Acculturation is not a new field of study, since scholars have studied and researched the area since the 1920s (Gordon, 1964; Gillin & Raimy, 1940; Park & Burgess, 1921; Thurnwald 1932). The field of acculturation is visited by sociologists, anthropologists, cross-cultural psychologists, and scholars in cross-cultural communication studies. Culture refers to shared meanings, understandings, and rules and enable a varied range of psychological and social processes (Hofstede, 2001). Acculturation, on the other hand, refers to changes that take place in cultural patterns as a result of contacts between culturally dissimilar peoples. Acculturation occurs at both individual and societal levels (Berry, 1997).
2.2.1 Acculturation: The Anthropological Lens
Anthropologists were among the first scholars to contribute to the literature on acculturation by analysing the experience from the perspective of cultural patterns (Minkov, 2013). Acculturation is a concept first introduced to explain the phenomena at work when people from diverse cultural backgrounds come into continuous contact with one another cross-cultural transition has been documented lengthily across social science disciplines since the 1930s (Gillin & Raimy, 1940; Redfield et al., 1936). However, the field suffers from the lack of consensus across studies making it problematic for people to view a clear and consistent picture of what has been achieved in the field over the years (Kim, 2017).
26
Park and Burgess (1921), pioneers of the Chicago School of Sociology, were among the first scholars to explore the concept of acculturation. They have enlightened the process people from different cultures undergo when they come into continuous contact with one another (Park & Burgess, 1921). Scholars agreed that acculturation is a process and not an event, defining acculturation as “those processes whereby the culture of a society is modified as a result of contact with the culture of one or more other societies” (Gillin & Raimy, 1940, p. 371; Thurnwald 1932, p. 557). Some considered the process as group experience and defined acculturation as “those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups” (Redfield et al., 1936, p 149). Several writers have argued that acculturation is a unidirectional process (Ryder et al., 2000). They treat acculturation as a one-way cultural and psychological process for newcomers to engage in, achieving perfect integration in the dominant culture and pursuing their conception of a good life, with changes occurring within each minority group in the direction of a majority culture (Gillin & Raimy, 1940; Redfield et al., 1936). The unidirectional school of thought research or theoretical discussions make no mention of reciprocity or changes in the majority group or other groups, but discussed only changes in regard to immigrant groups, and factors contributing to such changes (Gillin & Raimy, 1940; Redfield et al., 1936). There is no discussion on the effect of the immigrant group on the majority culture nor is it even suggested that some traits of the immigrant group may be adopted by the majority culture (Gillin & Raimy, 1940; Noesjirwan & Freestone, 1979). Assimilation was considered the only way of acculturation.
Acculturation is a complex process and has often been dealt with in the literature in confusing ways. Some scholars used acculturation and assimilation synonymously (Berry, 1997).
27
Gordon’s “Theory of cultural assimilation” defines assimilation as a process of the absorption which will start with the engagement of the host culture and will evolve all along the immigrants’ journey in their new environment (Gordon, 1964).
2.2.2 Acculturation as a Two Directional Process
In the literature, acculturation has been also considered a two-way, or reciprocal process (Redfield et al., 1936; Linton, 1940). Most of the contemporary writers conceptualized acculturation as a two-way process, which implied continuous contact between two or more groups with two or more bodies of tradition and focused on interactive perspectives (Berry 1997, 2005, Berry & Kim 1998; Tartakovsky, 2012). Acculturation is defined as “the dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members” (Berry, 2005, p. 698). The model introduced by Berry suggested that the choice of an acculturation strategy is influenced by the immigrants’ psychological profile, their social history coupled with the acculturation policy of the host society (Berry, 2005). Acculturation was considered as a process which engages the immigrant, while taking into account his origin and cultural heritage, and the host country, while considering the different policies put in place in health, education and immigration systems to ease the process (Berry, 1997, 2005). The acculturation orientations adopted by the host majority are important in the acculturation processes, because the members of the dominant groups have a considerable influence on the immigration and integration policies of immigrants (Berry, 1997; Materaa et al., 2018). In their research conducted in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver to assess attitudes towards various aspects of multiculturalism towards various ethnic and immigrant groups, and to assess tolerance and Canadianism, the author found that attitudes towards ethnic and immigrant groups vary depending of the regions of residence and ethnic origin (Berry & Kalin, 1995). The author argued that changes occur both at the group level and also at the individual level and proposed the
28
concept of psychological acculturation (Berry, 1997, 2005). Berry’s (1997) study identified and described four acculturation strategies, integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation, which several acculturation models have built on.
