Originating in anthropology, the concept of acculturation was first defined by Redfiled, Linton and Herskovits (1936) as “changes that happen over time when two or more cultures come into continuous contact” (in Berry 1980: p9). Even though this definition is broad, until recently acculturation has been mostly utilised to explicate divergent behaviours of immigrant persons (Houston and Venkatesh, 1996; Ward and Rana-Deuba, 1999; Benet-Martinez et al., 2002). Immigrants experience cultural difference by moving into a different country and (re)evaluate and (re)negotiate their identities between two fundamental cultural dimensions (Berry, 1980; 1990, 1997;
Penaloza, 1989). These dimensions are commonly referred to as host culture (i.e.
sociocultural reality of host country) and home culture (i.e. culture of country-of-origin).
In their seminal research, Berry and his colleagues (1980, 1997; Dona and Berry, 1994;
Berry, 2006) have developed the Bidimensional construct of acculturation to capture and explain the multi-faceted nature and dynamics of identity transformations in immigrant groups. The construct distinguishes four acculturation strategies (also called modes) that immigrant individuals can select as a result of identity (re)negotiation in sociocultural contexts of host countries. According to this model, selection of acculturation strategies is an act of identity (re)construal resultant from value (or importance) assigned by individuals to affiliations (i.e. membership links) with host/home cultures to appropriate the sense of self to experienced cultural difference (Berry, 1980, 1997, 2006; Dona and Berry, 1994; Ward and Rana-Deuba, 1999). Figure
64 3-1 details Berry’s (1980, 1997) Bidimensional model of acculturation and resultant acculturation strategies. Each strategy is discussed in detail next.
Figure 3-1: Bidimensional Acculturation Model (Berry, 1980, 1997) ISSUE 1
Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and characteristics?
YES NO
ISSUE 2
Is it considered to be of value YES INTEGRATION ASSIMILATION to develop/maintain relationships
with other cultural groups? NO SEPARATION MARGINALISATION
Assimilation strategy entails individuals abandoning their home cultural values and beliefs systems and adopting the systems of the host society, or dominant culture (Rogler, Cortesi and Malgady, 1991). In contrast, individuals in a separation strategy reject cultural norms and values of the host society and maintain the identity of (home) cultural origin. Integration strategy encompasses individuals amalgamating newly learnt and acquired cultural values, beliefs and norms of the host society with their own identity of (home) cultural origin. Finally, marginalisation represents one’s divergence from both the culture of origin and the host culture and possibly developing a third, different culture (Penaloza, 1989).
A review of immigrant acculturation literature reveals that the Bidimensional acculturation model is operationalised in a nomological network of constructs that, while at times utilising somewhat different terminology, can be categorised as:
1) cultural identification (i.e. value assigned to affiliation with home and/or host culture in construal of sense self, translating into four acculturation strategies); 2) cultural attitudes (i.e. attitudes to cultural ingroups and outgroups); and 3) culture-informed
65 behaviours.7 Table 3-2 presents a summary overview of selected acculturation operationalisations.
Since consumption is a behavioural act of material enactment (expression) of a particular cultural identity trial, adoption, adaptation and/or discarding (Kleine and Kleine, 2000), acculturation theory approach provides valuable explanations to divergences in consumption behaviours, and has been widely utilised in studies of immigrant consumers to explicate differences in their culture-informed consumption patterns (Penaloza, 1989, 1994; Gentry, Jun and Tansuhai, 1995). These applications form a body of studies in marketing literature termed consumer acculturation. A seminal study by Penaloza (1989) defined consumer acculturation as a “manifest in marketplace” (p111). Penaloza’s work (1989, 1994) gave rise to a greater appreciation and attention from researchers to subtleties of immigrant consumption patterns and more focused studies on bicultural consumers reviewed in the previous chapter (Oswald, 1999; Lau-Gesk, 2003; Sekhon and Szmigin, 2009). As such, immigrant consumer acculturation theory evolved as a specific area of enquiry eliciting differences in immigrants’ social motives and skills for transcribing consumption cues and engaging in consumption of products and brands assigned with ‘home’ or ‘host’
meanings (e.g. Penaloza, 1994; Quester and Chong 2001; Palumbo and Teich, 2004).
The willingness of immigrant consumers of the same origin to engage with some brands has been shown to depend on the acculturation strategy they select through diverse identity negotiations (Askegaard et al., 2005; Luna and Peracchio, 2005; Sekhon and Szmigin, 2009; Cleveland et al., 2009).
Recently, a handful of international marketing researchers have also pioneered the application of acculturation theory to capture the differential impact of global culture experiences on culture-informed consumption behaviours among consumer spheres of national marketplaces as a whole. Studies of Cleveland and Laroche (2007) and Alden et.al. (2006) follow Berry’s bidimensional model (1980). They develop frameworks to capture and analyse diversification of culture-informed consumption resultant from
7 Some of the cited studies also focus on other aspects of acculturation, such as stress, sense of wellbeing etc. These dimensions are not included in conceptual model development given the study’s focus.
