Search

Acculturation is the process of group and individual changes in culture and behaviour that result from intercultural contact. These changes have been taking place forever, and continue at an increasing pace as more and more peoples of different cultures move, meet and interact. Variations in the meanings of the concept, and some systematic conceptualisations of it are presented. This is followed by a survey of empirical work with indigenous, immigrant and ethnocultural peoples around the globe that employed both ethnographic (qualitative) and psychological (quantitative) methods. This wide-ranging research has been undertaken in a quest for possible general principles (or universals) of acculturation. This Element concludes with a short evaluation of the field of acculturation; its past, present and future.

Introduction Methodological issues are important in acculturation research. The quality of inferences based on our studies can be bolstered by using adequate, up-to-date methods. The present chapter deals with two methodological issues: the design of acculturation studies and procedures to assess acculturation. A leading theme of this chapter is that a careful choice of methodological aspects of a study, such as study and instrument design, can go a long way to enhancing the quality of acculturation studies. Both the design and assessment issues are core topics in cross-cultural psychology. However, we do not discuss this more general methodological literature or specific assessment instruments here. These issues are addressed elsewhere: for the design of cross-cultural studies, see Van de Vijver (2015) and Van de Vijver and Leung (1997); for test adaptations and translations, see Hambleton, Merenda, and Spielberger (2005); for the increasingly popular combination of qualitative and quantitative procedures, known as mixed methods, see Tashakkori and Teddlie, (2003); for overviews of acculturation measures, see Berry, Trimble, and Olmedo (1986), Celenk and Van de Vijver (2011, 2014), Matsudaira (2006), and Rudmin (2009). In the last 30 years, acculturation research has diversified. The prototypical acculturation study examined a single ethnic group that had moved to another country. This type of study is nowadays only one of the many kinds reported in the literature. As noted in Chapter 2, the diversification of the field has added to the complexity of the issues to be addressed in the field. For example, the terms that were used previously have become less adequate; hence we provide here a note on the terminology to clarify our use of terms (see Figure 2.2 for a description of the various kinds of acculturating groups). First, the term mainstream culture refers to the culture of the dominant group(s) in a society. In one kind of society, there is clearly one such group (e.g., Germans in Germany). In many other countries the context of acculturation may be ethnically diverse (e.g., in societies where many groups have come to live together, labeled super-diversity; Vertovec, 2007); an example is London, which used the slogan the “world in one city” in the 2012 Olympics bid to indicate that every nation of the world is represented in the population of London.

This chapter addresses one of the main issues in cross-cultural psychology, and of this book: how can we conceptualise and empirically investigate the relationships between culture and human behaviour? This question assumes that culture and behaviour are distinguishable phenomena, each with a separate existence at its own level; this issue is addressed in this chapter. There is an even more fundamental level, that of the ecological context within which both culture and behaviour are situated and in which they develop. This level will also be addressed, by outlining ecology–culture–behaviour relationships within an ecocultural framework. The ecological approach to understanding any phenomenon is to examine it in context. These contexts can be naturally occurring or human-made. Essential to this approach are the concepts of interaction and adaptation . Interaction implies reciprocal relationships among elements in an ecosystem; adaptation implies changes in these elements that increase their mutual fit or compatibility. These ideas have a long history in the natural sciences, but have only recently become part of the social and behavioural sciences. Of course, the common criticism of the human sciences following epistemological models from the natural sciences applies here: To what extent can we understand human phenomena using models based on non-human science? No convincing arguments to justify this way of understanding human beings are advanced here.

At virtually the same time as the rise in cross-cultural studies of development, there has been a dramatic increase in interest in life span development , which covers not only the period from birth to maturity, but also continues through maturity to eventual demise (Baltes, Lindenberger and Staudinger, 2006). In this chapter, we examine cross-cultural variations in the developmental stages beyond the ones that were discussed in Chapter 2; these are childhood, adolescence and adulthood. After discussing cultural notions of childhood and adolescence, we will present evidence on how childhood experiences can explain cross-cultural variations in adulthood. In the section on adulthood, we will deal with mating, partnership and parenting across cultures. In the final section, we will discuss life span developmental and evolutionary approaches to late adulthood. The chapter concludes with reflections on the cross-cultural applicability of the developmental issues raised in the last two chapters. Childhood and adolescence As we have seen in the previous chapter, human development can be described in stages. There, we dealt with the first decade of life, comprising the two earliest stages, infancy and early childhood. While infancy is the period from birth to two years, childhood is mainly defined as the period after infancy and before sexual maturation.