2.2.3 The Interactive Acculturation Model
Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, and Senecal’s (1997) interactive acculturation model (IAM), in addition to focussing on the immigrants’ acculturation attitude, provides a model to investigate this attitude in relation to the host country government’s immigration policies. The model is based on three components: (1) the immigrant groups’ acculturation orientations, (2) the host country acculturation orientations towards specific groups of immigrants; and (3) interpersonal and intergroup relational outcomes depending on the combinations of immigrants’ and the host country’s acculturation orientations (Bourhis et al., 1997). The authors found that depending on the immigrant acculturation attitude, the relational outcome with the majority group can be consensual, problematic, or conflicting, suggesting that government immigration policies can strongly influence host country groups and migrant acculturation attitudes (Bourhis et al.,1997).
2.2.4 The ABC’s of Acculturation
Many models of acculturation have been introduced to investigate the factors that influence the acculturation process. Ward et al. (2001) popularized the ABC’s of acculturation. They framed three approaches to study acculturation: the stress and coping framework, the cultural learning approach, and the social identification perspective. Each approach focuses upon affective, behavioural, or cognitive changes occurring in the psychological acculturation process, which is the origin of the term ABC’s of acculturation (War, 2001; Ward et al., 2001). Ward et al. (2001) provided a useful starting point for framing the outcomes of acculturation in multicultural societies by making a distinction between the two mains dimensions of adaptation: psychological and sociocultural. Psychological adaptation refers to the “feelings of well-being or satisfaction during
29
cross-cultural transitions” (p. 42). Psychological adaptation is affected by personality, life changes, coping styles and social support (Ward et al. 2001). Sociocultural adaptation is referring to a behavioural response associated to how an individual effectively connect to the new community, and develops competences needed in managing tasks required for daily intercultural living (Ward et al., 2001). They also reiterate that ABCs of acculturation represent a process that occurs over time (Ward et al., 2001)
2.2.5 The Multidimensional Individual Difference Acculturation
Safdar et al. (2009) proposed the multidimensional individual difference acculturation (MIDA) model which was longitudinally tested on international students. The model built on the three theoretical approaches to studying acculturation: affective, behavioural, or cognitive, to analyze individual characteristics, social norms, and stressors as predictor variables (Safdar et al., 2009). The results showed that the choice for an acculturation strategy is influenced by the immigrants’ psychological resources and both the relationship with their home country and the relationship they develop in the host country (Safdar et al., 2009).
2.2.6 Acculturation and the Concept of Time
Time and place were also considered as important variables in acculturation research (Burgelt et al., 2008; Ward et al., 2001; Ianni, 1958). Burgelt, Morgan, and Pernice (2008) model of acculturation, did not only explore the factors affecting the immigrant choice for the different acculturation strategies, but introduced the concept of time and place, and suggested that the factors influencing the acculturation strategies change with time (Burgelt et al., 2008). Particularly, this model took into account the pre-migration factors, such as the nationality and socioeconomic background, considered as a game changer in the acculturation process. Ianni (1958) adopted four time-place situations to conceptualize the acculturation process. The four time-place situations for consideration are: 1) the original precontact immigrant culture; 2) the conditions of contact; 3) the
30
present-day life of the immigrant group; and 4) the present-day culture of the immigrants’ area of origin. It has been argued that “changes which took place among the immigrants and did not take place among those who remained in the original culture are the result of the immigrants’ acculturative experience” (Ianni, 1958, p. 44). The author added historical depth to studies of acculturation by suggesting the reconstructions of patterns of the different cultures prior to contact. They are compared to the culture as observed at one moment after contact. The process also considers the conditions of contact which shape the ways people acculturate. Purpose for migrating, places of emigration and immigration and their similarity, acculturation interaction with the host culture, all contribute to acculturation phenomena. Acculturation is also moderated by the nature, permanence, and duration of contact (Ianni, 1958). The degree and nature of acculturation can be limited by the conditions of contact within the environments in which newcomers are engaged (Berry, 1997; Kim, 2001). According to Berry (1997), an immigrant will go through little acculturation if the contact with the host culture is accidental and is of short duration. As opposed, there will be the greatest acculturation if the contact is planned, voluntary and for long durations like in the case of emigration or settlement (Maisonneuve & Testé, 2007; Ward et al. 2001). Most acculturation theoretical concepts are formulated to explain the acculturation process of immigrants and refugees, leaving a gap to reshape the models and apply them to international student experiences (Carson, 2008; Fu, 2015).