Conceptions of acculturation: a review and statement of critical issues.

TL;DR: Evidence for re-conceptualizingAcculturation status and acculturation process in health care research with United States (U.S.) Latino populations is reviewed and an ecodevelopmental framework for better understanding the process of accULTuration is proposed.

About: This article is published in Social Science & Medicine.The article was published on 2011-05-01 and is currently open access. It has received 292 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Acculturation & Health equity.

Summary

Challenges in acculturation research

• The field of acculturation research is replete with complexity and ambiguities regarding the conceptualization andmeasurement of acculturation and in its association with health and well being.
• Some investigators have even concluded that acculturation should be abandoned in healthrelated research (Hunt, Schneider, & Comer, 2004).
• The processes of migration, sociocultural mobility, and acculturative change are ubiquitous sociocultural processes occurring worldwide.
• Literature review: constructions of acculturation and its measurements Historical overview of concepts of acculturation.

Cultural contact

• Cultural change begins with contact between two individuals, groups, two different societies, or among diverse cultural systems.
• The cultural anthropologist, Herskovitz (1937), contended that any contact resulting in cultural change is best understood by examining both contemporary framing and historical contexts.
• This approach is corroborated by Glenn and Connell (1988) who also asserted the exploration of historical circumstances and developments will contextualize cultural differences at pre- and postcontact within a given society.
• These perspectives were further supported by Spiro (1955), a psychological anthropologist, who asserted that setting factors such as social mobility, religious preferences, family values, and personality, all promote acculturation.

Initial conception of acculturation

• Generally, acculturation is a sociocultural process in which members of one cultural group adopt the beliefs and behaviors of another group (Hazuda, Stern, & Haffner, 1988).
• From this simple definition many issues emerge.
• Sometimes these changesareextreme,particularlywhenthenewhostcultureor setting consists of a vastly unfamiliar environment (Farver, Narang, & Bhadha, 2002).
• Unfortunately, researchers have often-used varying conceptions and operationalizations of acculturation, making the term both broader in concept and alsomore specific (and perhapsmore narrow) in terms of how it has been measured (Cuellar et al., 1980).

Two-factor models of acculturation

• Oetting and Beauvais (1991) proposed a two-factor “orthogonal” framework for conceptualizing acculturation, postulating that a person’s involvement included two independent forms of cultural identification: (a) identification with the ethnic minority culture and (b) identificationwith themainstreamwhite American culture.
• In parallel with this approach, Berry (1997) also proposed a twofactor acculturation framework, a model with four possible acculturation outcomes: (a) marginalization (low affiliation with both cultures); (b) separation (high origin-culture affiliation, low newculture affiliation); (c) assimilation (high new-culture affiliation, low origin-culture affiliation); and (d) integration (high affiliation with both cultures).
• This two-factor reframing of acculturation has been useful, although it also has been criticized, in part for its lack of clarity over dimensional and categorical conceptions of these dimensions, and for its limitations in the production of substantive data that supports the contentions of this two-factor model.
• The political, economic, and social contexts of an immigrant’s country of origin introduce important contextual information to the study of acculturation, as they inform why individuals leave their country as well as how they will adapt in a new environment (Cabassa, 2003).
• This underscores the need to consider a multi-dimensional approach for assessing acculturation.

Contexts and acculturation

• Today,moreadvancedconceptionsof acculturation recognize the role of context as a determinant of the acculturationprocess (Alegria, 2009; Lara et al., 2005).
• Such contextual factors will affect the manner in which the process of acculturation proceeds, and thus the occurrence of differing “acculturation trajectories” (Castro, Marsiglia, Kulis, & Kellison, 2010) as observed among diverse cases.
• Thus differing acculturation trajectories will occur in cases where a Latino immigrant family resides within a culturally-rich Latino enclave, as contrasted with their residence within a neighborhood in which they are the only Latino family.
• Regarding acculturation and health, a major research issue is whether the process of acculturation is detrimental to the health of immigrants, or whether it is protective (Castro, 2007).
• Other major measurement issues have included the use of restricted response options in scales that purport to measure acculturation, and the use of proxy measures of acculturation (e.g., nativity).

Sole focus on language use

• As one example of a restricted range in measurement in a study on cigarette smoking (Zemore, 2006), investigators used dichotomous answer options (“0” to “no” answers and “1” to “yes”), thus limiting participants in the measurement of their English fluency, despite their actual level of mastery of the English language.
• In general, simple language measures do not aptly capture the complexity of language use, especially among bicultural individuals (Lara et al., 2005), let alone capturing other attitudinal, behavioral, and identity-related dimensions of acculturation.
• Other research has focused on cross-sectional designs that fail to describe changes in values or practices occurring over time and across differing contexts and environments (Chirkov, 2009).
• This within-family variability in cultural orientations and preferences may thus produce stress and interpersonal conflicts (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2009).
• By observing immigrant families as they adjust to a new community or society, researchers can thus inductively discover patterns of cultural adaptation that would inform a more culturally-grounded analysis of the acculturation process (Chirkov, 2009).