When seeking to understand and explain human behavior across differing populations, there is a need to be informed by concepts and findings from two disciplines beyond psychology that have influenced the development of cross-cultural psychology. First, cultural anthropology has contributed the concept of culture and the ethnographic methods used to study cultural phenomena. It has also examined relationships between culture and behavior, developing its own subdisciplines of psychological anthropology and cognitive anthropology. Second, human biology has also provided important concepts and methods for examining the development and display of behavior in varying contexts. This contribution has been especially important with the rise of the field of evolutionary biology in recent years. Taken together, these two disciplines provide a basis for our claim to be both a cultural science and a natural science. In addition to the conceptual and methodological contributions from these two cognate disciplines, cross-cultural psychology has developed a range of theoretical and practical ways to examine the relationships between context and behavior. The three perspectives presented in the first chapter of the book (culture comparative, cultural and indigenous) are further examined and elaborated. Some basic methodological requirements for making valid comparisons of data from different cultural populations are also explained. These theoretical and methodological principles are necessary in order to take into account both individual and group differences, and to provide the basis for the comparative search for psychological universals.

With growing migration, globalization and internationalization comes an increased need for an understanding of intercultural communication, as well as the use of this information for training people in order to make them more competent in dealing with intercultural issues. The field is very diverse, with publications from a wide variety of scientific and applied disciplines. For example, there is research in linguistics (especially sociolinguistics), sociology, cultural anthropology and cross-cultural psychology. Much of this variety can be surveyed in a handbook edited by Landis, Bennett and Bennett (2004). In this chapter, we mainly focus on the psychological aspects of intercultural communication and training, and point out important issues and studies from a psychological perspective. This chapter contains three main sections, each representing a distinct area of intercultural communication and training. The first, on intercultural communication, describes the attempts of researchers to delineate which elements of communication are the sources of communication problems during intercultural encounters. This section is somewhat more theoretical than later sections because the main questions focus on the nature of intercultural communication rather than on the application of this knowledge. The second section concerns sojourners, those people who stay in another culture mostly for purposes of work or study (e.g., international exchange students). This is a special group of acculturating people that has already been discussed in Chapter 13.

Cross-Cultural Psychology is a leading textbook offering senior undergraduate and graduate students a thorough and balanced overview of the whole field of cross-cultural psychology. The team of internationally acclaimed authors present the latest empirical research, theory, methodology and applications from around the world. They discuss all domains of behavior (including development, social behavior, personality, cognition, psycholinguistics, emotion and perception), and present the three main approaches in cross-cultural psychology (cultural, culture-comparative, and indigenous traditions) as well as applications to a number of domains (including acculturation, intercultural relations and communication, work and health). With new additions to the writing team, the third edition benefits from an even broader range of cross-cultural perspectives. Now in 2-colour, the format is even more reader-friendly and the features include chapter outlines, chapter summaries, further reading and an updated glossary of key terms. This edition also offers an accompanying website containing additional material and weblinks.

Since our first meeting at the now famous Istanbul conference on Human Abilities in 1971 (Cronbach and Drenth 1972), Cigdem and her work have been constantly on my personal and research agenda (e.g., Berry et al. 1997; Kagitcibasi and Berry 1989). Our joint concern for how to make psychological research useful to policy and program development has brought us together on numerous occasions. One occasion, which will be the focus of this chapter, was the 1997 exchange of views in Applied Psychology (Berry 1997; Kagitcibasi 1997), where we attempted to bridge the positions between an avowed cultural pluralist (me), and one who saw dangers in such a world view. In this chapter, I outline my pluralist perspective, portray her concerns, and attempt to persuade her (and others) that pluralism is a reality that needs to be understood in psychological and policy terms, and then accommodated at the personal and societal levels. Introduction All contemporary societies are now culturally plural; no society is made up of people having one culture, one language, and one identity (Sam and Berry 2006). The prediction made over a century ago by Quincy Adams (1811; cited in Lens 1974: 3) that, “The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs,” has not come to pass in North America, nor in any other part of the world.