is going to make a difference. I don’t think I would be compensated as much if I did my best as I would in the U.S. I think part of that is Swedes’ egalitarian

62

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

mindset.” Janey explained, “It’s more important that everyone has a say than to get anything accomplished.” Two-thirds of the Swedes said they had retained this value of equality. “You ought to work for the company and not work for your little unit or your little group, or yourself. . . I feel like I often run into people who are more interested in how things are going for their own group or a specific product than how things are going for the company as a whole,” said Nils. Participants described how they had been able to successfully incorporate a more democratic decision-making process and attitude of equality, thus integrating a Swedish cultural value into an American organization. Others, like Stefan, seemed less eager to retain this cultural feature. “What I don’t like about Sweden is that there are too many meetings. It takes too long to reach consensus. Most of the time it is impossible for everyone to agree anyway, so a lot of time is wasted trying to reach an agreement.” Also, almost half of the Swedes discussed how they had discarded a cultural norm stemming from equality referred to as the Law of Jante, because they perceived it as oppressive and limiting, “You are not allowed to stand out; ‘don’t think that you are significant.’ There is great deal of pressure like that,” said Britt. The individualism-collaboration dimension also emerged as participants from both countries navigated their roles as individuals in society. Almost half of the Swedes described how they enjoyed the diversity of cultures, tolerance for differences, and appreciation for uniqueness and individuality encountered in the U.S. Similarly, over half of the Americans discussed having retained this value, reserving the right to be different and “themselves,” with no participant finding this cultural feature objectionable. “I have always been the type of person that [says,] ‘take me the way I am.’ If you don’t like it, go somewhere else,” said Monique. Swedish society was described as orderly, predictable, and structured with a greater degree of group mentality and uniformity than in the U.S. Sara explained, “We trust that there is an organization that is functional and just, and I trust that I will get my turn when it is my turn. Here you cannot trust that to be the case; instead you have to fight for it.” Several Swedes said that they wanted to retain this approach, but that American society was fundamentally different. Many also strived to retain a structured lifestyle involving common meal times. Despite dealing with some frustrations, two-thirds of the Swedes reported with a sense of relief that they had discarded Swedish norms dictating uniformity and inflexibility. While several of the Americans had adopted this preference for order and structure, finding it organized and fair, nearly all opposed the associated pressure to conform, whether in terms of clothing style, ideas, or actions. “Here, everyone does everything exactly the same way, so there is no argument about it. That’s really nice in some ways. No one cares what you do, because you are all doing the same thing. But then when you start to be a little bit different, it gets really uncomfortable,” said Tracy. Gwen echoed, “The longer I stay here, the more I see that it’s actually true. If you have another opinion, you’d better keep it to yourself, because you are going to be so pressured by your peers that either you shut your mouth or you gradually conform.” Almost half of the Swedes