Variations in the assessment of acculturation attitudes: Their relationships with psychological wellbeing

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Variations in the assessment of acculturation attitudes: Their relationships with psychological wellbeing夽 John W. Berry a,∗ , Colette Sabatier b a b

Queen’s University, 154 Albert St., Kingston, Ont, Canada K7L 3N6 Université Victor Segalen, Bordeaux, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Accepted 24 January 2011 Keywords: Acculturation Adaptation Assessment Immigrants Youth

a b s t r a c t The concept of acculturation attitudes refers to the various ways that acculturating individuals prefer to live with the two cultures that they are in contact with. In the original acculturation attitudes framework, Berry proposed a two-dimensional structure. The two dimensions were: to what extent do acculturating individuals prefer to maintain their heritage culture and identity; and to what extent do people wish to have contact with others outside their own group, and participate in the larger society. When these two dimensions are crossed, four ways of acculturating can be distinguished: assimilation, integration, separation, marginalisation. The first goal of this paper is to use other ways of operationalising these two dimensions to discover the resultant variations in the classification of individuals into the four ways of acculturating. The second goal is to see whether these variations in classifying ways of acculturation lead to different relationships with immigrants’ psychological wellbeing. We examine both questions using data from immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris, and conclude that different operationalisations of these two dimensions do yield some important variations in classification. There are also variations across these ways of assessing acculturation attitudes in their relationships with the psychological wellbeing of immigrant youth. Moreover, these variations are amplified when taking into account the society into which immigrant youth have settled. The general conclusions are that it does matter how and where acculturation attitudes are assessed, and that these variations impact the degree of psychological adaptation of immigrant youth. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Acculturation is a process of change that results from contact between groups and individuals of different cultures (Redfield, Linton & Herskovits, 1936). The concept of acculturation attitudes refers to the various ways that acculturating individuals prefer to live with the two cultures with which they are in contact (Berry, Kim, Power, Young & Bujaki, 1989). For many years, it was assumed that non-dominant people (such as immigrants) would change by giving up their heritage cultures, and becoming part of the society of settlement by way of assimilation (e.g. Gordon, 1964). Gordon also considered other outcomes, such as marginalisation and cultural pluralism. Subsequent observation and research have provided evi-

夽 This project is supported by a grant to the authors from SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada) and to the second author by INSERM (Institut national de la santeˇı et de la recherche meˇı dicale, France). ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.W. Berry). 0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.002

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

659

dence that there are indeed such variations in the way people change following contact; the assimilation way of becoming involved in the new society is not inevitable, nor the most common (Sam & Berry, 2006). Berry (1970, 1974, 1980) developed a framework within which to study these preferences for different ways to acculturate. Berry proposed a two-dimensional structure of acculturation attitudes, based on two separate issues: (i) the degree to which individuals wish to maintain (or change) their heritage cultural and identity, and (ii) the degree to which individuals wish to have contact with and participate with others in the larger society. When individuals express a preference for not maintaining their heritage culture and to participate in the larger society, the assimilation orientation to acculturation is defined. In contrast, when there is a desire to maintain heritage culture and not to participate in the larger society, the separation orientation is defined. When there is both a wish to maintain one’s heritage culture, and also to participate in the larger society, the integration orientation is defined. When there is both little desire to maintain one’s heritage culture nor to have relations with the larger society, then marginalisation is defined. Other orientations have been studied, including ways that occupy intermediate places in the two dimensional acculturation space. For example, Mishra, Sinha and Berry (1996) in a study of Adivasi peoples in India conceptualised an orientation situated between integration and assimilation called coexistence. This orientation represents more a willingness to live with both cultures, rather than a positive valuing of them. Findings revealed that coexistence and integration are positively correlated, and that they were equally preferred. The finding of this fifth orientation shows that there are other possibilities or places in the acculturation space that may be conceptualised and assessed. Another acculturation orientation has also been examined (Sabatier & Berry, 1996, 2008b; also explored in this paper). This is the degree to which adolescents are oriented not just to their own heritage cultures and to the national cultures they have settled in, but to some ‘global culture’ or ‘pan-human culture’ in which these two specific cultures are not the focus of their changing lives. Since this original formulation, this two dimensional conceptualisation has gradually become accepted, and the independence of the two dimensions has been confirmed empirically (e.g., Flannery Reise, & Yu, 2001; Oetting & Beauvais, 1990; Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000; Zak, 1976). There are three approaches to the assessment of acculturation attitudes. The first is to develop four scales, one for each of the four ways of acculturating (Berry et al., 1989; Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997; Unger et al., 2002). This approach provides an independent score for each of the four attitudes. Although these attitudes are usually correlated (Rudmin & Ahmadzadh, 2001), they are measured on independent scales (Berry, 2009; Berry & Sam, 2003). A second way of assessing these four ways of acculturating is to create vignettes with short descriptions of the four ways of acculturating, and to ask respondents for their preference on a scale (Pruegger, 1993; Van Oudenhoven, 2006). In this case, individuals receive four independent scores. In these first two approaches, there is no categorising of respondents; individuals have four scores based upon their relative preferences for the four ways of acculturating. A third approach assesses individuals’ preferences on the two underlying dimensions (e.g., Donà & Berry, 1994; Sabatier & Berry, 1996, 2008b; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). In this third approach, scores on the two dimensions are split at some point; those high or low on the two dimensions are classified into one of the four resulting acculturation categories. Sometimes the median of each scale is used as a basis for the split, but sometimes it is the mean or the scalar midpoint of the scale that is used. In the present study, we use this third approach, and employ the scalar midpoint as the basis for classification. One problem when making classifications of individuals using dimensional data is that there is a loss of information, especially when individuals near the midpoints of the two dimensions are placed into contrasting categories. For example, an individual who is ‘low’ in the integration space has responses that are only slightly different from an individual who is low in the marginalisation space. Moreover, there are usually large individual differences in where individuals will be located in the space (quadrants) within the crossed two dimensions. Despite these difficulties, the use of this third approach may be seen as a way of validating findings obtained with the other two approaches. If multiple methods show similar results, then cross-validation can be achieved. Liebkind (2001) noted that the original conceptualisation (Berry, 1980) has come to be operationalised in different ways by different researchers, using different psychological domains. The first dimension in the original conceptualisation referred to a person’s preference for maintaining (or not) one‘s heritage cultures. These newer variations have retained this first dimension but have varied the phrasing of the second issue. Instead of using the original second issue that is concerned with the domain of contact and participation with the larger society (which is mainly a concern with social relationships between immigrants and national groups), some researchers have used other aspects of how to deal with the larger society. First is the domain of identification with the larger society (e.g., Hutnik, 1986, 1991); others have used adoption of the national culture (e.g., Donà & Berry, 1994; Nguyen and Benet-Martinez (2011); Sayegh & Lasry, 1993) or adapting to the larger society (e.g. Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006). Usually only one way of operationalising this second dimension is used in a particular study, while in some other studies there is a comparison of the different operationalisations (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2007; Playford & Safdar, 2007; Snauwaert, Soenens, Vanbeselaere, & Boen, 2003). In these studies, when the analyses of acculturation attitudes is carried out with other ways of presenting the second dimension, typical findings are that when cultural adoption (of the national culture), or cultural identity (with the national society), or adaptation to the national society are used as dimensions (instead of contact), then different classifications of individuals’ acculturation attitudes result. In some cases the second dimension has been based on a combination of issues (e.g., Sabatier & Berry, 1996); such a combination of issues is also used in this paper. The domain of the first dimension has not previously been changed; it has remained one that examines preferences to retention (or not) for