66 different identification strategies adopted by consumers through negotiating the sense of self between own ethnic and global cultures (Cleveland and Laroche, 2007) or local and global cultures (Alden et al., 2006). Alden et al. (2006) develop a categorisation of four acculturation strategies that can be adopted by consumers faced with two cultural contexts (i.e. local and global) and manifested in consumption: 1) global consumption culture orientation entails manifestation of local culture abandonment and adoption of global culture as core system of cultural meanings guiding construal of identity through consumption; 2) consumption cultures’ hybridisation encompasses the phenomenon of
‘glocalisation’ – i.e. consumption of local and global perceived brands as a form of bicultural living; 3) local consumption culture orientation refers to reinforcement of local culture as a core for identity and resistance of global brands as threats to local cultural uniqueness; 4) alienation entails rejection, or lack of interest in all material aspects of cultural alternatives. Other studies (Leung et al., 2005; Steenkamp and De Jong, 2010) identify similar behavioural phenomena in consumer spheres (subtractive multiculturalism vs. additive multiculturalism), albeit without the foundation of the acculturation theory.
Extentions of the bidimensional acculturation model present an important step forward in offering marketing researchers and practitioners a coherent frame for understanding the drivers of divergent culture-informed consumption practices in a multicultural marketplace. However, the bidimensional acculturation approach recently attracted severe criticism from several acculturation and consumer acculturation researchers (e.g.
Molina, Wittig and Giang, 2004; Navas et al., 2005; Askegaard et al., 2005; Berry, 2008; Cheung-Blunden and Juang, 2008; Wamwara-Mbugua et al., 2008; Luedicke, 2011) for neglecting the multidirectional nature of acculturation process and other cultural influences at play in it. For instance, Cheung-Blunden and Juang (2008) demonstrate that applications of acculturation in colonial and post-colonial societies should take into account that some societies historically evolved as multicultural in composition (rather than through recent migration). Luedicke (2011) argues that acculturation research vested in the ‘home/host’ culture paradigm takes local (i.e.
mainstream) citizens for granted and neglects the effects of their exposure to acculturation experiences of migrants on complexities of identity processes in this
67 group. Wamwara-Mbugua et al. (2008) coin the term ‘triple acculturation’ to denote three dimensions (home culture/host culture/other subcultures) of migrant identity negotiations’ trajectories. Thus, while the acculturation theory approach provides marketers with the required framework for systematic analysis and explanation of how and why migrant and mainstream consumers may develop differing perceptions of and attitudes towards cultural meanings of brands, the criticism of its shortcomings provides impetus for extending acculturation theory and developing a model that encapsulates multiple cultural dimensions.
It is therefore proposed that the acculturation approach can be utilised more fruitfully with the new conceptualisations of LC, GC and FC(s) as dimensions of identity negotiations in a multicultural marketplace. FC dimension accounts for the affiliative and ancestral elements of cultural identities of mainstream and migrant/diasporic individuals that cannot be captured by global-local and home/host classifications of cultural influences on identity negotiations. The next section details how the new conceptualisations of LC, GC and FC(s) proposed by this study are operationalised in a multidimensional model to provide an all-encompassing view on how and what cultural identification strategies may be adopted by persons in multicultural marketplaces.
68
Table 3-2: Summary Overview of Acculturation Operationalisations Construct
Categorisation
How the Construct Features in Past Acculturation Operationalisations Sources Cultural
Identification (affiliation value for sense of self)
Self-identification [as a member of cultural group], pride [in cultural group membership]
Birman and Trickett, 2001;
Birman et al., 2002
Self-identification, value beliefs Ryder et al., 2000
Cultural identification [with a cultural group] Benet-Martinez et al., 2005
Self-identification Benet-Martinez, 2006
Cultural identification and pride [in membership of cultural group] Mendoza, 1989
Self-identification [as cultural group member] Laroche et al., 1996
Behaviour Behavioural acculturation (consumption of food, movies, entertainment, music) and socialisation with people representing [a culture]
Birman and Trickett, 2001;
Birman et al., 2002 Enjoyment of experiences (entertainment, jokes and humour) Ryder et al., 2000
Media preference Benet-Martinez, 2006
Social affiliation and activities [with other members of a cultural group] Mendoza, 1989
Cultural familiarity and activity Mendoza, 1989
Cultural Attitudes Attitude toward ingroup/outgroup culture Laroche et al., 1996
Attitudes toward other groups or other groups orientation Phinney, 1992
Acculturation attitudes Benet-Martinez et al., 2005 (adapted from
Berry et al., 1989) Socialisation preferences (marriage, friendship, social interactions) with people
representing a [culture]
Ryder et al., 2000
69