described how much they appreciated living in a service-oriented society that promotes free enterprise. A few described how they had become more assertive in demanding service. Several Americans lamented a lack of customer service in Sweden, along with policies and rules that made it difficult to start a small business. Ryan said, “Sweden does not have a culture of customer service. I don’t know what it’s rooted in, but it makes you feel like you are a burden on somebody’s time if you go to a business or something interacting with them. Some of my Swedish friends who have called American companies are always amazed at how friendly and nice everyone is.” A few participants from each country opposed this cultural feature deeming it excessive, overwhelming, and pushy. Nearly all American participants had adopted a lifestyle characterized by simplicity, coziness, moderation, quality, and enjoyment of the outdoors. This emerged as the most favored Swedish cultural feature. In the words of Mark, “I learned how to enjoy simple pleasures.” However, among the few who thought differently was Ryan, who said, “I feel like I can possibly adjust to it, but if I did, I would be missing out on something. Like, if there is more out there, and I am content with less. You are still content, but you are not getting everything that is out there to get.” About half of the Swedes said they had retained this value and incorporated it in their lifestyle and home décor in the U.S., expressing frustration over an overabundance of poor quality products and food, a lack of cleanliness, and having to drive everywhere. Nearly half of the Swedes reported having adopted a comfortable and pleasure-oriented lifestyle, where work and play are properly balanced. Stefan said, “I like that it is a little more easy-going here. People don’t take things as seriously. . . they are better at kicking back than people in Sweden. I like that a lot and that is something I have tried to adopt for myself.” Emma echoed, “It is easier here. . . things are not taken so seriously. . . I think Americans are better at playing than we are.” Interestingly, only one American commented on this cultural difference, suggesting that most had been able to continue their more laid-back lifestyle in Sweden or that their adaptation in this area was viewed from a different perspective. All but a handful of the Swedes described having retained a sense of responsibility and reliability and/or an awareness of world affairs. Stefan, who managed payroll for both Swedish and American employees said, “Sweden is more Lutheran. You should fulfil your duties before you’re allowed to have fun. You should save before you buy. You should work before taking time off. . . Every time someone comes asking for an advance, it’s an American. The Swedes never do that. . . Americans are more financially irresponsible.” Americans were also described as lacking a global awareness that is considered a norm in Sweden. “People don’t know anything. I feel like many Americans are living in their own little universe. They have no clue what is going on in the rest of the world,” said Siv. At the same time, several discussed having discarded an excessive sense of duty and some of them had allowed themselves to become stay-at-home moms in the U.S. Others discussed how they disliked a Swedish arrogance associated with the notion of having created a superior society and taking responsibility for global problems. Over half of the Americans addressed having adopted this collective conscience. Ashley explained, “They are good at thinking about things globally and how things here can affect the rest of the world. . . They are not just worried