660

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

a person’s heritage culture. In the present paper, we also vary the focus of this first dimension. In addition to heritage culture maintenance, we explore two other issues: preferences for heritage culture contact, and for heritage culture identity. Finding variations in classification should be no surprise, since survey research has shown for years that when you ask a different question you get a different answer (Brislin, 1986; Lonner & Berry, 1986; Schwartz, 1999). As noted above, the original approach to understanding these four ways of acculturating was to develop four scales that capture the meaning of the four strategies, using issues of importance to acculturating individuals. Items in these four scales were ‘double barreled’ in order to make explicit particular aspects of the two cultures in contact (e.g., “I prefer to have friends from [own cultural group] rather than friends from [national society]”). This formulation contravenes the longstanding dictum to avoid complex or double barreled items (Rudmin & Ahmadzadh, 2001). However, a justification is that acculturation is an inherently complex, ambiguous and confusing process that takes place at the intersection of two cultures (Berry, 2009; Berry & Sam, 2003). Hence such a way of formulating items matches the reality of the phenomenon and has a high degree of external or ecological validity (Campbell, 1957), while sacrificing some degree of internal validity. The original goal of assessing acculturation attitudes (Berry, 1970, 1974) was to demonstrate that there were variations in the ways individuals seek to acculturate. With an understanding of the relative degree of preference, comparisons could be made of individuals’ scores on each of the four ways of acculturating. Moreover, the relationships of each score with other variables could be examined; these include possible antecedents (such as perceived discrimination, and social group participation), as well as possible consequences (such as psychological and sociocultural adaptation and wellbeing). In a first study to make a comparison across different phrasings of the second issue (Snauwaert et al., 2003), the analyses of acculturation attitudes was carried out using two different operationalisations. They employed the scalar midpoint of the scale to make a fourfold classification. Their finding is that when either contact with (the national society), cultural adoption (of the national culture) or cultural identity (with the national society) are used as ways of operationalising the second dimension (instead of contact and participation), then different classifications of individuals’ acculturation strategies result. For example, those classified as integration varied from 82% (when using contact) to 37% (when using adoption) to 10% (when using identity). And for separation, the percentages were 10, 56 and 80 (respectively). These variations are rather large. A second study (Playford & Safdar, 2007) also compared these three different operationalisations of the second dimension (contact, adoption and identification). They sampled newly arrived international students in Canada, using splits at both the median and the scalar midpoint. This procedure resulted in variations in classifications of individuals into the four ways of acculturating. For example, integration was the most common classification (except in one case) across operationalisations and methods of split. However, integration varies from a high of 70% (for identification, using the scalar split) to a low of 25% (for adoption, using the median split). Playford and Safdar (2007) further explored the relationships between these acculturation attitudes and two forms of adaptation. Using a path analysis, the best fit (standardised betas) was a model predicting sociocultural adaptation by contact with (ˇ = .20) and adoption of (ˇ = .47) national culture. In a second model, Playford and Safdar (2007) found that contact predicts psychological well-being (ˇ = .12) and sociocultural adaptation (ˇ = .35). Adoption of culture predicts psychological well-being (ˇ = 12); and ethnic maintenance predicts psychological well-being (ˇ = .27). A third study has compared the various ways of assessing acculturation attitudes (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2007). They examined three types of scales: one statement, two statements and four statements. In the one statement method, the items assess where on a single bi-polar dimension a person prefers to acculturate, ranging from maintaining their own culture to adapting to the national culture. The two-statement method measures where a person prefers to acculturate on two dimensions (cultural maintenance and adaptation to the national culture). The four-statement method measures the degree of preference on the four attitudes. In a first study, they sampled first and second generation Turkish–Dutch adults, comparing the one statement and two-statement methods. The one statement method yielded two factors, one for acculturation in the private domain, and the other for acculturation in the public domain. However, the two domains were positively correlated (r = .37). Both Turkish and Dutch cultures were equally favoured in the public domain, but Turkish culture was favoured over Dutch culture in the private domain. The two-statement method had six items concerned with Turkish cultural maintenance and six items concerned with adaptation to Dutch culture. The maintenance items were unifactorial, but the adaptation items yielded two factors: adaptation in the public domain, and adaptation in the private domain. There was a positive correlation (r = .62) between maintenance and adaptation in the public domain, but no significant relationship in the private domain. The authors concluded that the Turkish–Dutch make a distinction between the public and private domains. The first study also used the two-statement method in the maintenance and adaptation domains. Of interest to this present study is that they classified participants on their responses to the two scales using four methods: median, mean, scalar midpoint and proximity. While there was perfect agreement in the rank orders of the four preferences using these different cut point methods, the percentages in each varied substantially. Results of this study indicate that there is substantial variation across different ways of classification and between public and private domains. For the public domain, integration is the most frequent category with a variation from a high of 92% with the scalar midpoint, to a low of 29% with median split. However, for the private domain, either assimilation or separation is preferred; the percentage for integration varies from 33% to 14% with median split. Correlations between adaptation and maintenance vary from .62 in the public domain and .18 for the private one. A second study with first and second generation Turkish–Dutch youth employed three measurement approaches: one, two and four statements. The results of the one and two-statement methods largely confirmed those from study one: they