Binary/restricted options

• Similarly, a two-factor approach with limited response options within these two factors does not aptly address the experiences of migrants who interact with cultural groups other than the Latino and the White American cultures (Ahluwalia et al., 2007; Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, Wallisch, McGrath, & Spence, 2008; KarrikerJaffe & Zemore, 2009; Mainous et al., 2008).
• When assessing linguistic acculturation, options that utilize Likert scales do not consider Latin American indigenous languages (e.g., Nahuatl) as an indigenous response that may occur among certain Latino respondents.

Imperfect proxy measures

• The inclusion of sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., generation) as proxy measures of acculturation does not aptly capture the richness involved in understanding the construct of acculturation (Lara et al., 2005).
• In the past, the use of proxy measuresdincluding generational status, age at migration, place of birth, and place of educationdhas assumed that acculturation can be approximated by the amount of exposure that individuals have to a dominant culture.
• In one study, U.S.-born participants were assigned a “1” score and foreign-born a “0” to measure immigrant status, thus broadly attributing greater acculturation status to those whowere born in the United States (Detjen, Nieto, Trentham-Dietz, Fleming, & Chasan-Taber, 2007).
• As a major problem, such proxy measures maymisclassify Latinos into a single level of acculturation, not aptly making distinctions among variations in acculturation.

Questionable construct validity

• Some studies have used a new scale in which certain subscales may exhibit poor internal consistency and/or include variables that may or may not accurately measure the concept of acculturation (Corral & Landrine, 2008).
• Classifying participants on a survey as “acculturated”, if they respond to language spoken at home as only English or labeling them as “traditional”, if they reply only Spanish spoken at home.
• Some studies mix and match indicators purporting tomeasure acculturation, yet they do not conduct the necessary psychometric analysis of scale reliability or factor structure to ascertain whether such composite indicators allow the additivity of such variables into a single scale (Lin, Bermudez, & Tucker, 2003).
• Some constructed variables used to measure acculturation may involve conflicting levels of measurement (e.g., the commingling of nominal-level and interval-level items), thus raising questions about the validity of such indicators as a composite “measure” of acculturation (Masel, Rudkin & Peek, 2006).

Heterogeneous Latino populations

• Within contemporary U.S. society, researchers must reexamine the precise applicability and utility of previously validated scales as used with diverse Latino subcultural groups (Castro, Barrera et al., 2010) when these subgroups were not from previously studied groups used to validate a given acculturation scale.
• Groups from Mexico, Puerto Rico, or Cuba have been studied extensively in prior research (Borrayo & Guarnaccia, 2000; Caetano et al., 2008; Fosados et al., 2007; Gordon-Larsen, Harris, Ward, & Popkin, 2003), and acculturation scales validated with these groups may or may not be valid with other Latino groups (e.g., Dominicans).
• Many of the acculturation scales used in healthrelated research report high scale reliability, but do not show evidence of validity as applied to Central or South American Latinos (Fitzgerald, Damio, Segura-Perez, & Perez-Escamilla, 2008; O’Malley, Kerner, Johnson, & Mandelblatt, 1999) or across unique communities, such as various Latino subgroups now existing in new enclaves within the United States.
• Hence, a multi-dimensional model that accounts for within-group variations among Latinos and across Latino subgroups, as well as the interaction of environmental and neighborhood influences, is needed as it may better capture the actual process of acculturation.
• Directions for improving “Contextual” concepts and measures of acculturation.

A broader conceptualization of acculturation

• The concept of acculturation to date has evolved and must account for changes occurring across many domains at differential rates and in different ways across diverse Latino subpopulations.
• As previously noted, these acculturative changes are influenced by social context, which emerges from such factors as: the location inwhich individuals live (e.g., communities), as well as by their daily interactions with others (social networks), adaptation processes (e.g., migration), and institutions (Pasick et al., 2009).
• In a special case of contextual analysis, context may be regarded as amoderator effect (Castro et al., 2009).
• That is, a certain outcome will occur within context A, whereas a completely different outcome will occur within context B. For example, a monolingual Spanish-speaking Mexican child may appear quiet and shy within context A that involves exposure to a new group of White American English-speaking children his age.
• This contrast illustrates the moderator effects of two distinct social conditions, and thus the moderator effect of condition on behavior.