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

63

about Sweden; they are worried about everyone.” Others mentioned appreciating the honesty, integrity, and reliability of Swedes. At the same time, almost half of the Americans had encountered and felt offended by narrow and pre-conceived ideas about the U.S. and the American involvement in world affairs. Most of the Americans had adopted the socio-political system in Sweden that involves extensive welfare, healthcare, public services and parental benefits. In fact, for many bicultural couples, this was a main factor when deciding to live and raise a family in Sweden. Tammy, describing Sweden as a “model society” said, “When I talk to Americans about their views on the government and the role of government, how a society should be set-up and social policies put in place, I somehow feel more Swedish.” A few Americans opposed the Swedish “safety net.” Tracy, who had been told by her bank that she had too much money in the account where she had deposited her benefit checks shared, “I finally realized that I wasn’t using that money and I realized why. In America, accepting money from the government is a bad thing. It’s bad that you should need help from the government; you should be able to do it yourself. That’s the way I was raised in the South. Your role is not receiving welfare from the government, but here it’s so normal.” Most Swedes had retained their belief that Sweden’s socio-economic policies are superior to those in the U.S. Sara explained, “I’ve noticed how being raised in a welfare society shaped by social-democratic ideals makes me prefer the security over the enormous opportunities.” Only three participants addressed the associated tax burden and what they saw as an unacceptable attitude of entitlement among Swedes. Socio-political values associated with conservatism, patriotism, charity, and religion, along with policies governing military and weapons among civilians emerged as the area that was most offensive and least attractive for the Swedish participants to adopt. In the words of Lennart, “This combination of religion, weapons, and American nationalism feels really strange. One may subscribe to all three. . . but that one leads to the others. . . is hard for me to grasp.” Several described keeping their views to themselves and avoiding talking about politics in order to maintain relationships with neighbors and acquaintances, feeling there was no hope of agreement. Still, over a third of the Swedes reported having adopted some aspect of conservatism, particularly a family-centered focus, patriotism, and volunteerism. Nearly half of the Americans reported having retained conservative beliefs and values in Sweden, while a few gave examples of having discarded the same. Maintaining home-culture holiday traditions and other points of identification such as food, rituals, and language were important to both groups, but were emphasized more by Swedish participants. A few mentioned adopting American traditions and integrating holiday celebrations from both countries; however, this was a more frequent theme among American participants. Many Swedes talked about the importance of keeping up with home country news, while several discussed losing touch with current trends and popular culture. Only a handful of Americans commented on either keeping up with or losing awareness of current events. 4.2. Factors impacting acculturation The vast majority of participants demonstrated a willingness to acculturate and articulated a positive attitude toward their host country. All had relocated voluntarily. For 17 of the participants, the chief reason for residing in the host country was a romantic relationship with a host-country national unwilling or unable to live in the participant’s home country. Twelve, participants—some who were also in an intercultural marriage—had weighed the options and in some cases moved back and forth, and made their decision based on country preference. Eleven had relocated in pursuit of adventure or specifically to experience the host culture, and ten had settled in the host country because of opportunities for work or education, or a combination of work and a romantic relationship. Seven participants, representing both countries and genders and three acculturation motives said they would prefer to return to their home country, but felt unable to do so. They had encountered barriers in the acculturation process, including difficulties transferring career-related qualifications, difficulties mastering the language, discrimination, and/or an intense dislike of host-culture aspects that had left them feeling trapped, discouraged, and reluctant to embrace the acculturation process further. One of these participants had eventually returned to his home country. Attitude and orientation toward one’s home culture affected the participants’ willingness and effort to assimilate into their host culture. Over a third of the participants said that they felt that they fit better in their host culture than in their home culture or that they were unhappy in their home culture. Several of these participants recalled making it their initial goal to fully assimilate into their host culture. However, when describing their experiences, it was clear that they had acquired a selective bicultural repertoire much like the other participants. Others reported wanting to assimilate at first, then finding it impossible, and eventually acquiring a more balanced perspective that included valuing the home-culture features that they had retained. When comparing length of time in the host country with tendencies to adopt a broader range of host-culture features or to discard a broader range of home-culture ones, it was evident that assimilation was not associated with time abroad. Some of the expatriates and other short-term sojourners articulated wanting to get the most out of their experience by willingly undergoing cultural transformation. Others discussed how they would immerse themselves more in the host culture if they were to stay long-term. The majority of participants were well adjusted and comfortably bicultural. Only two permanent immigrants, who had lived in the U.S. for more than 20 years, said overtly that they felt more culturally competent and “at home” in the U.S. at this point. Rakel was interviewed while working temporarily in Sweden with the intention of returning to the U.S., thus having the opportunity to compare her experience in both countries closely. She said, “If you had asked me two years ago, I would have probably said that I am Swedish, but since moving back, I’ve seen more and more that I am really not all that Swedish. . . The person I am today is probably more American than Swedish.” Three additional participants,