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

661

found that variations in acculturation attitudes depend on the method used. In the four-statement method, they found two factors for the integration and the separation items: in both cases, there was a distinction between public and private attitudes. For the assimilation and marginalisation items, there was a unifactorial solution. The comparison across the three methods showed the following pattern. In the single statement method, both Turkish and Dutch cultures were equally favoured in the public domain, but Turkish culture was favoured over Dutch culture in the private domain. In the twostatement method they found that in general maintenance was more valued than adaptation. However, the difference is greater in the private domain than in the public domain. In the four-statement method integration was the most preferred way of acculturating, followed by separation in both the public and the private domains. The difference between integration and separation was larger in the public domain than in the private domain. Their overall conclusions were: “The mean score of the one-statement measurement method in the private domain was closer to the maintenance end of the continuum. Similarly, the two-statement measurement method shows that in the private domain, Turkish culture is more valued than is Dutch culture. The four-statement measurement method yields a slightly different picture because integration is preferred to separation. However, the preference for integration is weaker, and the preference for separation is stronger than in the public domain‘(p. 1479)”. The implication of these two studies is that variations across methods need to be considered when selecting instruments to assess acculturation attitudes. In other words, variations in methods yield variations in what is found. The present paper employs only the two dimensional approach, using data from the study of immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris (Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Sabatier & Berry, 1996, 2008a). Based on the research reviewed, we accept that variations in operationalising the second dimension will lead to variations in how participants are categorised in the four-acculturation attitude quadrants. Further, we expect that there will be variations when the issues addressed in the first dimension are also varied. However, there are two further questions addresses in this study: “Do such variations in acculturation attitudes differentially predict the psychological adaptation of youth?”; and “Does the national context of immigrant settlement (Canada vs. France) makes any difference to these relationships?”. 2. Procedure 2.1. Participants The participants are 706 adolescents (53% of girls) born in the country of settlement, and having immigrant parents (i.e., ‘second generation’). The sample was drawn from a variety of ethnic groups living in the Montreal area of Canada1 (N = 319), and living in the Paris area of France (N = 387). Adolescents were recruited on an individual basis through several means, mainly through school lists but also neighbourhood knowledge. The mean age is 15.5 years (sd = 1.8; min 11; max 19). They filled out several questionnaires in one session lasting one hour and half (for details see Sabatier & Berry, 2008a). The two societies in which these participants have settled differ in two main respects. The first difference is that, in general, Canada promotes multiculturalism as national policy, while France promotes assimilation (Noels & Berry, 2006; Sabatier & Berry, 1994; Sabatier & Boutry, 2006). A second difference follows from this first main difference: in Paris, there is a definite ‘national’ society, which is strongly articulated by government and ensconced in public institutions. However in Montreal, there is not one ‘national’ culture; indeed in the whole of Canada, there is no one ‘official’ or ‘mainstream’ culture. More specifically, Montreal is a bilingual as well as a multicultural city. Despite these characteristics, language laws in the province of Quebec oblige these adolescents to attend French-language schools. However, many learn English in the general community, as well as their heritage language in their families and cultural community. For these reasons, we offered the questionnaire in both French and English versions. We also identified the ‘national’ alternative in each item as Quebec society (with Canada in brackets after it); if asked, we explained that this referred to people living in Quebec with a Canadian origin. 2.2. Measures The first measure was of acculturation attitudes; in addition we asked two questions on cultural identity (one for ethnic identity, one for national identity), and some questions on ethnic behaviours (friends, music, media, language). A second main measure is of psychological wellbeing using the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965). In order to examine the variations in operationalising the two dimensions of the acculturation model (orientations towards own culture and towards national culture), we selected items from the original acculturation attitudes questionnaire. From these items, we constructed three types of scales. The first are acculturation attitudes; the second are acculturation orientations; and the third are acculturation specific and global indeces. 2.2.1. Acculturation attitudes A 45-items questionnaire on acculturation attitudes was developed after a two-phase pilot study. In the first phase, ten adolescents and ten parents participated in a qualitative interview in order to tap the domains that are relevant to

1

In Montreal ethnic groups are Greeks, Haitians, Italians and Vietnamese. In Paris, they are Algerians, Antilleans, Moroccans, Portuguese and Vietnamese.