Influences of ethnic enclaves

• The English language can be acquired through many types of interactions, yet for some Latinos this dominant language is not easily acquired.
• Hence, the varied resources that communities offer can influence the acculturation process in terms of the rates and ways of adopting selective aspects of American culture, while also maintaining native culture values and practices (Alegria, 2009).
• Indicators of acculturation (as measured by the often-used indicators of language spoken and read, mass media consumption, closest friends, and neighborhood or residence) were examined at the early life and current adult milestones.
• In conclusion, Latino acculturation and health research can be strengthened if ecologically contextual factors are considered in the process of examining acculturation as a process of change (CarterPokras & Bethune, 2009; McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988).

Limitations

• The authors findings should be interpreted within the context of the limitations of this review.
• Since their review focused on Latinos, the authors cannot make inferences regarding which components of acculturation are most salient for other ethnic groups.
• It is possible that the authors missed some studies.
• An additional limitation is the preponderance of studies related to Mexicans with limited studies conducted with other Latino subgroups.

Final thoughts

• The acculturation experience is dynamic, multifaceted and complex.
• Under the process of acculturation, individuals and communities are constantly changing, and these micro-level changes are also influenced by macro-level events (e.g., immigration related legislation or ordinances) that can compromise or accelerate the acculturation process and their related acculturation and socioeconomic trajectories (Castro, Marsiglia et al., 2010).
• Hence, needed now are new methodologies/approaches that are both responsive to these variations in populations and contexts and that can model the actual dynamics of acculturation as a process of sociocultural change and adaptation across time.
• These approaches, if well grounded ecologically, will allow us to test specific hypotheses regarding the process of acculturation change, and may better inform the design of health-related interventions that aim to eliminate or reduce the health disparities that affect Latinos.

Acknowledgments

• The authors would like to thank Jessika Angulo-Duarte and Cliff Depres for their assistance with manuscript preparation.
• This manuscript is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute Grant # 5U01CA114593-03, National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities: Grant P20 MD 02316-01003, Felipe González Castro, Principal Investigator, and grant P20MD002316-03, Flavio F. Marsiglia, Principal Investigator, and grant, National Cancer Institute Grant # U01CA114593, Amelie Ramirez, Principal Investigator.
• Dr. Lopez Class is currently affiliated with The National Institutes of Health.
• This research was completed while she was at Georgetown University, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Conceptions of acculturation: a review and statement of critical issues" ?

This article reviews evidence for re-conceptualizing acculturation status and acculturation process in health care research with United States ( U. S. ) Latino populations. The authors review empirically based health research on acculturation and propose an ecodevelopmental framework for better understanding the process of acculturation. This includes understanding acculturation within this ecodevelopmental context for a more complete understanding of the acculturation process and its influences on health-related behaviors, with aims of reducing or eliminating health disparities in Latino populations. 

Q2. What are the main factors that affect the acculturation process?

Influence of interpersonal relations among LatinosFamilial and other forms of interpersonal values and relations are social factors that can affect the acculturation process. 

Q3. What is the main barrier to acculturation research?

a major barrier to a new generation of acculturation research involves the persistent use of simplistic, unidimensional conceptualizations of acculturation and their measurement. 

Q4. What is the role of the acculturation process in the American society?

as some Latinos face a resurgence of discrimination (Perreira, Fuligni, & Potochnick, 2010) due to their actual or suspected status as being undocumented (being an “illegal alien”), and/or based on their appearance or accent, they will undergo acculturative stressand face social barriers to acculturation or assimilation into the mainstream American society (Gibbins et al., 2010). 

Q5. What is the role of community in influencing the acculturation process?

the varied resources that communities offer can influence the acculturation process in terms of the rates and ways of adopting selective aspects of American culture, while also maintaining native culture values and practices (Alegria, 2009). 

Q6. What is the main argument for a two-factor model?

This two-factor reframing of acculturation has been useful, although it also has been criticized, in part for its lack of clarity over dimensional and categorical conceptions of these dimensions, and for its limitations in the production of substantive data that supports the contentions of this two-factor model. 

Q7. What is the importance of redefining acculturation as a multi-dimensional?

These observations as a whole underscore the importance of redefining acculturation as a multi-dimensional construct, as this involves changes in language, personality characteristics, healthrelated behaviors, and interpersonal relations as examined within the context of several ecodevelopmental levels (e.g., community/ neighborhood, family context, social networks), and not solely as a single personal trait (e.g., language proficiency) or a unidimensional process that occurs within a single individual domain. 

Q8. What is the importance of reassessing the validity of current acculturation scales?

Given this more dynamic conceptualization of acculturation as a process of cultural adaptation, it will be important to step back and reassess the reliability and validity of current acculturation scales and reconsider the extent to which these operate as valid indicators of acculturation.