64

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

although not articulating this directly, appeared to have acquired a bicultural make-up in which host-culture perspectives and values were predominant. By contrast, several participants who had lived abroad in excess of 30 years had retained their home-culture identity, values and views. Evidence emerged that the impact of age on the acculturation process is primarily in regards to language acquisition and flexibility to change one’s lifestyle. Some participants, who had moved in their 40s and 50s, reported having a harder time adapting to their host culture. Others said it would have been easier if they would have been younger when they relocated. Differences in acculturation experiences did not seem to be associated with gender. One important factor that emerged from the data was the depth of social interaction with host-country nationals. Having a host-national significant other seemed to be helpful for gaining access and guidance in the initial adaptation process, but was not in and of itself sufficient. Rather, having meaningful friendships and career opportunities provided participants with social acceptance and a sense of belonging that allowed them to understand cultural features as insiders. Those who lacked meaningful social interaction felt isolated and misunderstood. Language fluency emerged as a skill necessary for successful social interaction. The most salient theme in the acculturation process, evidenced by participants’ accounts, was their identification of cultural differences, followed by their evaluation of these as complementary, superior, inferior, necessary, or unnecessary when compared to those already in their cultural repertoire. Complementary features were most readily added, especially when deemed necessary or beneficial for cultural adaptation. Thus, the Swedes had adopted openness in social interactions, while Americans had adopted loyal friendships, hospitality, and respectful listening. Americans had also adopted enjoyment of things simple, clean, cozy, and outdoors, along with Swedish holiday traditions. Swedes had adopted enjoyment of customer service. When participants encountered values deemed superior to home-culture ones, they seized the opportunity to let go of home-culture demands. Swedes described having let go of the pressure “to be like everyone else” in favor of freedom to be unique, the expectation to perform at a uniform level in favor of encouragement to pursue their dreams, and the drive to fulfill their duty in favor of a comfortable lifestyle. Americans described having let go of stress and over-consumption in favor of a slower-paced, moderate lifestyle. Interestingly, participants from both countries described their host-country work culture as more laid-back and less stressful, although for different reasons. Americans had adopted the Swedish social welfare and healthcare system in favor of the financial independence stemming from lower U.S. taxes. Host-culture behavioral norms that were deemed inferior were reluctantly incorporated if necessary for host-culture participation. Beliefs and values conflicting and irreconcilable with home-culture ones were quietly opposed, and rather than getting into debates with host-country nationals, participants kept their views to themselves, assimilating on the surface as needed for social acceptance. Swedes described being unable or unwilling to accept conservative beliefs related to religion and the right to bear arms, and Americans described being unable or unwilling to accept narrow and conformist views and perspectives on a number of issues ranging from the right way to eat apple pie to the right way to solve global political dilemmas. As participants in both countries wrestled with conflicting values related to equality vs. individual rights, they decided in favor of one over the other based on their particular experience, or sought to enact some type of hybrid model. Although typically outside of their realm of influence, many Swedes, bothered by the poverty they had observed, said they wished the U.S. would offer more extensive healthcare and welfare benefits to all citizens. While all participants were involved in this process of identification of cultural differences, evaluation, and integration, a few described engaging in a more in-depth cognitive process. Mattias explained, “If I don’t understand both sides—if I don’t understand those opposed and those in favor—how am I supposed to have a legitimate opinion about anything?” The data analysis revealed two intervening conditions for the acculturation process: regional variations and homeculture contact. In general, the U.S. was identified as featuring a greater degree of cultural regional variation and diversity than Sweden, with West Coast and New England states identified as being culturally closer to Sweden. Participants in both countries discussed how larger cities were culturally more diverse and accommodating of differences, while rural areas fostered a greater pressure to assimilate. Several of the participants who had a hard time adjusting lived in small towns. Home-culture maintenance was achieved through home-culture contact. Two-thirds of participants said contact with home-country nationals in the host country was important. Two-thirds of participants reported visiting their home country at least semi-annually, with many visiting several times a year or for several months at a time. Most had regular phone or video contact with family members or close friends in their home country, even daily in some cases. Home-culture contact was thus achieved using either strategy or both. Seven participants lived with a co-national spouse. Only four permanent immigrants described home-culture contact as unimportant and reported visiting infrequently and they were also among the most assimilated participants. A few permanent immigrants reported that home-culture contact seemed unimportant early in the process as they were trying to assimilate, but that reconnecting to their home culture had become increasingly important over time. 4.3. Acculturation outcomes As discussed earlier, only two of the participants reported having switched their cultural identity as a result of their acculturation. About half of the participants described themselves as bicultural; however, many of them still identified themselves as rooted in their home culture. Some described how home-country visits made them aware of their cultural