662

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

acculturating youth. The second phase tested a first draft of the questionnaire. Among the 45 items, 21 are oriented towards their own culture and 21 towards the national culture. Three items examined attitudes towards a “third orientation” following the claim of some adolescents that we should consider the possibility of orientations towards other groups. Responses were provided on a 5-point scale. After factor analysis by country and by ethnic group with the whole sample, 23 items were retained, 15 for ethnic acculturation attitude (lowest loading .48, explained variance on a single factor 35%; ˛ = .86) and 8 for national acculturation attitude (lowest loading .56 explained variance on a single factor 38%; ˛ = .77). Tucker Phi coefficients for a two-factor solution reach the .90 criterion. The two-acculturation attitude scores are the means on the two dimensions. These scores appear in all the tables as Ethnic Acculturation Attitudes and National Acculturation Attitudes (it is interesting to note that all the initial “third orientation” items disappeared). 2.2.2. Acculturation orientations In addition to these two acculturation attitudes, we assessed two other variables: (cultural identities and ethnic behaviours). Cultural identities were assessed by one question each for ethnic and national identity on a 5-point scale. Ethnic behaviours assess the commitment of adolescents to behaviours related to their heritage culture. These behaviours are proportion of ethnic friends, ethnic media use, and competence in ethnic language. They were assessed on a 5-point scale (˛ = .84). Using factor analyses of acculturation attitudes, ethnic behaviours and cultural identities in each country, we created a combined variable, which we termed acculturation orientation on the two dimensions of ethnic and national acculturation. Ethnic acculturation orientation scores are the combined factor score of ethnic acculturation attitudes, ethnic identity and behaviours; the national acculturation orientation scores are made up of national acculturation attitudes and national identity. These scores appear in the Tables 3–6 as Acculturation Orientations 2.2.3. Acculturation specific and global indexes We also created six specific and two global acculturation indexes. Each index is based on two items for each dimension, except for identity which has only one question The first (ethnic) dimension was operationalised in three domains: (i) Own culture maintenance (as in the original operationalisation). The two items are: “I think that it is important that [heritage culture] be maintained across generations” and “I appreciate eating typically [ethnic] meals”. (ii) Own group contact. The two items are “I think that [ethnic] parents should make an effort for their children to develop ties with [own group] people outside the house” and “I like to attend [own cultural group] parties”. (iii) Ethnic identity. One question: “To what extent do you identify with your heritage group”? The second (national) dimension was operationalised in three domains: (i) National culture contact (again as in the original operationalisation). The two items are: “I think that parents should make an effort for their children to develop relationships with [national society]” and “I like to attend to [national society] parties”. (ii) National culture adoption. The two items are: “I want to adopt the way of life of [national society]” and “I appreciate eating [national society] style meals”; and (iii) National identity: one question: “To what extent do you identify with [the national society]”? We constructed the global index for the two acculturation dimensions (ethnic and national) with the four selected questions for acculturation attitudes and the question on identity. The ethnic global index (˛ = .69) had explained variance of 45%and a lowest loading of .52. The national global index (˛ = .67) had explained variance of 42%, and a lowest loading .33. Distributions of all the variables appear in Table 1. 3. Results We crossed the scores on these acculturation measures (by country) using the scalar mid-point (3) of the scales as the dividing point. Table 1 shows the total number of participants (N = 706), the means and the medians, and the minimum and maximum scores for each of these scales. Using the scalar mid-point with scales that have only a few items, a large number of participants fall exactly on this mid-point. As shown in Table 1, the proportion that falls exactly on 3 ranges between 4.11% and 35.26% across the various scales; to discard these would result in a major loss of information. Moreover, the majority of respondents fell in the upper category (3.5–5.0), indicating a substantial preference for engagement with both cultural communities. For these two reasons, we decided to allocate the participants who are exactly at 3 to the lower (disagreement) category. Table 2 shows these distributions broken into the two samples: Montreal (N = 319) and Paris (N = 387). Means on the 10 scales were significantly different in five cases: three national indicators are higher in Paris (adoption, contact and global index), while two own culture indicators are higher in Montreal (identity and orientation). These differences are consistent with the general promotion of cultural maintenance in Canada, and the limiting of ethnic expression in France.

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

663

Table 1 Total sample (N = 706): means, medians and frequencies on acculturation dimensions. M

Md

sd

Min

Max

Frequencies 1–2.5

Own culture maintenance National culture adoption Own group contact National group contact

4.52 3.23 4.00 3.57

5 3 4 3.50

.67 .97 .91 .97

1 1 1 1

5 5 5 5

3 %

N

%

N

%

18 208 74 139

2.5 29.5 10.5 19.7

29 151 77 116

4.1 21.4 10.9 16.4

659 347 555 451

93.3 49.2 78.6 63.9

3

1–2 Ethnic identity National identity Ethnic acculturation attitudes National acculturation attitudes Ethnic acculturation global index National acculturation global index

3.94 3.33 4.06 3.44 4.20 3.38

4 3 4.13 3.50 4.40 3.40

1.00 1.11 .63 .73 .66 .77

1 1 1.47 1.13 1.80 1.00

5 5 5 5 5 5

3.5–5

N

50 151

7.1 21.4

202 256

4–5 28.6 36.3

454 299

64.3 42.4

When we allocate those respondents with a score of 3 to the disagreement category on the various scales, the distributions (%) of respondents in the two samples and the total sample are presented in Table 3. In the first column is the original operationalisation of the first issue (own culture maintenance) crossed with the second issue in three national domains: contact (which is the original domain of the second issue); adoption; and identity. In the second and third columns, there are two different ways of operationalising the heritage culture issue (column 2, own contact; and column 3, own culture identity) crossed with the same three national domains as in the first column (national contact, adoption and identity). In columns 4–6, the three general acculturation scales are presented: acculturation attitudes score; acculturation orientations; and global acculturation indexes. These different ways of operationalising the two dimensions lead to differences in ways of classifying individuals’ acculturation strategies. The original operationalisation is shown in the first group of three columns in Table 3. When own culture maintenance is crossed with national culture contact, for the total sample, there are 2.8% for assimilation, 61.0% for integration, 3.80% for marginalisation and 32.3% for separation. When the second issue is operationalised as national culture adoption (e.g., second column), preference for assimilation is 2.8%, integration 46.3% marginalisation 3.80% and separation 47.0%. And when the second dimension is operationalised as national identity, the percentages change to 3.30, 39.10, 3.40 and 54.20, respectively. How the second dimension is operationalised does make a difference in the classification of acculturating individuals, even when retaining the original meaning of the first dimension (own culture maintenance). However, the differences are most substantial for integration (reducing from 61% to 39%), and for separation (increasing from 32.5 to 54%) across these three domains. This suggests that when involvement with the national culture becomes psychologically ‘deeper’ (going from just contact with, to adoption of, and to identification with the national culture), acculturating youth in both societies are less willing to orient themselves to the national society. A second approach was taken by changing the operationalisation of the first dimension. When own group contact (in the second group of three columns), and when own group identity (in third group of 3 columns) are crossed with these same three national orientations, the percentages again vary. A third approach was to use three general acculturation scales (in the last three columns, acculturation attitudes, orientations and global index). Again there are variations in the percentage distributions across the four way of acculturating. However, in all cases, the integration way of acculturating remains the most frequent preference, followed by separation, with assimilation and marginalisation much less frequent. It is apparent that despite these variations in operationalising how youth acculturate, integration remains the most favoured strategy. Also in Table 3 (bottom row) are the variations between Montreal and Paris. Of the 12 comparisons, only four are significant. By inspection these differences appear to be due to assimilation being higher in Paris for three aspects (for own group contact and national culture adoption, own group identity and national identity, and acculturation attitudes) while separation appears to be lower in Paris (for own group contact with national culture adoption), and integration to be lower in Paris for own group identity and national identity, and acculturation attitudes). Once again these differences are consistent with the general promotion of cultural maintenance in Canada, and the limiting of ethnic expression in France. The second main question addressed in this paper is whether these variations in classifying ways of acculturating have any impact on the level of psychological adaptation of immigrant youth. In previous research (reviewed by Berry, 1997 and Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006) it is common to find that those pursuing integration have the highest self-esteem, and those who are marginalised have the lowest; those assimilating or separating have intermediate levels. This pattern was generally replicated using the present data set (Berry & Sabatier, 2010), but there was an attenuated set of relationships in France. Here, we are concerned to discover whether the various ways of assessing acculturation preferences that are examined in this paper make any difference for the psychological adaptation of immigrant youth. Tables 4–6 show the general result for Rosenberg self-esteem scores, first for the countries combined (Table 4) and then when separated (Tables 5 and 6). In Table 4, of the twelve ways of assessing acculturation attitudes, Integration has numerically the highest score in all of the

664

All (N = 706)

Own culture maintenance National culture adoption Own group contact National group contact Ethnic identity National identity Ethnic acculturation attitudes National acculturation attitudes Ethnic acculturation global index National acculturation global index

Montreal (N = 319)

Paris (N = 387)

M

Md

sd

Min

Max

M

Md

sd

Min

Max

M

Md

sd

Min

Max

4.52 3.23 4.00 3.57 3.94 3.33 4.06 3.44 4.20 3.38

5 3 4 3.50 4 3 4.13 3.50 4.40 3.40

.67 .97 .91 .97 1.00 1.11 .63 .73 .66 .77

1 1 1 1 1 1 1.47 1.13 1.80 1.00

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4.52 3.13 4.05 3.48 4.03 3.34 4.12 3.39 4.24 3.31

5 3 4 3.50 4 3 4.20 3.38 4.4 3.4

.66 .96 .92 .94 1.05 1.16 .64 .71 .70 .77

2.5 1 1 1 1 1 2.2 1.25 1.8 1

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.8

4.51 3.31 3.95 3.64 3.87 3.32 4.01 3.48 4.16 3.44

5 3.50 4 3.50 4 3 4 3.50 4.2 3.4

.69 .98 .91 .98 .95 1.08 .62 .75 .63 .77

1 1 1.5 1 1 1 1.47 1.13 1.8 1

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

F

p

Eta square

.03 5.92 2.04 4.57 4.06 .08 5.55 2.65 2.21 4.97

.855 .015 .153 .033 .044 .782 .019 .104 .137 .026

.000 .008 .003 .006 .006 .000 .008 .004 .003 .007

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

Table 2 Means, medians and distribution on acculturation dimensions: total sample, Montreal and Paris.