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

65

transformation; others said visits made their home-country identity evident because they felt as if they had never left. Most participants referred to their home country as “home.” Some participants experienced their home-culture identity as inevitable or unchangeable: “You can pull the boy out of America, but you can’t pull America out of the boy,” said Brad. Most described their home-culture identity as a deeply emotional connection that had become more salient during their acculturation process. It should be noted, however, that for some participants, home-culture identity also represented a causal condition, in that they approached their intercultural venture with a firm attitude of being Swedish or American. A few participants indicated that they felt that seeking dual citizenship was problematic because it would threaten their home-culture identity. In addition to achieving host-culture competence, a number of culture-general outcomes emerged from the data, such as a broader perspective, open-mindedness, and empathy. Participants spoke of how their worldview had been expanded by exposure to new ideas and activities. Having critically re-evaluated home-culture beliefs and values and adopted host-culture ones, many also described themselves as more open-minded, humble, and respectful and less ethnocentric. In addition to becoming more sensitive to culturally different people, some participants had acquired empathy for immigrants, realizing that their process often is challenged by discrimination, alienation, and a lack of resources. Personal growth was another theme, articulated in terms of gaining confidence, self-efficacy, and a greater degree of self-awareness. A few participants described their early experience as discovering a core self. “I felt like I was stripped of everything that was me. . . There was only a root left. I thought ‘Where am I in all of this?’ Then I got to know myself in a new way,” said Donna. Corinne echoed, “I’m reverting to the core person that I used to be. . . I feel like I have turned into my more fundamental self.” 5. Discussion This study examined the acculturation process with particular attention to how individuals approach, negotiate, and integrate aspects of their host and home cultures. The findings effectively address the four research questions guiding the study, i.e. how acculturating individuals navigate through the process of getting involved with and adopting aspects of their host culture (RQ1) while remaining involved with and maintaining aspects of their home culture (RQ2), and in what ways evaluation of and attitudes toward host- and home-culture aspects (RQ3), along with societal and interpersonal factors (RQ4), impact the acculturation process. What emerged from the analysis is a grounded theory of selective acculturation involving identification and understanding of cultural differences, followed by evaluation of host-culture aspects as complementary, superior, inferior, necessary, or unnecessary compared to home-culture ones. Discrete components from both cultures coalesce into a complex, mosaicpatterned schema. Twelve Swedish and American culture-specific components across six domains were identified, in addition to practices related to cultural identification and affiliation, such as holiday traditions and keeping up with current trends and events. These components include cultural aspects that may be categorized as concrete or abstract; material or immaterial; or cognitive, affective, or behavioral. Conceptualizing culture broadly, as recommended by Hofstede (1984), and allowing the salient cultural aspects to emerge through inductive analysis was critical for gaining in-depth understanding of the nature of the acculturation process. The findings suggest that the acculturation process is primarily influenced by the depth of social interaction with hostcountry nationals, including meaningful friendships and career opportunities, which provide social acceptance and a sense of host-culture belonging. Other important factors include attitudes toward both host and home cultures and, to a lesser degree, acculturation age. Regional variations and home-culture contact were identified as intervening conditions. Acculturation processes were found to vary depending on area of residence. The present study linked home-culture contact specifically to home-culture maintenance. Findings show that given the right conditions, it is possible for acculturating individuals to achieve a high level of host-culture competence and a bicultural identity, along with previously identified general outcomes such as a broader perspective, open-mindedness, and empathy (Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, 2009; Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000). 5.1. Contributions to the acculturation literature This study adds to the now substantial body of acculturation literature that has identified several independent and intervening variables as well as outcomes of acculturation, mainly by way of quantitative inquiry (Berry, 1990, 2009; Hong et al., 2000; Kim, 2001; Ward, 1996; Ward & Kus, 2012). Designed to answer the calls for conceptual innovation (Portes, 1997), qualitative research method (Chirkov, 2009; Hong et al., 2000) and contextual analysis (Sackmann & Phillips, 2004) in order to examine the actual acculturation process in depth (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Cheng et al., 2006; Ward, 2008), the present study provides new insights into how individuals evaluate, negotiate, organize, and move between cultural orientations and manage dual cultural identities and frameworks. Although the results of this research alone are not sufficient to generate a comprehensive acculturation theory, the model of the key findings depicted in Fig. 1 may be used as a basis for further theory building in the area of bicultural integration. Previous research had already indicated that acculturation strategies vary across cultural domains (Navas et al., 2007). This was confirmed by the present study, in which participants addressed a range of domains including social interaction; group norms, organizational practices, values, attitudes, beliefs, and socio-political policies. These are similar in scope to the seven domains included in Navas et al.’s (2005, 2007) research. The findings provide a nuanced and in-depth perspective

66

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

Fig. 1. The selective and integrative acculturation process.