Montreal Assimilation Integration Marginalisation Separation Paris Assimilation Integration Marginalisation Separation All Assimilation Integration Marginalisation Separation Country comparison X2 p

1 2 Own culture maintenance and national Own group contact and national

3 Own group identity and national

Culture contact

Culture adoption

Identity

Culture contact

Culture adoption

Identity

Culture contact

Culture adoption

Identity

2.80 59.20 3.80 34.20

2.80 44.20 3.80 49.20

2.50 37.00 4.10 56.40

11.30 50.80 7.20 30.70

9.70 37.30 8.80 44.20

7.50 32.00 11.00 49.50

19.70 42.30 12.90 25.10

18.50 28.50 14.10 38.90

2.80 62.50 3.90 30.70

2.80 48.10 3.90 45.20

3.90 40.80 2.80 52.50

11.10 54.30 12.70 22.00

12.40 38.50 11.40 37.70

10.90 33.90 12.90 42.40

24.50 40.80 13.70 20.90

2.80 61.00 3.80 32.30

2.80 46.30 3.80 47.00

3.30 39.10 3.40 54.20

11.20 52.70 10.20 25.90

11.20 38.00 10.20 40.70

9.30 33.00 12.00 45.60

.94 .81

1.16 .76

2.95 .40

4.14 .24

10.68 .01

4.77 .18

4 Accult attitudes

5 Accult orientations

6 Accult global index

10.00 29.50 22.60 37.90

4.40 64.60 1.60 29.50

22.30 26.60 25.10 26.00

5.60 55.50 2.20 36.70

23.00 27.90 15.20 33.90

19.90 24.80 18.30 37.00

4.10 69.30 2.10 24.50

31.50 21.20 19.10 28.20

2.80 66.70 2.30 28.20

22.40 41.50 13.30 22.80

21.00 28.20 14.70 36.10

15.40 26.90 20.30 37.40

4.20 67.10 1.80 26.80

27.30 23.70 21.80 27.20

4.10 61.60 2.30 32.00

3.30 .35

3.09 .38

2.41 .50

10.83 .01

10.87 .01

14.20 .003

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

Table 3 Percentage of participants in each strategy according to the classification procedure by country of settlement.

665

666

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

Table 4 Means level of Rosenberg self-esteem according to the various ways of classification in total sample (N = 706).

Own culture maintenance with National group contact National culture adoption National identity Own group contact with National group contact National culture adoption National identity Own group identity with National group contact National culture adoption National identity Acculturation attitudes Acculturation orientation Acculturation global index

Assimilation

Integration

M

sd

M

3.06 3.04 3.02

.40 .41 .42

3.16ab 3.13 3.12 3.10a 3.04a 3.01a 3.02 3.08ab 3.11

Marginalisation

Separation

F

p

sd

M

sd

M

sd

3.22b 3.17 3.19

.47 .49 .50

2.96ab 2.98 3.00

.45 .45 .44

3.05a 3.15 3.14

.49 .49 .48

7.57 1.60 2.02

<.001 .180 .110

.43 .44 .46

3.22b 3.17 3.19

.48 .49 .50

3.09ab 3.13 3.13

.44 .42 .41

3.02a 3.14 3.13

.50 .50 .49

7.27 .29 .76

<.000 .830 .510

.45 .47 .50 .38 .46 .39

3.27b 3.25b 3.27b 3.17 3.31c 3.18

.47 .48 .47 .48 .47 .49

2.99a 3.09a 3.10a 2.99 3.02a 2.91

.51 .50 .46 .48 .45 .49

3.07a 3.16ab 3.15ab 3.13 3.19bc 3.11

.47 .48 .48 .51 .50 .48

11.47 6.02 7.57 1.56 11.98 2.64

<.001 <.001 <.001 .190 <.001 <.040

Note. Means with superscript (a–c) in the same line are homogeneous subsamples according to Tukey’s post hoc test (p < .05).

Table 5 Means level of Rosenberg self-esteem according to the various ways of classification in Montreal.

Own culture maintenance with National group contact National culture adoption National identity Own group contact with National group contact National culture adoption National identity Own group identity with National group contact National culture adoption National identity Acculturation attitudes Acculturation orientation Acculturation global index

Assimilation

Integration

Marginalisation

Separation

M

sd

M

3.12 3.16 3.15

.46 .38 .40

3.28bc 3.24 ab 3.19 3.27bc 3.14a 3.17a 3.11 3.23ab 3.13ab

F

p

sd

M

sd

M

sd

3.36 3.28 3.38

.44 .46 .48

3.06 3.03 3.05

.49 .54 .52

3.09 3.25 3.19

.48 .48 .45

9.40 1.21 5.18

<.001 .300 <.001

.42 .44 .44

3.37c 3.40 b 3.30

.44 .48 .46

3.02a 3.14 a 3.17

.50 .48 .50

3.10ab 3.19 ab 3.24

.48 .45 .48

9.14 5.07 .90

<.001 <.001 .440

.43 .42 .53 .39 .42 .46

3.39c 3.37b 3.43b 3.29 3.47c 3.33b

.44 .46 .44 .45 .43 .45

3.13ab 3.31ab 3.24ab 3.02 3.05a 3.13ab

.51 .50 .44 .60 .47 .63

3.07a 3.20ab 3.14a 3.21 3.25b 3.09ab

.47 .48 .47 .52 .48 .48

9.75 3.68 7.59 1.38 12.27 5.98

<.001 <.010 <.001 .240 <.001 <.001

Note. Means with superscript (a–c) in the same line are homogeneous subsamples according to Tukey’s post hoc test (p < .05).

Table 6 Means level of Rosenberg self-esteem according to the various ways of classification in Paris. Assimilation

Own culture maintenance with National group contact National culture adoption National identity Own group contact with National group contact National culture adoption National identity Own group identity with National group contact National culture adoption National identity Acculturation attitudes Acculturation orientation Acculturation global index

Marginalisation

Separation

M

sd

Integration M

sd

M

sd

M

sd

F

p

3.01 2.94 2.94

.35 .43 .43

3.10 3.08 3.04

.47 .48 .46

2.89 2.94 2.94

.41 .37 .34

3.02 3.06 3.09

.50 .48 .49

1.59 .64 .99

.190 .580 .390

3.07 3.06 3.09a

.41 .47 .45

3.10 3.02 3.07ab

.48 .46 .49

3.12 3.13 3.11a

.41 .35 .37

2.93 3.07 3.04b

.52 .52 .50

2.98 .66 .34

.030 .570 .790

2.99ab 2.97ab 2.94a 2.94 2.99 2.93

.44 .48 .48 .37 .47 .40

3.16b 3.15b 3.10ab 3.08 3.14 3.07

.47 .47 .43 .48 .46 .47

2.89a 2.92a 2.96a 2.98 2.98 3.10

.50 .43 .44 .44 .43 .71

3.07ab 3.11b 3.15b 3.04 3.14 3.07

.47 .48 .50 .48 .51 .50

5.55 4.69 4.61 .61 3.12 .37

.000 .000 .000 .610 .020 .770

Note. Means with superscript (a–c) in the same line are homogeneous subsamples according to Tukey’s post hoc test (p < .05).

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

667

twelve ways, and significantly so in six cases. When the two countries are separated in the analysis, in Table 5 (for Montreal), the F statistic is significant in nine of twelve cases, and integration has numerically the highest score on self-esteem in all of the twelve ways of acculturating; it is significantly so in seven cases. In Table 6 (for Paris), five of the twelve F statistics are significant, and integration has numerically the highest score in five cases, and is significantly so in four cases. The third question addressed in this paper is whether the national contexts of immigrant settlement (Canada vs. France) makes any difference to either the classifications or to the level of psychological adaptation. Given the differences in the way these two countries deal with acculturation (Noels & Berry, 2006; Sabatier & Berry, 1994; Sabatier & Boutry, 2006), we examined the possible role of these different ways of acculturating in Canada and France. As noted above, in general, Canada promotes multiculturalism as national policy, while France promotes assimilation. Analyses reveal some variation between youth in Montreal and Paris for the level of endorsement of each way of acculturating (see Table 3). The general differences are for youth in Paris to accept assimilation more, and separation less than youth in Montreal. These differences are consistent with the general promotion of cultural maintenance in Canada, and the suppression of ethnic expression in France.

4. Discussion With respect to our first main issue, it is indeed the case that asking a different question does yield a different answer. We have found that, generally, different operationalisations of the two-acculturation dimensions do make a difference in the distributions across the four ways of acculturating. Research on the phrasing of questions in the domain of surveying has a long history showing that subtle variations in questions have consequences for the responses obtained (Brislin, 1986; Schwartz, 1999). In cross-cultural psychology, this has been a major concern, because of language variations required for use in different cultural groups. Many articles and texts (e.g., Berry, 1969; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997) have sought solutions to issues of comparability and equivalence (i.e., the meaning and interpretation of test items across cultures). For example, in the study of immigrant youth (Berry et al., 2006), acculturation attitudes and self-esteem were examined for equivalence in the 13 societies where data were collected, using factor analyses. In most cases the factor structures provided evidence for their equivalence. The equivalence for the measures of acculturation and for Rosenberg self-esteem is also acceptable in the present study (e.g., Sabatier & Berry, 2008a). However, the extent of variation appears to be far less than that previously reported in other studies (Playford & Safdar, 2007; Snauwaert et al., 2003). In the present study, overall the different ways of classification are distinct but coherent, (73% of the 706 adolescents are classified 7 times or more out of 12 in the same categories; and Kappa coefficients are good. Hence, we need to be very careful about making broad claims that ignore subtle differences in the operationalisations of the two basic dimensions. Furthermore, when changing how the first issue is operationalised, and when crossed with some other combinations of the second dimension, further variations are evident. Future researchers should identify the specific ways in which they operationalise the two dimensions. Is it preferring to have contact with others in the larger society (as in the original version), adoption of the national culture, adaptation to the national society, or identification with the larger society? Before any general statements can be made about which way of acculturation is preferred, and which is not, these specific operationalisations should be clearly distinguished in each study. Beyond this general observation that variations in asking the questions lead to variations in classifications, one issue that needs to be addressed is whether a particular operationalisation of the dimensions is associated with specific ways of acculturation. Inspection of Table 3 (first column) shows that when the first (original) issue is own culture maintenance, the preference for integration is higher (and preference for separation is lower) when crossed with national contact than when crossed with national culture adoption or with national culture identity. This suggests that the ‘deeper’ the psychological phenomena (adoption of, or identification with, the national society) the more youth prefer to remain linked to their heritage culture, and the less they want to engage the national society. There may be more psychological investment required in changing these more deep-rooted features of one’s identity. When the first issue is operationalised as own group contact, preference for integration is higher (and preference for separation is lower) when crossed with national culture contact than with national culture adoption or identity. Again, we may venture the conclusion that preferences for involvement with the national society (by way of integration) are more positive when the second issue is one of contact with the national society than for the two other kinds of linkages with the larger society (adoption of or identification with the national culture). That is, the same variations appear to be present in both countries when the first issue is varied (using own group contact and own group identity, rather than own group culture). For example, for integration, preferences are highest for contact, intermediate for adoption and lowest for identity. And for separation, preferences are lowest for contact, intermediate for adoption, and highest for identity. There are no obvious variations for assimilation or marginalisation. 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 (such as daily social contacts with, or changing behaviours to act more like, the members of the larger society). These differences require further examination in order to discern which specific features of the questions are associated with other variables. For example, Berry and Sabatier (2010) found that perceived discrimination was lowest in Canada for those seeking to integrate; this is consistent for immigrant youth reported in an international study (Berry et al., 2006). However, in France (Berry & Sabatier, 2010) perceived discrimination was highest for those seeking to integrate (as well