on how various cultural components influence acculturating individuals and what strategies they use in response to the opportunities and challenges faced within the process, thereby explaining why past research has generated contradictory results depending on which aspects of culture were emphasized (Berry & Sabatier, 2011; Ward & Kus, 2012). While Navas et al. (2007) reported that immigrants, regardless of origin, tend to assimilate into the host culture in areas related to work and consumption, integrate both cultures in areas of social interaction, and retain their home-culture beliefs and values, the present study reveals a much more intricate, complex, and asymmetric acculturation process in which the assessment of host-culture aspects compared to home-culture ones plays a central role. The results suggest that cultural features are treated as additive, integrative, or mutually exclusive by acculturating individuals who are engaged in the subprocesses of adopting host-culture features that are deemed desirable and beneficial, opposing those deemed negative and contradictory, retaining home-culture features deemed superior to host-culture ones, discarding those deemed inferior, and integrating home-and host-culture aspects when possible. These findings have important implications for acculturation theory, as no known previous study has identified and examined these acculturation sub-processes to this extent. Only one previous study (Rotheram-Borus, 1993) reporting a similarly selective adoption and integration process was found. The present study also highlights an asymmetry in the biculturalism of those who have acculturated as adults. Although they feel a part of both—or in between—cultures, they typically perceive their home-culture identity as inevitable and unchangeable and rarely switch a home-culture identity for a host-culture one. The findings confirm that core values are not likely to be abandoned in favor of host-culture ones, as discussed by Kim (2001) and Navas et al. (2007). The results also indicate that host-culture values are not simply added to the existing cultural repertoire. The integrative strategies that emerged from the present study show that home-culture practices and values that are deemed superior may be retained, not only in private but also in host-culture organizational contexts. This highlights the fact that acculturation occurs among host-culture members as well. The importance of home- and host-culture attitudes and interaction are not new findings. Home-culture contact has been reported to influence the acculturation process (Berry, 1997; Croucher, 2011; Kosic et al., 2004; Portes, 1997; Ward, 1996). The present study links home-culture contact specifically to home-culture maintenance. Furthermore, it presents a clearer picture of the manner in which host-culture interactions influence the acculturation process than was previously available. As the first study that sampled individuals from two different countries who acculturated in the other country, the present study provides a template for cross-cultural comparisons of acculturation processes. This design allows culture-specific aspects of both the process and the outcomes to be considered. Earley and Mosakowski (2000) argued that the specific homeculture aspects that acculturating individuals retain vary across cultures. Most previous acculturation studies, however, have treated the process itself as uniform across different cultures. The present study makes an important contribution to the literature by highlighting the critical role of home- and host-culture comparison and evaluation. The results suggest that some culture-specific features may be salient in both groups, while others are emphasized only by one group or the other.