668

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

as to separate). We earlier concluded that it is more difficult to express one’s ethnicity in France, and if it is expressed, it attracts more discrimination. An earlier conclusion (e.g. Berry, 1997, 2005) has been that the integration way of acculturating is usually associated with better psychological adaptation. This was argued to be the case because by engaging in the two cultures, individuals have dual competencies, and dual networks for social support during the challenges of acculturation. This conclusion has been evaluated by a meta-analysis (Benet-Martínez, 2010) of findings across numerous studies. This meta-analysis sampled 83 studies and 23,197 participants. The analysis confirmed the integration–adaptation relationship, but the strength of the relationship depended on the measurement method used; the range was from .21 to .54 to .70 across different methods of assessing acculturation strategies. In the present study, this relationship has been confirmed for the one form of adaptation examined (Rosenberg selfesteem). In the total sample, and in the Montreal sample, we found a pattern that generally corresponds to the previous conclusion, where those seeking to integrate have better psychological adaptation. However, in France, where we have seen that ethnicity is difficult to express, there was no replication of this pattern for Rosenberg self-esteem. In the report by Berry and Sabatier (2010), however, other forms of self-esteem (social and school self-esteem) did show this pattern. It is thus apparent that while it is important to specify which operationalisation of acculturation attitudes is used, it is also important to specify which aspect of adaptation, and in which society immigrant youth have settled. A remaining question is whether one way of assessing acculturation attitudes has any advantage over others. In this study, we examined the preferences on the two underlying dimensions (orientations to one’s heritage culture, and to the national society) using various domains (culture maintenance/adoption; contact; and identification). In other studies, we have noted the use of other (bi-polar and four-statement) methods. In the absence of any criterion, there is no way of assessing whether one method is inherently more valid than another. However, there is the criterion of whether one method provides more insight into the ways that individuals adapt, and the degree to which they succeed in their new intercultural lives. As noted above, a recent meta-analysis by Benet-Martínez (2010) throws some light on this question. While confirming that the bicultural way (integration in our terms) is positively related to various forms of adaptation, she found that the use of scales assessing the two underlying dimensions had a stronger relationship with adaptation than the bi-polar or four-statement methods.

References Arends-Tóth, & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). The assessment of acculturation. In D. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 142–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arends-Tóth, & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 1462–1488. Benet-Martínez, V. (2010). Multiculturalism: Cultural, social, and personality processes. In K. Deaux, & M. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology. Oxford University Press. Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119–128. Berry, J. W. (1970). Marginality, stress and ethnic identification in an acculturated aboriginal community. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 239–252. Berry, J. W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism: Unity and identity reconsidered. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 17–22. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some New Findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder: Westview. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 46(1), 5–68. Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712. Berry, J. W. (2009). A critique of critical acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 361–371. Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 38, 185–206. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 191–207. Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2003). Accuracy in scientific discourse. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 65–68. Bourhis, R., Moise, C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. Brislin, R. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). London: Sage. Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297–312. Donà, G., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of Central American refugees. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 57–70. Flannery, W., Reise, S., & Yu, J. (2001). An empirical comparison of acculturation models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1035–1045. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press. Hutnik, N. (1986). Patterns of ethnic minority identification and models of social adaptation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9, 150–167. Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Liebkind, K. (2001). Acculturation. In R. Brown, & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 386–406). Oxford: Blackwell. Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1986). Surveying and sampling. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 85–110). London: Sage. Mishra, R. C., Sinha, D., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Ecology, acculturation and psychological adaptation: A study of Adivasi in Bihar. New Delhi: Sage. Noels, K., & Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturation in Canada. In D. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 274–293). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2011). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta analysis. Manuscript under review. Oetting, E., & Beauvais, F. (1990). Orthogonal cultural identification theory: The cultural identification of minority adolescents. International Journal of Addictions, 25, 655–685.

J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658–669

669

Playford, K., & Safdar, S. (2007). A comparison of various conceptualisations of acculturation and the prediction of adaptation of international students. In A. Chybicka, & M. Kazmierczak (Eds.), Appreciating diversity. Cracow: Impuls. Pruegger, V. (1993). Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal work values, PhD thesis, Queen’s University. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149–152. Rosenberg, G. M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rudmin, F., & Ahmadzadh, V. (2001). Psychometric critique of acculturation psychology: The case of Iranian immigrants. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 41–56. Ryder, A., Alden, L., & Paulhus, D. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49–65. Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Immigration et acculturation. In R. Y. Bourhis, & J.-P. Leyens (Eds.), Stéréotypes, discrimination et relations intergroups [Stereotypes, discrimination and intergroup relationships] (pp. 261–291). Bruxelles: Mardaga. Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Parents’ and adolescents’ acculturation attitudes. Paper presented at XIV conference of the International Society for Study of Behavioural Development, Quebec. Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (2008). The role of family acculturation, parental style and perceived discrimination in the adaptation of second generation immigrant youth in France and Canada. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 159–185. Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (1996). The development of scales to asses the acculturation attitudes of immigrant parents and second generation adolescents. In Paper presented at IACCP conference Bremen. Sabatier, C., & Boutry, V. (2006). Acculturation in Francophone European societies. In D. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 349–367). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sayegh, L., & Lasry, J.-C. (1993). Immigrants’ adaptation to Canada: Assimilation, acculturation and orthogonal cultural identification. Canadian Psychology, 24, 98–109. Schwartz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93–105. Snauwaert, B., Soenens, B., Vanbeselaere, N., & Boen, F. (2003). When integration does not necessarily imply integration: Different conceptualisations of acculturation orientations lead to different classifications. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 231–239. Unger, J., Gallaher, P., Shakib, S., Ritt-Olson, A., Palmer, P., & Johnson. (2002). The AHIMSA acculturation scale: A new measure of acculturation for adolescents in a multicultural society. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 225–251. Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2006). Immigrants. In D. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 163–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment and socio-cultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–343. Zak, I. (1976). Structure of ethnic identity in Arab Israeli students. Psychological Reports, 38, 239–246.