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

67

American and Swedish participants in the present study were generally in agreement about the relative superiority or inferiority of the cultural features that were salient to both groups. Sampling participants from a culture that is closer to mainstream U.S. culture than the Asian and Latin cultures often used in cross-cultural research allows this study to fill yet another gap in the acculturation literature. While several researchers have reported that developing an integrated bicultural identity is possible for acculturating individuals (Padilla, 2006; Phinney & Devich-Nevarro, 1997), emerging as a central theme from much of the literature is the notion of conflict (BenetMartínez & Haritatos, 2005; Berry, 1997; Cools, 2006; Kim, 2001; Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001; Ward, 2008; Zagefka et al., 2011), experienced as actual acculturation strategies differ from those expected by home- or host-culture members, or even the individuals themselves. Research by Birman (1998), Kim (2001), Postiglione (1983) and Van Oudenhoven et al. (2006) has shown that it is difficult for adult first-generation immigrants to assimilate into their host culture. This study confirms that complete assimilation is not possible for most people who acculturate as adults, but it also shows why this particular acculturation strategy typically is not desirable. It provides empirical evidence of Kim’s (2008) theorized intercultural person who, rather than simply trading a home-culture identity for a host-culture one or adding one to the other, embraces and incorporates selected elements of both cultures. Participants experienced conflict mainly internally as they sought to reconcile seemingly contradictory host- and home-culture aspects. Few experienced acculturation conflicts with either homeor host-culture members. Those who did, resided in rural areas. Thus, this study makes another important contribution by confirming the importance of recognizing regional variation and within-country cultural diversity, previously emphasized by Van Oudenhoven et al. (2006). 5.2. Recommendations for future research As is the case with all qualitative research, the ability to generalize the results is limited by the inability to replicate the exact research process. Sampling participants at various stages in the process and with various acculturation time horizons allowed the researcher to compare and evaluate participants’ stories and identify several causal and intervening conditions that impact the acculturation process. This was especially important since interview data are limited by the reality that information provided by participants becomes selective and reconstructed as they interpret their past experiences in light of the present. Since it is impossible for them to provide a complete account of their acculturation experiences, salient aspects were treated as particularly influential. A negative case analysis, which was conducted in addition to several other validation techniques, revealed one area of contradictory data. People from both countries were identified as more private, closedminded and reluctant to discuss politics. While unable to explain the discrepancy, it is likely that what these participants identified as a cultural trait, in fact, was an outcome of interpersonal communication dynamics. This study identified level of social interaction, degree of immersion, and perception of belonging in the host society as influential in the acculturation process. Building on these results, future studies should weigh the relative importance of these factors. While previous research has addressed host-culture receptivity (Berry, 1997; Kim, 2001; Navas et al., 2005; Ward, 2008; Zagefka et al., 2011), closer examination of the communication processes between acculturating individuals and host-culture nationals is needed, in social as well as in work contexts. It seems obvious that future quantitative studies need to conceptualize culture clearly and broadly, with particular attention to the under-researched area of values and identity (Matsudaira, 2006), in order to obtain valid measures of the acculturation process. The multicultural personality questionnaire (Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, 2009; Van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000) stands out as a promising tool for measuring outcomes of intercultural integration. Finally, while age did not appear to be a major determinant of acculturation outcomes in the present study, the results did not suggest that the acculturation process is constant over time. Longitudinal research is recommended for examination of how acculturation strategies change over time in the host country. Also, when comparing the findings with those of previous studies (e.g. Christmas & Barker, 2014; Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, 2009; Kim, 2001) clear differences among acculturating adults, those immigrating as children or teens, second generation immigrants, and third culture individuals are evident. Another group that has received little attention is children raised by parents from two cultures. Thus, future studies should compare the acculturation processes of these different groups with attention to intercultural contact at various stages of development. 6. Conclusion In conclusion, the present study represents an important step toward revisiting and re-examining the acculturation process, thereby responding to Chirkov’s (2009) challenge to openly talk to acculturating individuals about their experiences in different countries and in different settings. She said, “Only after accumulating rich and diverse evidence of how acculturation occurs and is experienced by immigrants, researchers may start extracting generalizations which may shed light on the interactions between cultures and people moving across cultures” (p. 101). This study does indeed highlight how different acculturation strategies are used by different individuals in different settings and the main reasons why. It provides valuable insights into how these individuals navigate the process, choose components from both home and host cultures, and allow these to coalesce into a complex, integrated mosaic. The findings reveal that acculturation outcomes are neither uniform nor easily predictable. While several of the participants in this study had acquired a dual or in-between cultural identity that previous research (e.g. Berry, 2008; Kim, 2008; Padilla, 2006; Phinney & Devich-Nevarro, 1997; Tadmor & Tetlock, 2010)

68

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

predicted as a likely outcome, it is clear that most of them had developed an asymmetric form of biculturalism that is highly selective, yet anchored in an immutable home-culture identity. It is also clear that acculturation transforms and enriches those who experience the process. In the words of one participant: “I have picked the best parts from each culture.”

References Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015–1050. Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame-switching in biculturals with oppositional vs. compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 492–516. Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving between cultures. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 232–253). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5–68. Berry, J. W. (2008). Globalisation and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 328–336. Berry, J. W. (2009). A critique of critical acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 361–371. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across nations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2011). Variations in the assessment of acculturation attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(5), 658–669. Birman, D. (1998). Biculturalism and perceived competence of Latino immigrant adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(3), 335–354. Chen, S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigrationbased and globalization-based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76, 803–838. Cheng, C.-Y., Lee, F., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Assimilation and contrast effects in cultural frame switching: Bicultural identity integration and valence of cultural cues. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(6), 742–760. Chirkov, V. (2009). Critical psychology of acculturation: What do we study and how do we study it, when we investigate acculturation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1), 94–105. Christmas, C. N., & Barker, G. G. (2014). Assessing intercultural experience: Differences in acculturation, intercultural sensitivity, and cognitive flexibility between the first and second generation of Latino immigrants. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 7(3), 238–257. Cools, C. (2006). Relational communication in intercultural couples. Language and Intercultural Communication, 6(3–4), 262–274. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Croucher, S. M. (2011). Social networking and cultural adaptation: A theoretical model. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(4), 259–264. Dewaele, J., & van Oudenhoven, J. (2009). The effect of multilingualism/multiculturalism on personality: No gain without pain for third culture kids? International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(4), 443–459. Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26–49. Greenholtz, J., & Kim, J. (2009). The cultural hybridity of Lena: A multi-method case study of a third culture kid. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 391–398. Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720. Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 359–368. Ko, H.-C., & Yang, M.-L. (2011). The effects of cross-cultural training on expatriate assignments. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 158–174. Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2004). The social cognition of immigrants’ acculturation: Effects of the need for closure and the reference group at entry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 796–813. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395–412. Lee, P.-W. (2006). Bridging cultures: Understanding the construction of relational identity in intercultural friendship. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(1), 3–22. Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lyttle, A., Barker, G., & Cornwell, T. (2011). Adept through adaptation: Third culture individuals’ interpersonal sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(5), 686–694. Martin, P., & Zürcher, G. (2008). Managing migration: The global challenge. Population Bulletin, 63(1) http://www.prb.org/pdf08/63.1migration.pdf Matsudaira, T. (2006). Measures of psychological acculturation: A review. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(3), 462–487. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Montreuil, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2001). Majority acculturation orientations toward valued and devalued immigrants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(6), 698–719. Moore, A. M., & Barker, G. G. (2012). Confused or multicultural: Third culture individuals’ cultural identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 553–562. Navas, M., García, M. C., Sánchez, J., Rojas, A. J., Pumares, P., & Fernández, J. S. (2005). Relative acculturation extended model: New contributions with regard to the study of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(1), 21–37. Navas, M., Rojasb, A. J., García, M., & Pumaresd, P. (2007). Acculturation strategies and attitudes according to the Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM): The perspectives of natives versus immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(1), 67–86. Nguyen, A. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122–159. Padilla, A. (2006). Bicultural social development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(4), 467–497. Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Nevarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7(1), 3–32. Portes, A. (1997). Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and opportunities. International Migration Review, 31(4), 799–825. Postiglione, G. A. (1983). Ethnicity and American social theory: Toward critical pluralism. Lantham, MD: University Press of America. Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1993). Biculturalism among adolescents. In M. E. Bernal, & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 81–102). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 49–65. Sackmann, S. A., & Phillips, M. E. (2004). Contextual influences on culture research: Shifting assumptions for new workplace realities. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(3), 370–390. Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for research in education and social sciences. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Somani, I. S. (2010). Becoming American. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 3(1), 59–81. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

G.G. Barker / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 45 (2015) 56–69

69

Tadmor, C., & Tetlock, P. (2010). Biculturalism: A model of the effects of second-culture exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(2), 173–190. Van der Zee, K. I., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The multicultural personality questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument for multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14(4), 291–309. Van Oudenhoven, J., Ward, P., & Masgoret, C. A. (2006). Patterns of relations between immigrants and host societies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 637–651. Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis, & R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 124–147). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ward, C. (2008). Thinking outside the Berry boxes: New perspectives on identity, acculturation and intercultural relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(2), 105–114. Ward, C., & Kus, L. (2012). Back to and beyond Berry’s basics: The conceptualization, operationalization and classification of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 472–485. Zagefka, H., Gonzalez, R., & Brown, R. (2011). How minority members’ perceptions of majority members’ acculturation preferences shape minority members’ own acculturation preferences: Evidence from Chile. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 216–233. Zane, N., & Mak, W. (2003). Major approaches to the measurement of acculturation among ethnic minority populations: A content analysis and an alternative empirical strategy. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marín (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 39–60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.